Jordan 2, ISIS/L 1

[SexMachine]

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Who gives a shit about shaking his hand before bringing him down? He fucked us and then started playing nice. We played nice and then things changed and we fucked him. C’est la guerre, as you well know. As for his being a “staunch” ally: allies who are fighting uprisings, losing major cities and huge chunks of territory, bombing their own civilians – allies who, most importantly, are 1/2 of a recipe for protracted civil war (which meal is the best source of jihadist cancer money can buy [see Syria and Iraq, which gave us ISIS]) – are of no use to us. We helped bring him down and the country became far less bloodily volatile for years. There is every reason to believe that the alternative would have resulted in a Syria-like half-decade of war, along with all the consequences entailed by that. In which case, instead of metastatic ISIS taking hold in the Libya of today, it would be taking hold in a more war-torn, more violent – an even more receptive – Libya. Or it would be meeting up with some ISIS-like Libyan counterpart.

[/quote]

What are you talking about? Obama started the civil war:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE72T6H220110330?irpc=932

Remember? None of this would be happening if it wasn’t for Obama. I can’t even follow what it is you’re rambling on about. Some chain of events about I don’t know what. Obama went in and sowed a little insurgency. That’s what he does. Division. Subversion. And he started the whole thing.

Or maybe not. But if not…why? In other words, you say that nobody is better off for our having intervened, despite the fact that, objectively, violence in the country plummeted once the civil war died down with our help.

It died down with your help? He started it and it’s all part of a broader Arab uprising that Obama started or collaborated with. And with the withdrawal from Iraq it’s blossomed into a full blown Mahdist uprising and civil war.

Say we don’t intervene in 2011. What exactly do you think happens? What does Libya look like today? And how exactly is this better for us?

Isn’t that obvious? Gaddafi running a wealthy Petro-oligarchy that at the very least is keeping a lid on all the Islamic fundamentalists. A centralised authority instead of a patchwork of tribal militias and a failed state?

[quote]

I have said why I think it isn’t: because without our intervention, the civil war would have gone on – may well still be going on – and this is the ideal environment for the new wave of Utopian Caliphatism.[/quote]

He started the civil war. That’s all there is to it. [/quote]

A bit off topic sex a,chine but I was wondering about your description of the the term Mahdist uprising but ISIS and their affiliates follow plain Wahhabism, they are not claiming the prophesied one, they do not claim to follow the guided one as all Madhist movements and rebels have.

ISIS don’t claim prophecy, they are not following a Mahdi. So how can they be labeled as such?[/quote]

You are mistaken. Many of al Baghdadi’s followers believe he is the Mahdi and he has played on that by declaring himself Caliph and claiming to be a direct descendent of Mohammad he is invoking Sunni Hanabi prophecy about the coming of Mahdi and Jesus. Juhayman al-Otaybi who led the Grand Mosque seizure and began the Saudi Ikwan revival that is AQ/ISIS claimed to be the Mahdi himself.

[smh_23]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

What are you talking about? Obama started the civil war:

Exclusive: Obama authorizes secret help for Libya rebels

[/quote]

What? Obama started the civil war? This is more ahistorical bullshit.

From the lede of your source:

[quote]
President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday.[/quote]

Logic 101: If you’re trying to argue (absolutely incorrectly) that [Person A] started [War B] between [Group C] and [Dictator D], and you cite an article in which [Person A] is said to be offering help to [Group B] – which is already at war with [Dictator D] – you’ve accomplished exactly nothing.

[SexMachine]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I’m not interested in what ifs and so on.[/quote]

Oh, so you’re not interested in discussing whether or not the intervention was better or worse than its alternatives. OK, don’t then.[/quote]

I’ve clearly stated it’s much worse and why > Obama armed insurgents, had Gaddafi lynched, Islamist militias springing up with Stingers care of US State Dept via Qatar, Islamist outrages, no central authority, terrorist attacks on US diplomatic compounds, ISIS moving in and decapitating Christians. You disagree and want to defend the mess, fine go ahead.

[Airtruth]

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]Airtruth wrote:

[quote]magick wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Yeah and who gives a crap if they hung these two terrorists or not? They were already on death row, the woman in particular for being part of an attack on a Jordanian hotel which killed 60 people. Shit, in my hometown there’s a guy who’s been on death row since the late 80’s and the crimes he committed against a small unarmed child would make for a good horror film but no one has the balls to end his life and he’s still alive almost thirty years later.

