PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on July 07, 2016, 05:50:22 AM
-
I suspect the fallout from this to be huge. Anyone saying the obvious should be silenced by the left immediately.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5023862736001/president-obama-and-islam/?intcmp=hpvid1#sp=show-clips
-
Sorry, I don't watch horrible internet videos.
But without watching, Obama certainly gives every appearance of being sympathetic toward Muslims, which one would expect since he was raised as a Muslim, in a Muslim household, when he was a child.
-
Sorry, I don't watch horrible internet videos.
But without watching, Obama certainly gives every appearance of being sympathetic toward Muslims, which one would expect since he was raised as a Muslim, in a Muslim household, when he was a child.
Bill O'Reilly points all of that out in the video (last nights Factor Talking Points).
-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3678209/Bill-O-Reilly-reveals-pictures-young-Obama-Islamic-wedding-claims-emotional-attachment-Muslim-world-hurt-USA.html
-
As if this is a mystery.
-
Did anybody ever question as to whether or not Obama is sympathetic towards Muslims? Of course he is and I think that's quite understandable. Is there some unwritten rule for the president that he or she must hate Muslims?
Bill O'Reilly is an idiot. If he wants to go fight ISIS he should volunteer to go fight over there with the forces that are fighting them. The US does not need to be overseas fighting them. I actually wish we would stop with the stupid drone strikes too.
-
Did anybody ever question as to whether or not Obama is sympathetic towards Muslims? Of course he is and I think that's quite understandable. Is there some unwritten rule for the president that he or she must hate Muslims?
Bill O'Reilly is an idiot. If he wants to go fight ISIS he should volunteer to go fight over there with the forces that are fighting them. The US does not need to be overseas fighting them. I actually wish we would stop with the stupid drone strikes too.
Maybe we should follow Lynch's advice and show them love? Or how about finding them jobs as the liberals have suggested?
-
Maybe we should follow Lynch's advice and show them love? Or how about finding them jobs as the liberals have suggested?
No, it's climate change that causes ISIS.
-
Maybe we should follow Lynch's advice and show them love? Or how about finding them jobs as the liberals have suggested?
How about leaving them the hell alone and let the people that actually live next door to them deal with them? Why is that concept so hard for Americans to get their minds around? Ever since WWII, Americans seem to be hungry for a war to go off to.
-
How about leaving them the hell alone and let the people that actually live next door to them deal with them? Why is that concept so hard for Americans to get their minds around? Ever since WWII, Americans seem to be hungry for a war to go off to.
Yes, we should be nice to them and they'll leave us alone.
Thanks for the idea, Mr Chamberlain.
Liberals have a mental disorder.
-
Is there some unwritten rule for the president that he or she must hate Muslims?
Nope. But when the president's sympathies for a religious group includes sympathies for enemies of the people of the country, it becomes a problem. Obama has refused to name fundamentalist Islamic terrorists as such even though everyone else in the world does it - including ISIS themselves. He has refused to give a reason, which makes it appear that he doesn't want to condemn Muslims. That is a Muslim attitude, probably left over from his childhood and I think his faux paux with the 57 states reinforces that.
I figure that his sympathy is either the real reason OR that the actual reason is so much worse that they're willing to let people believe this one.
Either way, the president is sympathetic toward enemies of the United States and has shown reluctance to attacking them.
-
Yes, we should be nice to them and they'll leave us alone.
Thanks for the idea, Mr Chamberlain.
Liberals have a mental disorder.
See, this is the mental disorder I'm talking about. Ever since WWII, Americans see every conflict in the world and the next Hitler and the next world war and so we must step in and save the day. Please, ISIS is not the forth reich.
-
See, this is the mental disorder I'm talking about. Ever since WWII, Americans see every conflict in the world and the next Hitler and the next world war and so we must step in and save the day. Please, ISIS is not the forth reich.
Is that because they've only killed thousands of Christians so far and not millions? Or because so many Christians who were relocated to the the concentration camps for their own safety aren't actually locked up, but are allowed to move around with the proper papers?
-
See, this is the mental disorder I'm talking about. Ever since WWII, Americans see every conflict in the world and the next Hitler and the next world war and so we must step in and save the day. Please, ISIS is not the forth reich.
1) That would be Fourth Reich
2) If ISIS had the power they would wipe out every single infidel in an instant, then go to Miller Time. You and the goofy prof first.
-
Even if the guy was a Muslim (which he isn't), what's the damn difference? A Muslim has just as much right to be POTUS as a Catholic, Mormon, Protestant, Jew, Hindu or Jain.
-
Even if the guy was a Muslim (which he isn't), what's the damn difference? A Muslim has just as much right to be POTUS as a Catholic, Mormon, Protestant, Jew, Hindu or Jain.
We are not at war with radical fundamentalist Catholics, radical fundamentalist Mormons, radical fundamentalist Protestants, radical fundamentalist Jews, radical fundamentalist Hindus or radical fundamentalist Jain. His personal bias compromises the security of the United States. I find that abhorrent but as a law abiding citizen, I'm forced to endure it because there is no legal path to removing him from office. But my patience is pretty thin.
