Obama Just Compared Christianity With Islam…At National Prayer Breakfast

[kaz]

I'm a Liberal, so you included me in your strawman argument.

It doesn't work that way

Definition:

A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on the misrepresentation of an opponent's argument.

Right, my talking about liberals is a generalization. You can't apply it to all individual liberals. That is a logical fallacy.

 

[SAYIT]

It was dumb idea to make a pledge to the Polish Colonels. Even with another year to prepare, the British STILL weren't ready for a war.

The promise to support Poland was a political line in the sand intended to give Hitler pause. What was dumb was sitting by while Germany - in blatant disregard of the Treaty of Versailles - was allowed to rebuild an offensive military.

 

[Steinlight]

As the President mocks Christians by comparing Christians with ISIS in almost the same breath.

Get off your HIGH HORSES............right after condemning ISIS..................

He plans speeches and practices them. This was a DELIBERATE shot at Christians as he preached.

You don't find historical events from eight hundred years ago convincing that Christians are the same as Muslims today? Hmm...me either...

Here's how it works.

Back then you risked your life by denying that either groups God existed. Today, you risk your life by denying that the God of ISIS exists. The Christians would simply pray for you.

The comparison fails

Your argument assumes that ISIL is a religious group, rather than a terrorist group that uses religion as a prop.

All groups that kill in the name of God are.

And so the point is?

Are...what? Terrorist groups?

I agree. That includes the 'death to abortion doctors' crowd.

I'm glad you agree that ISIL is a terrorist group, not a religious movement.

They are religious, they are radical islamists. You aren't going to seriously deny this are you?

 

[Pop23]

As the President mocks Christians by comparing Christians with ISIS in almost the same breath.

Get off your HIGH HORSES............right after condemning ISIS..................

He plans speeches and practices them. This was a DELIBERATE shot at Christians as he preached.

You don't find historical events from eight hundred years ago convincing that Christians are the same as Muslims today? Hmm...me either...

Here's how it works.

Back then you risked your life by denying that either groups God existed. Today, you risk your life by denying that the God of ISIS exists. The Christians would simply pray for you.

The comparison fails

Your argument assumes that ISIL is a religious group, rather than a terrorist group that uses religion as a prop.

All groups that kill in the name of God are.

And so the point is?

Are...what? Terrorist groups?

I agree. That includes the 'death to abortion doctors' crowd.

I'm glad you agree that ISIL is a terrorist group, not a religious movement.

Ummmm, When did I argue differently?

Both can claim the religious high ground, but neither truly are.

The argument is, that comparing the crusades (that happened awhile ago), is not a relevent comparison to current events.

Go back to your Doobie now

 

[JoeB131]

The promise to support Poland was a political line in the sand intended to give Hitler pause. What was dumb was sitting by while Germany - in blatant disregard of the Treaty of Versailles - was allowed to rebuild an offensive military.

they didn't sit by. The openly encouraged it.

You see, you have to remember what the Western Democracies were really scared of in 1938. It wasn't Hitler. He was happy to let the rich of Germany keep their shit as long as they weren't Jews, and basically, **** those guys.

No, they were terrified of Stalin and his Third International sending revolutionaries all over the world. They were happy the Axis was keeping Stalin penned in.

You know, kind of like how we gave weapons to a "Freedom Fighter" named Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. It's not like he'd ever turn on us.

 

[emilynghiem]

The Libertarians I know preach about CHECKING govt by enforcing Constitutional limits,
check and balances, and separation of powers.

No, that's conservatism. Libertarianism is the want of less and less government.

And what BOTH translate to, in practical terms,
is Localizing govt control to belong to the people democratically
and relying less on federal govt which is reserved to matters that require that level.

this is what Democrats want also, to include diversity and minorities,
so by localizing the voice in govt, all people can be included equally.

What I see missing is people don't TRUST each other's groups
but fear each one will push their agenda above and beyond the others.

However, if we respect each person's choice and exercise of party
as we do religion, then we can keep these equally in check.

You can have whatever religious or political beliefs you want,
as long as you take responsibility within your own group for that.

As for policies in public, the public would have to consent in order to represent all
people and all views equally.