These ISIS terrorists are scum and should be treated as such. They cry when we bomb their “women and children” and yet showed a video of a little kid executing some Russians. If that’s the case, well your women and children are fair game. They burned this pilot alive and, as far as executing the two terrorists, sure it was an emotional response, sure it was a gut reaction and total revenge, but that’s the kind of thing ISIS understands, so I say go for it. After all Mohammad said attack your enemy the way they attack you, and finally, someone’s had the freaking balls to do it.[/quote]

The essence of democracy and Western idealism, universal freedom, is such that all lives are to be respected on a basic, fundamental level. This shouldn’t change even if the other guy commits something horrible.[/quote]

/End Thread[/quote]

except, of course Jordan is not considered a Western country, nor is a democracy, nor is it bound by idealism, & universal freedom.
[/quote]

wow really?

[Musashi92]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Who gives a shit about shaking his hand before bringing him down? He fucked us and then started playing nice. We played nice and then things changed and we fucked him. C’est la guerre, as you well know. As for his being a “staunch” ally: allies who are fighting uprisings, losing major cities and huge chunks of territory, bombing their own civilians – allies who, most importantly, are 1/2 of a recipe for protracted civil war (which meal is the best source of jihadist cancer money can buy [see Syria and Iraq, which gave us ISIS]) – are of no use to us. We helped bring him down and the country became far less bloodily volatile for years. There is every reason to believe that the alternative would have resulted in a Syria-like half-decade of war, along with all the consequences entailed by that. In which case, instead of metastatic ISIS taking hold in the Libya of today, it would be taking hold in a more war-torn, more violent – an even more receptive – Libya. Or it would be meeting up with some ISIS-like Libyan counterpart.

[/quote]

What are you talking about? Obama started the civil war:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE72T6H220110330?irpc=932

Remember? None of this would be happening if it wasn’t for Obama. I can’t even follow what it is you’re rambling on about. Some chain of events about I don’t know what. Obama went in and sowed a little insurgency. That’s what he does. Division. Subversion. And he started the whole thing.

Or maybe not. But if not…why? In other words, you say that nobody is better off for our having intervened, despite the fact that, objectively, violence in the country plummeted once the civil war died down with our help.

It died down with your help? He started it and it’s all part of a broader Arab uprising that Obama started or collaborated with. And with the withdrawal from Iraq it’s blossomed into a full blown Mahdist uprising and civil war.

Say we don’t intervene in 2011. What exactly do you think happens? What does Libya look like today? And how exactly is this better for us?

Isn’t that obvious? Gaddafi running a wealthy Petro-oligarchy that at the very least is keeping a lid on all the Islamic fundamentalists. A centralised authority instead of a patchwork of tribal militias and a failed state?

[quote]

I have said why I think it isn’t: because without our intervention, the civil war would have gone on – may well still be going on – and this is the ideal environment for the new wave of Utopian Caliphatism.[/quote]

He started the civil war. That’s all there is to it. [/quote]

A bit off topic sex a,chine but I was wondering about your description of the the term Mahdist uprising but ISIS and their affiliates follow plain Wahhabism, they are not claiming the prophesied one, they do not claim to follow the guided one as all Madhist movements and rebels have.

ISIS don’t claim prophecy, they are not following a Mahdi. So how can they be labeled as such?[/quote]

You are mistaken. Many of al Baghdadi’s followers believe he is the Mahdi and he has played on that by declaring himself Caliph and claiming to be a direct descendent of Mohammad he is invoking Sunni Hanabi prophecy about the coming of Mahdi and Jesus. Juhayman al-Otaybi who led the Grand Mosque seizure and began the Saudi Ikwan revival that is AQ/ISIS claimed to be the Mahdi himself.[/quote]

Do you have any sources for this and a claim which must be made by the claimed Mahdi? If so I would be really interested to see them.

[SexMachine]

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

What are you talking about? Obama started the civil war:

Exclusive: Obama authorizes secret help for Libya rebels

[/quote]

What? Obama started the civil war? This is more ahistorical bullshit.

