The President could commandeer a jet and personally Suicide Bomb the palace of El-Baghdadi himself; and many Americans would not rally behind him.
What he says or doesn’t say; or does or doesn’t do seems to make little if any difference. People will take his words and actions and create their own narrative. He probably knows that.
Mufasa
[/quote]
It’s depressing to think that we’re a lost cause. That we’re incapable of being unified behind anything. You think I just need to lower my expectations?
[/quote]
I still try to be optimistic and see the best in people, Powerpuff.
But it sure is getting harder.
We seem to be more comfortable in “Tribes”…and despite what Zeb says… that sure as hell didn’t begin with, nor will it end with, President Obama.
What he says or doesn’t say; or does or doesn’t do seems to make little if any difference. People will take his words and actions and create their own narrative. He probably knows that.
Mufasa
[/quote]
Nah, not at all. Obama creates the narrative that is plainly obvious to everyone all by himself. He’s in over his head and always has been. He was not qualified for this job and even after seven years he is a bumbling, ideological fool that has shamed himself and his nation.[/quote]
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
And so it goes, Powerpuff… :(-
Mufasa[/quote]
LOL
Muf, if you fly a drone over my place that is plastered with “Shoot me,” I’m going to take you up on it and shoot it down.[/quote]
Ah, Push!
I’m not kidding when I say that one of these days I’m going to have to come out to that amazing spread in “The Big Sky” and just hang out, talk, eat some good food and shoot a few rounds!
The President could commandeer a jet and personally Suicide Bomb the palace of El-Baghdadi himself; and many Americans would not rally behind him.
What he says or doesn’t say; or does or doesn’t do seems to make little if any difference. People will take his words and actions and create their own narrative. He probably knows that.
Mufasa
[/quote]
It’s depressing to think that we’re a lost cause. That we’re incapable of being unified behind anything. You think I just need to lower my expectations?
[/quote]
This is what happens when, as a people, society, we’re void of real, cohesive leadership. Obama offers none of that; he offers the opposite. He represents a small minority of people and does not, will not, represent, or speak up for, anyone aside from those deemed, in his myopic little mind, appropriate. Through his actions and the subsequent outcomes, he relishes in division and does not want a unified, cohesive America. He’s not a dumb man, remember that. He’s a calculated coward who won’t speak up for anything unless it’s politically convenient. He’s not a leader, he’s an opportunist.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
and despite what Zeb says… that sure as hell didn’t begin with, nor will it end with, President Obama.
Mufasa
[/quote]
I never said that it began with Obama did I Mufasa? DID I? No…Once again you cannot defend Obama even though you’d love to. All you can say is we had problems BEFORE Obama took office. That is a very pitiful retort…but again that is all you have when attempting to defend such a horrible President.
And again I ask you the same question I did months ago. If I am wrong about Obama please make a list of his many accomplishments. We will define accomplishments as things that have actually helped America and its citizens.
Last time I asked you this I never heard back. Don’t get me wrong I understand why you never got back to me and I don’t blame you one bit. But you are going to have to stop these half hearted defense posts of a failed President.
If he’d have said “limit or halt immigration from certain countries…” or lets “limit visas from certain countries”… Lots of people from both sides of the aisle would have agreed with that.
Instead he said “Muslims.” That’s the problem, and I can’t believe he’s continued to double down on it, instead of just naming some countries - think Syria, Iraq, Libya - that we might halt travel or immigration from. Since when do people’s passports declare their religion? He didn’t need to go there, but he did. And he’s making conservatives look crazy by saying this stuff. Good job Trump, you have me agreeing with my liberal neighbor about how you’re a nut. He’s going to divide us and give it to Hillary. That will be his legacy. [/quote]
Did you read the Limbaugh article I posted on this thread or maybe it was the Next President thread?[/quote]
I followed the link from this post, and read the paragraph where Rush sounds like he defends Trumps position as “driving a hard bargain” or as setting the terms for negotiation about how we deal with ISIS and Radical Islam. That people are “in on it” and know Trump doesn’t really mean what he said. I don’t think we can assume that about Trump.
BUT, I absolutely think we are kidding ourselves if we think Syrian refugees are the same as refugees from New Zealand. That was a great quote, right? And I think we’d be foolish to not revisit visas/ immigration from nations like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, even though we consider them allied nations in the Middle East. Lots of people want to immigrate to the US. Why shouldn’t we consider cultural differences, and the likelihood that they may become radicalized groups. We don’t need large neighborhoods of immigrants who want Sharia law. We can learn that from looking at Europe.
If he’d have said “limit or halt immigration from certain countries…” or lets “limit visas from certain countries”… Lots of people from both sides of the aisle would have agreed with that.