So Democrats and Greens can achieve the ideal of inclusion and consensus decisions,
and Libertarians and Republicans can achieve the goal of maximizing local democracy
and minimalizing the burden put on the state and federal levels so these are run more efficiently
when more is delegated to local levels to manage as independently as possible for equal say in govt.

 

[Clementine]

Obama didn't compare Islam and Christianity, he compared people who used these religions to justify slaughter.

Since there are no longer any Medieval Crusaders running around or slave owners, he was talking about contemporary Christians when he said not to get on a high horse. The left's attempt to polish this turd is embarrassing.

And Obama had no trouble describing the crusaders as Christians, yet will not describe the terrorists as Muslims. He is more than willing to ask modern day Christians to feel guilt for what happened 1000 years ago, but lets Muslims off the hook for the continued brutality. Seriously, even the Crusaders should not have felt bad because they were pushed into action by the savage Muslims. Islam has churned out more violent animals than any group in history and it's time they got off their high horses and stopped judging infidels.

The left is quick to tell Christians to get with the times, yet nary a word of criticism for Muslims, who haven't changed a bit in thousands of years. Maybe they need to make changes in their book and accept gays, infidels and rights for all. When they start treating women like people, stop beheading gays and Christians and quit killing because they don't like what people say, maybe it will be time to talk. Until then, they can **** off.

 

[emilynghiem]

Ditto dems.

Really? I don't see Obama caving to Liberal demands, do you?

If he did, we would have single-payer.

I don't see liberals opposing ACA to push for singlepayer.
I am about the only liberal I know pushing to separate ACA by party
so the Democrats can organize singlepayer as a choice,
and let Republicans organize their own alternative choices.

Most are using ACA as leverage, but won't oppose ACA.
Thus both Obama and liberals are pushing the
"right to health care" agenda by backing ACA
and won't recognize this is mandating a political belief
that is discriminating by mandating taxes on people of other creeds without their consent.

 

[Kosh]

The promise to support Poland was a political line in the sand intended to give Hitler pause. What was dumb was sitting by while Germany - in blatant disregard of the Treaty of Versailles - was allowed to rebuild an offensive military.

they didn't sit by. The openly encouraged it.

You see, you have to remember what the Western Democracies were really scared of in 1938. It wasn't Hitler. He was happy to let the rich of Germany keep their shit as long as they weren't Jews, and basically, **** those guys.

No, they were terrified of Stalin and his Third International sending revolutionaries all over the world. They were happy the Axis was keeping Stalin penned in.

You know, kind of like how we gave weapons to a "Freedom Fighter" named Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. It's not like he'd ever turn on us.

And as always the far left rewrites history in order to suit their programmed narrative.

 

[emilynghiem]

[ I hope more Muslims follow his example.

No you don't.

You're in the crowd that will never be satisfied. You'll persecute Muslims ad infinitum no matter how much evidence you're buried in.

NYcarbineer are you projecting here?
Are you saying, indirectly, that it is YOU who will "never be satisfied"
and you will "persecute ad infinitum" no matter how much evidence is presented?

You may hold the key to how to stop such people you describe here.

If you can figure out how to stop persecuting boedicca
then you can teach the rest of us how to deal with such folks.

Please do explain why you continue to persecute and what it takes to resolve this reason.
Why do you NOT trust boedicca, and how can we address that?

This is the same problem you are saying is wrong with those
who don't trust Muslims and continue to blame and persecute them.

So tell us the answer, how to stop this mutual distrust
which you also project onto boedicca?

 

[Kondor3]

...Keep pissing yourself over the scary muslims. SOme of us have problems in the real world to worry about.

Fine. You're better off tending to them, rather than polluting the board with Surrender Monkey mentality.

Sadly, as long as the Zionists and Neo-Cons scaring little chickenshits like you into wanting wars, my work of mocking the chicken littles is never done.

Chickenshits?

I have no idea what I did in a previous life to wrong you, but, given that you've drawn first blood, repeatedly, it's time to drop any remaining pretense of civility.

Blow it out your ass, Princess.

I want no wars.

You lie when you pretend otherwise.

I am all for phukking-over Radical Militant Muslims, with overwhelming military power, when they rear their ugly heads, and begin to bother and worry decent folk.