From the lede of your source:

[quote]
President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday.[/quote]

Logic 101: If you’re trying to argue (absolutely incorrectly) that [Person A] started [War B] between [Group C] and [Dictator D], and you cite an article in which [Person A] is said to be offering help to [Group B] – which is already at war with [Dictator D] – you’ve accomplished exactly nothing.[/quote]

I don’t know what you’re talking about with all that Person A stuff. I said Obama is responsible for inciting the civil war in Libya and ousting Gaddafi. He armed the anti-Gaddafi forces and bombed Gaddafi from the skies and had spooks on the ground hunting down the Gaddafis like a pack of hounds. That’s what started all the problems in Libya including the civil war there going on to this day and ISIS decapitating Christians there.

[countingbeans]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Your President is a disgrace. [/quote]

Yup

[Musashi92]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Your President is a disgrace. [/quote]

Yup
[/quote]

Why do people act like the democrats are raving liberals who want to let America militarily weaken and crumble? Most of the military high command over the last two decades have said the democrats are the most accommodating and supportive of aggressive actions.
An example being Stanley McChrystal holding up Hillary as one of the best when it came to giving them what they wanted:

Stanley McChrystal Heaps Praise On Hillary Clinton | HuffPost Latest News

Obama is not a liberal he is a centre president, he is much further right than most European leaders as is his party, he is not some secret muslim communist, if he was he would never become the president of the USA.
Why exactly is he a disgrace? Other than you and him agree on different things? If you disagree with me on immigration or police issues or market reforms I won’t call you a disgrace, I will simply say I disagree.

[SexMachine]

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Who gives a shit about shaking his hand before bringing him down? He fucked us and then started playing nice. We played nice and then things changed and we fucked him. C’est la guerre, as you well know. As for his being a “staunch” ally: allies who are fighting uprisings, losing major cities and huge chunks of territory, bombing their own civilians – allies who, most importantly, are 1/2 of a recipe for protracted civil war (which meal is the best source of jihadist cancer money can buy [see Syria and Iraq, which gave us ISIS]) – are of no use to us. We helped bring him down and the country became far less bloodily volatile for years. There is every reason to believe that the alternative would have resulted in a Syria-like half-decade of war, along with all the consequences entailed by that. In which case, instead of metastatic ISIS taking hold in the Libya of today, it would be taking hold in a more war-torn, more violent – an even more receptive – Libya. Or it would be meeting up with some ISIS-like Libyan counterpart.

[/quote]

What are you talking about? Obama started the civil war:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE72T6H220110330?irpc=932

Remember? None of this would be happening if it wasn’t for Obama. I can’t even follow what it is you’re rambling on about. Some chain of events about I don’t know what. Obama went in and sowed a little insurgency. That’s what he does. Division. Subversion. And he started the whole thing.

Or maybe not. But if not…why? In other words, you say that nobody is better off for our having intervened, despite the fact that, objectively, violence in the country plummeted once the civil war died down with our help.

It died down with your help? He started it and it’s all part of a broader Arab uprising that Obama started or collaborated with. And with the withdrawal from Iraq it’s blossomed into a full blown Mahdist uprising and civil war.

Say we don’t intervene in 2011. What exactly do you think happens? What does Libya look like today? And how exactly is this better for us?

Isn’t that obvious? Gaddafi running a wealthy Petro-oligarchy that at the very least is keeping a lid on all the Islamic fundamentalists. A centralised authority instead of a patchwork of tribal militias and a failed state?

I have said why I think it isn’t: because without our intervention, the civil war would have gone on – may well still be going on – and this is the ideal environment for the new wave of Utopian Caliphatism.[/quote]

He started the civil war. That’s all there is to it. [/quote]

A bit off topic sex a,chine but I was wondering about your description of the the term Mahdist uprising but ISIS and their affiliates follow plain Wahhabism, they are not claiming the prophesied one, they do not claim to follow the guided one as all Madhist movements and rebels have.

ISIS don’t claim prophecy, they are not following a Mahdi. So how can they be labeled as such?[/quote]

You are mistaken. Many of al Baghdadi’s followers believe he is the Mahdi and he has played on that by declaring himself Caliph and claiming to be a direct descendent of Mohammad he is invoking Sunni Hanabi prophecy about the coming of Mahdi and Jesus. Juhayman al-Otaybi who led the Grand Mosque seizure and began the Saudi Ikwan revival that is AQ/ISIS claimed to be the Mahdi himself.[/quote]

Do you have any sources for this and a claim which must be made by the claimed Mahdi? If so I would be really interested to see them.