Instead he said “Muslims.” That’s the problem, and I can’t believe he’s continued to double down on it, instead of just naming some countries - think Syria, Iraq, Libya - that we might halt travel or immigration from. Since when do people’s passports declare their religion? He didn’t need to go there, but he did. And he’s making conservatives look crazy by saying this stuff. Good job Trump, you have me agreeing with my liberal neighbor about how you’re a nut. He’s going to divide us and give it to Hillary. That will be his legacy. [/quote]
Did you read the Limbaugh article I posted on this thread or maybe it was the Next President thread?[/quote]
I followed the link from this post, and read the paragraph where Rush sounds like he defends Trumps position as “driving a hard bargain” or as setting the terms for negotiation about how we deal with ISIS and Radical Islam. That people are “in on it” and know Trump doesn’t really mean what he said. I don’t think we can assume that about Trump.
[/quote]
Think about it. It makes sense.
Yep, and ultimately saying “Muslims” instead of “Syrians, Pakistanis and Saudis” is just another way of poking your finger in the eye of political correctness.
And people like that.
Because let’s face it, we really ARE concerned about the Muslims and not the Syrian Zoroastrians, right? Or the Pakistani Catholics, right? Or the Saudi Mormons, right?[/quote]
Yes, but he still didn’t need to go there, IMO. I know he has said his remarks do not apply to Muslims who are US citizens, and I heard the argument about how the idea is not unconstitutional since he’s not talking about people who’s freedoms are protected by the constitution as citizens.
BUT - I couldn’t help but think of the large Persian community we have in my area. Most of these families have been here since they fled the Revolution and Khomeini took over. These people tend to be very Westernized, love the US. Why do we want to send a message to them that conservatives are bigots? I have a conservative Jewish friend who posted a pic on his FB feed of numbers tattooed on forearms with the title something like “This is what happens when we register non-Christians.” He’s a Republican, and I took his post to mean he’s offended by Trump’s idea. That’s not what we need if we want to win the presidency.
Yes, but he still didn’t need to go there, IMO. I know he has said his remarks do not apply to Muslims who are US citizens, and I heard the argument about how the idea is not unconstitutional since he’s not talking about people who’s freedoms are protected by the constitution as citizens.
BUT - I couldn’t help but think of the large Persian community we have in my area. Most of these families have been here since they fled the Revolution and Khomeini took over. These people tend to be very Westernized, love the US. Why do we want to send a message to them that conservatives are bigots? I have a conservative Jewish friend who posted a pic on his FB feed of numbers tattooed on forearms with the title something like “This is what happens when we register non-Christians.” He’s a Republican, and I took his post to mean he’s offended by Trump’s idea. That’s not what we need if we want to win the presidency.
[/quote]
My understanding is that having a temporary hold on immigration from certain countries would not catch those coming by way of an intermediary country. I am certainly no expert, but I believe that I read that somewhere.
The fact is that the share of terrorism in the world by Muslims is fast approaching 100% ( Country Reports on Terrorism 2013 ). Looking at immigration from Syria since the Paris attacks, there was only one non-Muslim out of 237 people admitted ( 1 Christian: 236 of 237 Syrian Refugees Admitted Since Paris Attacks Are Muslims ). So if you ignore my previous point about immigrants coming from non-obvious countries, it seems almost the same to put a temporary halt on Muslim immigration as it does on that from Syria, Iran, etc. So if this is a distinction without a difference perhaps it is more honest to just call it like it is?
I am quite conflicted with regard to Trump. Much of the time I find myself agreeing with his core messages but cringing in how he delivers them. I can’t decide if I have been made too PC by the environment of our current culture. Personally I far prefer an intellectual, nuanced approach. That said, maybe we need the demagoguery of simple messages to try to claw back a bit of the insanity we have enacted as a people over the past decades. Almost like electing Clint Eastwood’s character in Gran Turino as leader to cut through the crap.
Trump is not my first choice. But I will take him over the dictator or socialist (another distinction without a difference?) that the Democrats are putting forth.
Yes, but he still didn’t need to go there, IMO. I know he has said his remarks do not apply to Muslims who are US citizens, and I heard the argument about how the idea is not unconstitutional since he’s not talking about people who’s freedoms are protected by the constitution as citizens.
BUT - I couldn’t help but think of the large Persian community we have in my area. Most of these families have been here since they fled the Revolution and Khomeini took over. These people tend to be very Westernized, love the US. Why do we want to send a message to them that conservatives are bigots? I have a conservative Jewish friend who posted a pic on his FB feed of numbers tattooed on forearms with the title something like “This is what happens when we register non-Christians.” He’s a Republican, and I took his post to mean he’s offended by Trump’s idea. That’s not what we need if we want to win the presidency.
[/quote]
My understanding is that having a temporary hold on immigration from certain countries would not catch those coming by way of an intermediary country. I am certainly no expert, but I believe that I read that somewhere.
The fact is that the share of terrorism in the world by Muslims is fast approaching 100% ( Country Reports on Terrorism 2013 ). Looking at immigration from Syria since the Paris attacks, there was only one non-Muslim out of 237 people admitted ( 1 Christian: 236 of 237 Syrian Refugees Admitted Since Paris Attacks Are Muslims ). So if you ignore my previous point about immigrants coming from non-obvious countries, it seems almost the same to put a temporary halt on Muslim immigration as it does on that from Syria, Iran, etc. So if this is a distinction without a difference perhaps it is more honest to just call it like it is?