-
Even if the guy was a Muslim (which he isn't), what's the damn difference? A Muslim has just as much right to be POTUS as a Catholic, Mormon, Protestant, Jew, Hindu or Jain.
So how do you know he isn't Muslim?
-
Even if the guy was a Muslim (which he isn't),
How do you KNOW?
-
So how do you know he isn't Muslim?
He says so, and attends Christian church. Same way you know I'm agnostic, because I say so.
-
Furthermore, when we WERE at war with Radical Fundamentalist Protestants in the 1960s, the president then did not try to two step around the issue. Before Kennedy was elected, he and his brother helped get the Rev. Martin King out of jail in short order over fears he would be lynched in jail. He sent hundreds of US Marshals to enforce an integration order. He addressed the nation and called it a moral issue to prevent black students from attending the University of Alabama.
If the president had hung back and said that these people weren't real Christians and refused to condemn them, would Civil Rights have happened? We did stand up to this same issue in our own country and in our own religion and we know how to make it stop. The president is seeking Washington and Adam's appeasement, a tactic that we know does not work and only emboldens our enemies.
-
He says so, and attends Christian church. Same way you know I'm agnostic, because I say so.
And I'm Lucifer, so you must believe me because I said so.
-
Even if the guy was a Muslim (which he isn't), what's the damn difference? A Muslim has just as much right to be POTUS as a Catholic, Mormon, Protestant, Jew, Hindu or Jain.
The difference would be that if he was a Muslim and said he wasn't then he would be a liar.
But I think that about him already, even if I don't think he is a Muslim.
I do think he let's his Muslim upbringing and sympathies cloud his judgement when making decisions on national security.
-
We are not at war with radical fundamentalist Catholics, radical fundamentalist Mormons, radical fundamentalist Protestants, radical fundamentalist Jews, radical fundamentalist Hindus or radical fundamentalist Jain. His personal bias compromises the security of the United States. I find that abhorrent but as a law abiding citizen, I'm forced to endure it because there is no legal path to removing him from office. But my patience is pretty thin.
Nor are we at war with Islam.
-
And I'm Lucifer, so you must believe me because I said so.
No, I musn't. But that's not what you asked.
How do you know I like dogs? How do you know paella is my favorite dish. How do you know I think you're a closet liberal? Because I say so, but you don't have to believe me.
-
Nor are we at war with Islam.
Who do you consider us to be at war with at the present time?
-
See, this is the mental disorder I'm talking about. Ever since WWII, Americans see every conflict in the world and the next Hitler and the next world war and so we must step in and save the day. Please, ISIS is not the forth reich.
If they lived next door and treated your wife like this, you'd be good with that?
http://kstp.com/news/minneapolis-police-investigate-alleged-terroristic-threats-calhoun-parkway/4186341/
-
Nor are we at war with Islam.
No we are not and in the 1960s we were not at war with Protestants. But this president refuses to name radical Islamic terrorists for what they are, as if it will either appease them or make them go away by sticking his head in the sand.
Surely you recognize that radical fundamentalist Muslims want to do us harm? That their long term goal is an Islamic kingdom which covers the entire world?
-
No we are not and in the 1960s we were not at war with Protestants. But this president refuses to name radical Islamic terrorists for what they are, as if it will either appease them or make them go away by sticking his head in the sand.
Surely you recognize that radical fundamentalist Muslims want to do us harm? That their long term goal is an Islamic kingdom which covers the entire world?
Racist!
-
No we are not and in the 1960s we were not at war with Protestants. But this president refuses to name radical Islamic terrorists for what they are, as if it will either appease them or make them go away by sticking his head in the sand.
Uh, we bomb the shit out of them with precision drone strikes. The right's absolute fetish with Obama saying "radical Islamic terrorism" is strange.
Anyway, Obama has talked about his Middle East approach at length. The foreign policy experts on this board are likely to disagree with him.
Obama has come to a number of dovetailing conclusions about the world, and about America’s role in it. The first is that the Middle East is no longer terribly important to American interests. The second is that even if the Middle East were surpassingly important, there would still be little an American president could do to make it a better place. The third is that the innate American desire to fix the sorts of problems that manifest themselves most drastically in the Middle East inevitably leads to warfare, to the deaths of U.S. soldiers, and to the eventual hemorrhaging of U.S. credibility and power. The fourth is that the world cannot afford to see the diminishment of U.S. power. Just as the leaders of several American allies have found Obama’s leadership inadequate to the tasks before him, he himself has found world leadership wanting: global partners who often lack the vision and the will to spend political capital in pursuit of broad, progressive goals, and adversaries who are not, in his mind, as rational as he is. Obama believes that history has sides, and that America’s adversaries—and some of its putative allies—have situated themselves on the wrong one, a place where tribalism, fundamentalism, sectarianism, and militarism still flourish. What they don’t understand is that history is bending in his direction.
“The central argument is that by keeping America from immersing itself in the crises of the Middle East, the foreign-policy establishment believes that the president is precipitating our decline,” Ben Rhodes told me. “But the president himself takes the opposite view, which is that overextension in the Middle East will ultimately harm our economy, harm our ability to look for other opportunities and to deal with other challenges, and, most important, endanger the lives of American service members for reasons that are not in the direct American national-security interest.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/
-
Who do you consider us to be at war with at the present time?