Why Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is an impostor

Scroll down a bit and it mentions it in the article and the parallels with the Sudanese Mahdist state of the 19th Century. And al-Otaybi claimed to be the Mahdi too. He was the descendent of the leader of the Ikhwan revolt against Abdulaziz in the 20’s. The Saudi Ikhwan was disbanded and the remnants formed into the National Guard who are the paramilitary wing of the religious establishment and the Wahhab family.

[countingbeans]

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

Why do people act like the democrats are raving liberals who want to let America militarily weaken and crumble?[/quote]

I don’t remember making a single comment on either the military, democrats or how they interact with each other… Care to point it out?

Most of the military high command over the last two decades have said the democrats are the most accommodating and supportive of aggressive actions.

Great… The last two decades have seen, not so awesome stripping and total destruction of the freedoms we had left in the name of these “aggressive actions”. So maybe, the “aggressive actions” weren’t that great of an idea in the first place? I don’t know.

[quote] An example being Stanley McChrystal holding up Hillary as one of the best when it came to giving them what they wanted:

Stanley McChrystal Heaps Praise On Hillary Clinton | HuffPost Latest News

[/quote]

WTF hiliary has to do with anything I said is beyond me. Had she beat him in 2008, we’d be in much better shape today than we are. She wouldn’t have been light years better POTUS than Obama. However, the similar further erosion of our rights would have still happened.

Obama is not a liberal he is a centre president,

Lmao, no. Not from an American perspective that actually takes into account the last 200 plus years.

Not all good ideas are “liberal” and not all “liberal ideas” are bad. However in the connotation of “Contemporary American Liberal” he is very much a ring leader. And CAL =/= Classically Liberal.

he is much further right than most European leaders as is his party,

Who gives a flying fuck? Europe is not now, nor ever has been the standard by which we measure ourselves. You cowards willingly gave up your guns to the same government that enslaved your ancestors time and time again… Fuck will be a cold day in hell before I measure anything based on the European Standard, less it be “stupidity en mass”.

he is not some secret muslim communist, if he was he would never become the president of the USA.

Riiiiiggggghhhhhttttttt.

Being elected POTUS because the guy before you was pegged as the most epic of failures and from the other party doesn’t prove shit.

In all reality, David Duke could have ran on the Democrat ticket and won in 2008. As it is, Bam is a very charismatic person and has the press on his side so… It really became a cake walk.

Why exactly is he a disgrace?

How many days before a budget was passed?
Obamacare?
“No bankers and lobbyist in my cabinet”
Follows Bush timeline in IRaq, and look at that fucking mess now
“No individual mandate” lmao
“bring back habius corpus” lmfao
resigns the Patriot Act
Indefinite detention
IRS scandal/Political persecution
Increased tax rates
The debt? Have you seen that shit lately?

Do I really need to go one?

Other than you and him agree on different things? If you disagree with me on immigration or police issues or market reforms I won’t call you a disgrace, I will simply say I disagree.

Oh I disagree with a lot fo people on a lot of things… He disrespects the office of POTUS, he isn’t the first, won’t be the last, but that doesn’t keep him out of the “fuck me” pile.

[Mufasa]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Your President is a disgrace. [/quote]

Yup
[/quote]

The deeper we get into his second term the more evident this becomes. His legacy will surely be one of corruption, incompetence, MARXISM promotion, arrogance, and contempt for the constitution, military members and the common man.

“Disgrace” is an understatement.[/quote]

He was a “disgrace” in the minds of Conservatives before he even took office; so no surprise that the narrative continued (and worsened in it’s vitriol).

No surprise there.

History will determine the rest.

Mufasa

[countingbeans]

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:
Your President is a disgrace. [/quote]

Yup
[/quote]

The deeper we get into his second term the more evident this becomes. His legacy will surely be one of corruption, incompetence, MARXISM promotion, arrogance, and contempt for the constitution, military members and the common man.

“Disgrace” is an understatement.[/quote]

He was a “disgrace” in the minds of Conservatives before he even took office; so no surprise that the narrative continued (and worsened in it’s vitriol).

No surprise there.

History will determine the rest.

Mufasa
[/quote]

How about you’re completely talking out of your ass?

again:

How many days before a budget was passed?
Obamacare?
“No bankers and lobbyist in my cabinet”
Follows Bush timeline in IRaq, and look at that fucking mess now
“No individual mandate” lmao
“bring back habius corpus” lmfao
resigns the Patriot Act
Indefinite detention
IRS scandal/Political persecution
Increased tax rates
The debt? Have you seen that shit lately?