I am quite conflicted with regard to Trump. Much of the time I find myself agreeing with his core messages but cringing in how he delivers them. I can’t decide if I have been made too PC by the environment of our current culture. Personally I far prefer an intellectual, nuanced approach. That said, maybe we need the demagoguery of simple messages to try to claw back a bit of the insanity we have enacted as a people over the past decades. Almost like electing Clint Eastwood’s character in Gran Turino as leader to cut through the crap.
Trump is not my first choice. But I will take him over the dictator or socialist (another distinction without a difference?) that the Democrats are putting forth.
edited to fix quoting.
[/quote]
Gotta agree with all that.[/quote]
Appreciated your thoughts, Needa and Push. I’m not a political strategist by any stretch.
I haven’t been following the Next President thread and just realized there’s been a discussion of the Trump Muslim ban going on in that thread as well.
As it’s been mentioned, there is no hesitation to use women and children. Palestinian terror organizations have strapped bombs to mentally handicapped kids and blown them up.[/quote]
Not long ago Obama taunted the republicans regarding his inane immigration stance. “the republicans are afraid of women and children.”
I noticed that he’s not saying that anymore…
[/quote]
Ralph Peters has a most appropriate response to Obama’s taunting. [/quote]
Saw this earlier but even though I too believe Bam is a pussy what I really agree with even more strongly is that the American people aren’t “scared,” they’re angry.
[/quote]
I agree as well. However, didn’t many of us here predict terror would be on the rise as a result of the president’s actions for years? I know I did, I am pretty sure you did.
Keep in mind, this is not something I want to be right about. I would rather be dead wrong and a fool. Unfortunately…[/quote]
The tragedy in San Bernardino was a perfect opportunity for Americans to come together and be united against Radical Islam. Instead, he took the opportunity to further his gun control agenda. Remember how everyone felt after 9/11? This has been the opposite of that feeling. That part disturbs me.
I mean, it’s not like it’s a risky thing to come out strongly against Radical Islam. Even organizations like Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch will condemn organized terror organizations that use child soldiers, murder civilians, kidnapping of school girls, use kids as suicide bombers… [/quote]
I couldn’t agree with you more. He took an opportunity to unite a nation and played partisan politics and further divide the country. Terrorism has nothing to do, zero to do with gun control. They did not by their bomb and other incendiary devices legally. California has the most strict gun control in the nation. France does not allow citizens to own guns.
Plainly put a strict gun policy does not deter terrorists from getting them or using them. This face has been demonstrated repeatedly to the point where it requires no mention. Yet, he chooses to divide using the tragic deaths of innocents in a terrorist act for a political agenda.
There are many theories as to why, but in the end it just causes anger. Anger in me and in millions of others. Ignoring a real problem for a perceived one.
Nevertheless, I enjoy your commentary and I hope you choose to break the predominant gender wall in PWI and participate more. I welcome the female opinion in many of these discussions and that is lacking here.
Thanks for jumping in. I hope you stay, the water is just fine here
[quote]Powerpuff wrote:
Can you imagine what the leaders of ISIS are thinking when they hear us talk like the answer to this is for Americans to turn in their guns? They must be laughing at us right now. That does make me mad.
There was a WSJ Op Ed piece yesterday about Obama’s strategy. It was called “Fighting Terror by Self-Reproach.”
“…By pretending that the extreme branch of Islam to which Farook plainly belonged is a protected religion rather than a dangerous ideology. By supposing that is somehow immoral to harbor graver reservations about 10,0000 refugees from Syria or Iraq than, say New Zealand. By being so afraid to give moral offense that we neglect to play the most elementary for of defense…” "This is President Obam’s vision of society… "
He’d rather further the argument for gun control, or scold us for not being culturally sensitive. [/quote]
I am truly sick of being lectured by obama as if we are uninformed. If we are uninformed it’s because he is suppressing information, it’s not a lack of effort on our part.
The President could commandeer a jet and personally Suicide Bomb the palace of El-Baghdadi himself; and many Americans would not rally behind him.
What he says or doesn’t say; or does or doesn’t do seems to make little if any difference. People will take his words and actions and create their own narrative. He probably knows that.
Mufasa
[/quote]
It’s depressing to think that we’re a lost cause. That we’re incapable of being unified behind anything. You think I just need to lower my expectations?
[/quote]
This is what happens when, as a people, society, we’re void of real, cohesive leadership. Obama offers none of that; he offers the opposite. He represents a small minority of people and does not, will not, represent, or speak up for, anyone aside from those deemed, in his myopic little mind, appropriate. Through his actions and the subsequent outcomes, he relishes in division and does not want a unified, cohesive America. He’s not a dumb man, remember that. He’s a calculated coward who won’t speak up for anything unless it’s politically convenient. He’s not a leader, he’s an opportunist.[/quote]