Terrorists.
-
Who do you consider us to be at war with at the present time?
Drugs, mostly.
-
Terrorists.
"Not all Muslims are terrorist, but all terrorist are Muslim."
-
Racist!
Ostrich?
-
Terrorists.
And who makes up the vast majority of current day terrorists.
-
And who makes up the vast majority of current day terrorists.
people claiming to be muslims?
-
people claiming to be muslims?
If one claims to be of a faith, who is to say otherwise?
Sort of like Obama claims to be Christian. Who are we to question that? Those on the left sure don't.
If someone claiming to be Muslim is a terrorist, then it is perfectly valid to call them Muslim Terrorists.
-
If one claims to be of a faith, who is to say otherwise?
Sort of like Obama claims to be Christian. Who are we to question that? Those on the left sure don't.
If someone claiming to be Muslim is a terrorist, then it is perfectly valid to call them Muslim Terrorists.
If someone claims to be a Christian and then proceeds to act in a manner clearly contrary to Christ's teachings, it wouldn't be unreasonable to have doubts about their actual faith.
If someone claims to be a muslim and then proceeds to act in a manner clearly contrary to the koran, it would be likewise reasonable to doubt their actually being muslim.
"If someone claiming to be Muslim is a terrorist, then it is perfectly valid to call them Muslim Terrorists." true enough, lacking other evidence to the contrary, unless being a terrorist is clearly contrary to the koran.
-
When there is a plethora of Muslim religious leaders preaching the exact violence that goes along with the Muslim terrorists, then you have to admit there is far more evidence that Islam is a religion of hate, violence, rape, arson, torture and horrific abuse of women and girls.
-
If someone claims to be a Christian and then proceeds to act in a manner clearly contrary to Christ's teachings, it wouldn't be unreasonable to have doubts about their actual faith.
If someone claims to be a muslim and then proceeds to act in a manner clearly contrary to the koran, it would be likewise reasonable to doubt their actually being muslim.
"If someone claiming to be Muslim is a terrorist, then it is perfectly valid to call them Muslim Terrorists." true enough, lacking other evidence to the contrary, unless being a terrorist is clearly contrary to the koran.
Is it? I'm not sure.
Jaybird, feel free to chime in here.
-
If they lived next door and treated your wife like this, you'd be good with that?
http://kstp.com/news/minneapolis-police-investigate-alleged-terroristic-threats-calhoun-parkway/4186341/
No I'm not good with that!! That's what law enforcement and the Second Amendment are for. No need to send thousands of military personnel half way around the globe to bomb the crap out of everything and invade foreign soil. Can you not possibly see how that kind of military action causes even more angry people next door?
Good job on the straw man argument though.
-
1) That would be Fourth Reich
2) If ISIS had the power they would wipe out every single infidel in an instant, then go to Miller Time. You and the goofy prof first.
and IF you had the power to vaporize all of ISIS you would. Those are two very big ifs and neither is realistic or going to happen. ISIS members are also very strict Muslims, so there is no "Miller time" for them.
During WWI and WWII, there were American volunteers that traveled to Europe and Asia to fight in those wars and help other nations. There are other nations actively fighting ISIS right now over there. I suggest all the people that feel so strongly about ISIS volunteer and go over there and fight them. You first.
-
"Not all Muslims are terrorist, but all terrorist are Muslim."
Who the hell are you quoting? That is seriously stupid.
-
and IF you had the power to vaporize all of ISIS you would. Those are two very big ifs and neither is realistic or going to happen. ISIS members are also very strict Muslims, so there is no "Miller time" for them.
During WWI and WWII, there were American volunteers that traveled to Europe and Asia to fight in those wars and help other nations. There are other nations actively fighting ISIS right now over there. I suggest all the people that feel so strongly about ISIS volunteer and go over there and fight them. You first.
I find your moral equivalence disturbing.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/cvkzULs9R2s/maxresdefault.jpg)
-
Who the hell are you quoting? That is seriously stupid.
Stupid is ignoring the obvious.
Big fan of Neville Chamberlain I take it?
-
If someone claims to be a Christian and then proceeds to act in a manner clearly contrary to Christ's teachings, it wouldn't be unreasonable to have doubts about their actual faith.
Why, is there a definitive book that everyone agrees on that says what it means to be Christian?
My kind of Christian carries a concealed handgun to church with him and he is ready to use if necessary. Not all Christians will passively give up if confronted. Just because they're not your kind of Christian doesn't mean they're not Christian.
-
Why, is there a definitive book that everyone agrees on that says what it means to be Christian?
It's call the Bible.
-
It's call the Bible.
Then I'm confused. Should I turn the other cheek, or take an eye for an eye? Should I kill homosexuals, or should I love my neighbor as myself?
-
It's call the Bible.
And everyone agrees on what the Bible means?
No, I didn't think so.
-
Then I'm confused. Should I turn the other cheek, or take an eye for an eye? Should I kill homosexuals, or should I love my neighbor as myself?
Are you being facetious?
-
yes.