Do I really need to go on?

[countingbeans]

[quote]Mufasa wrote:

History will determine the rest.

Mufasa
[/quote]

Also the same tired bullshit the letter voters said about Bush43…

Oh, how far the mighty have fallen.

[Mufasa]

Hate the man to your heart’s content, CB…

I won’t.

If that’s “talking out my ass”, then I’m fine with that.

Mufasa

[Musashi92]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]smh_23 wrote:

Who gives a shit about shaking his hand before bringing him down? He fucked us and then started playing nice. We played nice and then things changed and we fucked him. C’est la guerre, as you well know. As for his being a “staunch” ally: allies who are fighting uprisings, losing major cities and huge chunks of territory, bombing their own civilians – allies who, most importantly, are 1/2 of a recipe for protracted civil war (which meal is the best source of jihadist cancer money can buy [see Syria and Iraq, which gave us ISIS]) – are of no use to us. We helped bring him down and the country became far less bloodily volatile for years. There is every reason to believe that the alternative would have resulted in a Syria-like half-decade of war, along with all the consequences entailed by that. In which case, instead of metastatic ISIS taking hold in the Libya of today, it would be taking hold in a more war-torn, more violent – an even more receptive – Libya. Or it would be meeting up with some ISIS-like Libyan counterpart.

[/quote]

What are you talking about? Obama started the civil war:

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE72T6H220110330?irpc=932

Remember? None of this would be happening if it wasn’t for Obama. I can’t even follow what it is you’re rambling on about. Some chain of events about I don’t know what. Obama went in and sowed a little insurgency. That’s what he does. Division. Subversion. And he started the whole thing.

Or maybe not. But if not…why? In other words, you say that nobody is better off for our having intervened, despite the fact that, objectively, violence in the country plummeted once the civil war died down with our help.

It died down with your help? He started it and it’s all part of a broader Arab uprising that Obama started or collaborated with. And with the withdrawal from Iraq it’s blossomed into a full blown Mahdist uprising and civil war.

Say we don’t intervene in 2011. What exactly do you think happens? What does Libya look like today? And how exactly is this better for us?

Isn’t that obvious? Gaddafi running a wealthy Petro-oligarchy that at the very least is keeping a lid on all the Islamic fundamentalists. A centralised authority instead of a patchwork of tribal militias and a failed state?

I have said why I think it isn’t: because without our intervention, the civil war would have gone on – may well still be going on – and this is the ideal environment for the new wave of Utopian Caliphatism.[/quote]

He started the civil war. That’s all there is to it. [/quote]

A bit off topic sex a,chine but I was wondering about your description of the the term Mahdist uprising but ISIS and their affiliates follow plain Wahhabism, they are not claiming the prophesied one, they do not claim to follow the guided one as all Madhist movements and rebels have.

ISIS don’t claim prophecy, they are not following a Mahdi. So how can they be labeled as such?[/quote]

You are mistaken. Many of al Baghdadi’s followers believe he is the Mahdi and he has played on that by declaring himself Caliph and claiming to be a direct descendent of Mohammad he is invoking Sunni Hanabi prophecy about the coming of Mahdi and Jesus. Juhayman al-Otaybi who led the Grand Mosque seizure and began the Saudi Ikwan revival that is AQ/ISIS claimed to be the Mahdi himself.[/quote]

Do you have any sources for this and a claim which must be made by the claimed Mahdi? If so I would be really interested to see them.

Why Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is an impostor

Scroll down a bit and it mentions it in the article and the parallels with the Sudanese Mahdist state of the 19th Century. And al-Otaybi claimed to be the Mahdi too. He was the descendent of the leader of the Ikhwan revolt against Abdulaziz in the 20’s. The Saudi Ikhwan was disbanded and the remnants formed into the National Guard who are the paramilitary wing of the religious establishment and the Wahhab family. [/quote]

There are parallels because they are all Wahhabi, however ISIS are not and Baghdadi has not claimed he is the Mahdi, he merely claims caliph.
In fact a quick search and it will confirm ISIS claim him as the Caliph, not the Mahdi, they are not a Mahdist uprising.
Also Baghdadi has no relation to Muhammed, so no Wahhabi fanatic would dare claim him as the Mahdi as to do so would go against the Koran which is supposed to be the literal word of god, it clearly states the Mahdi will be a direct descendent of the prophet, have fair complexion and light hair, a distinct birthmark etc.