And I am all for labeling Islam for what it is - the latest Threat Vector to trouble The West - owing largely to its basic/core teachings, which enable religious violence.

You have this strange, faulty perception that I - and others who caution against the inherent dangers of Islam - are being manipulated by 'Zionists' and 'Neo-Cons'.

Newsflash, sweet-buns... I reached those conclusions back in the 1970s, after doing some university-level coursework on the subject, and reading the Q'uran cover to cover - a task that I repeated by going out and buying a fresh copy of the Q'uran on September 12, 2001.

I neither need nor accept the sort of brainwashing that you Hyper-Liberals subject yourselves to, in order to work yourself up into a tizzy, to defend Islam.

Anyone capable of reading, and some modicum of deductive reasoning, would reach largely the same conclusions, about this dangerous, alien belief system.

Afraid? Chickenshit?

Hardly.

Merely sufficiently well-read to participate in such conversations on the macro-level, and unafraid of the brickbats thrown by folks with bad aim such as yourself.

Now, do you want to lay-off the personal attacks, or shall we consider this a new and permanent state of affairs?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You too get the challenge since this is a discussion on relevent points.

Post a link to the Catholic Church using child molestation as a recruiting tool to obtain priests.

Go smartass

Do you blame innocent Catholics for the priest scandal?

I blame the ones who tolerate it.

No you don't. That's just your excuse for hating innocent Muslims.

Muslims who tolerate violence are not innocent.

and likewise, if Americans tolerate violence committed in the name of US govt
we are not completely innocent either. Innocent lives have been destroyed using our tax dollars, too.
All humanity is complicit in what we allow to go on until we all do more to stop oppression abuse and violence.

America has a special calling to do more to bring lasting peace and justice
since we have foundations in both Christian and Constitutional laws to rebuke in peaceful ways to restore relations.
We make as many mistakes and fall short of our goals
as any other humans or nations, but we have a greater responsibility
to bring corrections and restitution for justice sake since we have greater ability and resources to do so.

By educating and empowering others, we can share this responsibility
but it is best taught by example how to do this.

The comparison is myopic. You're comparing violence done in the name of religion, which nearly everyone can agree is wrong, with foreign policy and the decision of how to deploy and engage our military forces, which is political and up for debate. For instance, if Jordan and Saudi Arabia decide to go to war against ISIS and put an end to their expansionist campaign of terror, that's not violence in the name of religion, it's war. The two just cannot be compared side by side. Apples and oranges.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Iran will not give the bomb to proxies, because it knows that it will die as a country if an atomic weapon is ever detonated in Israel.

You jihadists need to understand that the Americans and Israel are willing to outlast you for hundreds of years if necessary.

And if a nuclear weapon is exploded over Israel, the Muslim ME will die in a sea of molten radioactive glass.

You lefties just don't get it. It only takes about 19 raging Jihadists (and there are many) to pull off one of their deadly scams and in the Arab/Muslim World they will get plenty of cooperation. BTW, there will be no American (or Russian, or French, or Chinese, or Pakistani) nuclear response.

Keep telling yourself as Tehran melts to the ground. Tactical nukes have been released to Central Command for use in Iraq and Syria if deemed necessary.

 

[Kondor3]

My, my, my... just a wee bit testy today, aren't we, Princess?

I watch BBC World News and France 24 and the English language editions of Der Spiegel and RT and CBS and ABC and NBC and Fox and CNN and others.

I listen to both Liberal and Conservative talk-radio in roughly equal measure.

I'm not scared... I merely add my voice to the large and loud and necessary chorus who sound the warning klaxon about Radical Militant Islam.

By virtue of your affinity with Neville Chamberlain, and your obvious candidacy for the role of Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkey, it seems safe to ignore your unprovoked and insulting remarks, but, I understand that you have to mask your Chamberlain-esque position with a show of bravado of some kind or another, so, have a field day with it.

How can you listen to "liberal talk radio" when there is no such thing anymore/ Oh, never mind.

Keep pissing yourself over the scary muslims. SOme of us have problems in the real world to worry about.

I use to love air america with tom Hartman Randi Rhodes ed Schultz the young turks and that lesbian on MSNBC I forgot her name.