The caliph is the ruler of caliphate, the Mahdi is the one who with the returning jesus christ will kill the infidels and jewish invaders and is basically the muslim end of times and victory of the muslims on earth. One can not be both claimed Caliph and Mahdi.

[countingbeans]

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Hate the man to your heart’s content, CB…

[/quote]

So you’re pretending the list of issues I just posted twice wasn’t posted?

[Musashi92]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Musashi92 wrote:

Why do people act like the democrats are raving liberals who want to let America militarily weaken and crumble?[/quote]

I don’t remember making a single comment on either the military, democrats or how they interact with each other… Care to point it out?

Most of the military high command over the last two decades have said the democrats are the most accommodating and supportive of aggressive actions.

Great… The last two decades have seen, not so awesome stripping and total destruction of the freedoms we had left in the name of these “aggressive actions”. So maybe, the “aggressive actions” weren’t that great of an idea in the first place? I don’t know.

[quote] An example being Stanley McChrystal holding up Hillary as one of the best when it came to giving them what they wanted:

Stanley McChrystal Heaps Praise On Hillary Clinton | HuffPost Latest News

[/quote]

WTF hiliary has to do with anything I said is beyond me. Had she beat him in 2008, we’d be in much better shape today than we are. She wouldn’t have been light years better POTUS than Obama. However, the similar further erosion of our rights would have still happened.

Obama is not a liberal he is a centre president,

Lmao, no. Not from an American perspective that actually takes into account the last 200 plus years.

Not all good ideas are “liberal” and not all “liberal ideas” are bad. However in the connotation of “Contemporary American Liberal” he is very much a ring leader. And CAL =/= Classically Liberal.

he is much further right than most European leaders as is his party,

Who gives a flying fuck? Europe is not now, nor ever has been the standard by which we measure ourselves. You cowards willingly gave up your guns to the same government that enslaved your ancestors time and time again… Fuck will be a cold day in hell before I measure anything based on the European Standard, less it be “stupidity en mass”.

he is not some secret muslim communist, if he was he would never become the president of the USA.

Riiiiiggggghhhhhttttttt.

Being elected POTUS because the guy before you was pegged as the most epic of failures and from the other party doesn’t prove shit.

In all reality, David Duke could have ran on the Democrat ticket and won in 2008. As it is, Bam is a very charismatic person and has the press on his side so… It really became a cake walk.

Why exactly is he a disgrace?

How many days before a budget was passed?
Obamacare?
“No bankers and lobbyist in my cabinet”
Follows Bush timeline in IRaq, and look at that fucking mess now
“No individual mandate” lmao
“bring back habius corpus” lmfao
resigns the Patriot Act
Indefinite detention
IRS scandal/Political persecution
Increased tax rates
The debt? Have you seen that shit lately?

Do I really need to go one?

Other than you and him agree on different things? If you disagree with me on immigration or police issues or market reforms I won’t call you a disgrace, I will simply say I disagree.

Oh I disagree with a lot fo people on a lot of things… He disrespects the office of POTUS, he isn’t the first, won’t be the last, but that doesn’t keep him out of the “fuck me” pile. [/quote]

1. Europe has better literacy rates, higher rates of full education and yet you claim they are more stupid than your country and its populace. It also is far higher up the list as far as health care goes, the U.S being 38th.

2. They wanted to ban guns, which resulted in 25 gun deaths a year as opposed to tens of thousands.

3. Where did I say I supported Obama, I merely said he is not left wing by most peoples standards, the same conservatives who are rightly criticising the Obama administrations attacks on personal freedoms were not so barbed tongued when it came to the previous administration.

4. You seem to be more interested in shouting and swearing than calmly and politely making your points, which is usually the sign of a zealot, fringe ideologue or someone who has no interest in ever rethinking any of his positions despite any new findings.

You can think whatever you want but just shouting stupid idiots at people who don’t share your beliefs is hardly a good way to go through life, nor a very productive one.

[Musashi92]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Hate the man to your heart’s content, CB…

[/quote]

So you’re pretending the list of issues I just posted twice wasn’t posted?
[/quote]

So the continuation of the patriot act brought by a right wing government is proof Obama is a liberal? I see that you posted a list it just does not mean anything. It goes against your entire premise that Obama is some super left liberal. They seem to be against the patriot act, the wars and protest them and Obama saying so.