Now I can only find black liberal am radio. Pretty good but its all about how blacks are getting screwed. They don't realize to the GOP we are all n#$%&#s. Even the people who vote with them are house n@#$%#s.

And herman Cain is not a n@#$%#r because he has money.

Rachel Mad-Cow...

Stephanie Miller...

Norman Goldman...

Bill Press...

Jeff Santos...

And others...

In Chicago, they're spotlighted on WCPT AM and FM...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Considering he had the House and the Senate all as D's in his first years.

Yes he did! And did he use that total control to implement a Single-Payer healthcare system like Liberals wanted, or did he accommodate Republicans by adopting the Right-Wing, Heritage Foundation, Romneycare?

I rest my case.

But if you need more . . .

Come on don't lie. Then he had Reid blocking in the Senate for the last couple of years?

"He" didn't have Reid do a thing. Harry Reid doesn't take orders, and Harry Reid certainly doesn't need a one-term Senator explaining to him how to run the Senate.

Harry Reid blocked House bills that contained poison pills and items included for the sole purpose of embarrassing the president.

Why aren't you concerned with Boehner blocking Senate Bills? Obama's Jobs bill that called for spending on infrastructure - not controversial - has been sitting on Boehner's desk since 2011.

Where's your outrage?

And he hates conservatives. He let's it be known all the time.

By beating them, politically? OK.

JFK was a Conservative (set by the far left standards of today), so do you hate JFK?

JFK was no more Conservative than Clinton or Obama.

Seriously you are nuts.

JFK was conservative. Or as I was in those days a classical liberal.

How was JFK a conservative?

JFK was a cold war pragmatic liberal, who favored civil rights and national health care. The far right it trying to claim JFK as the far left is trying to say the GOP would reject Reagan today. Both groups are wrong.

 

[JakeStarkey]

...Keep pissing yourself over the scary muslims. SOme of us have problems in the real world to worry about.

Fine. You're better off tending to them, rather than polluting the board with Surrender Monkey mentality.

You are getting scared again that the left of center to right of center are finding our just how powerless you neo-cons have become. Surrender Monkey? Sonny, what does that even mean, we are so far beyond that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Kaz's style of argumentation is mostly straw man.

He is intellectually lazy.

 

[Vigilante]

...Keep pissing yourself over the scary muslims. SOme of us have problems in the real world to worry about.

Fine. You're better off tending to them, rather than polluting the board with Surrender Monkey mentality.

You are getting scared again that the left of center to right of center are finding our just how powerless you neo-cons have become. Surrender Monkey? Sonny, what does that even mean, we are so far beyond that.

Manchurian Republican, can you gather up a group of your supporters to back up any of your positions?

 

[Steinlight]

The promise to support Poland was a political line in the sand intended to give Hitler pause. What was dumb was sitting by while Germany - in blatant disregard of the Treaty of Versailles - was allowed to rebuild an offensive military.

they didn't sit by. The openly encouraged it.

You see, you have to remember what the Western Democracies were really scared of in 1938. It wasn't Hitler. He was happy to let the rich of Germany keep their shit as long as they weren't Jews, and basically, **** those guys.

No, they were terrified of Stalin and his Third International sending revolutionaries all over the world. They were happy the Axis was keeping Stalin penned in.

You know, kind of like how we gave weapons to a "Freedom Fighter" named Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan. It's not like he'd ever turn on us.

Hitler, keeping Stalin penned in? They both divided up Eastern Europe for themselves. Have you not heard of the Molotov Ribbentrop pact?

The West was right to fear Communism, the Iron Curtain that was formed after the war proved those suspicious of Stalin right.

 

[Kondor3]

...Keep pissing yourself over the scary muslims. SOme of us have problems in the real world to worry about.

Fine. You're better off tending to them, rather than polluting the board with Surrender Monkey mentality.

You are getting scared again that the left of center to right of center are finding our just how powerless you neo-cons have become. Surrender Monkey? Sonny, what does that even mean, we are so far beyond that.

You suffer from a similar delusion to that which Joe is experiencing; namely, that folks who see - and warn of - the dangers inherent in the basic/core teachings of Islam - are, somehow, NeoCons, or brainwashed by Neocons, or Zionists. Your simple-minded child-like delusions are mildly amusing but otherwise unhelpful and a waste of time.