Obama Just Compared Christianity With Islam…At National Prayer Breakfast

[jon_berzerk]

Oh, EuroTroll, you are so sad when you pine for attention, but I'm just not giving it to you.

Get back to me about pining for attention when I average 60 posts a day. Sorry Joey, you're a loser all the way around.

in every aspect

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

Air America turned you into an airhead.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Air America turned you into an airhead.

Like it didn't take rush to make you an asshole air america didn't make me smart.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[kaz]

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?

In what way are they religious? Because they shout slogans?

Yet you argue Timothy McVeigh is a Christian because he said he believes in a non-specific to any religion deity. Yet a group calling themselves the "Islamic State" isn't religion. Care to work up one standard?

 

[kaz]

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.

Air America turned you into an airhead.

Like it didn't take rush to make you an asshole air america didn't make me smart.

Agreed, Air America definitely didn't make you smart

 

[sealybobo]

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?

In what way are they religious? Because they shout slogans?

Yet you argue Timothy McVeigh is a Christian because he said he believes in a non-specific to any religion deity. Yet a group calling themselves the "Islamic State" isn't religion. Care to work up one standard?

Oh isis is a religion alright. They are an athiests best argument against believing in gods.

Theists like to say atheists killed more than theists but they catch up to us one death everytime isis cuts off a head or burns someone alive. That's god.

 

[Kondor3]

Incorrect. I am one person - among many - who understand the dogmatic and philosophical Poison Pill embedded within Islam - rendering it perpetually susceptible to the spawning of new Radicalisms and new Militancies - one who advocates for perpetual skepticism and vigilance and realism in dealing with this unreformed and barbaric religion.

yeah, right, whatever...

No, Joe, it's not "whatever" - it's exactly what I described above.

...You know what the real problem with Muslims is?...

Yes. I outlined it at the macro-level, above. And, because of their underlying dogma, they impose a long-term burden of watchfulness on our part.

...Just like everyone else, they don't like it when you steal their land and blow up their children...

We steal no land from them.

And, until 9-11, we did not blow up their children.

...Maybe we just need to stop doing that shit.

Yeah... until the next Excuse du Jour that they cook up, for their perpetual violence and intolerance and misogyny and backwardness.

What we do now is to serve notice that every attack upon us will be paid back a hundred-fold, or a thousand-fold.

That way, all they need to do, is to do the math, prior to their (Radical, Militant Islam's) next major sortie against The West.

Knock over two of our buildings?

We'll knock over two of your countries.

Kill 3,000 of ours?

We'll kill 300,000 of yours.

We can keep this up a lot longer than you can.

Like I said... all they need to do, is to do the math.

And stop pissing into the wind.

All they get from that is cold, wet, stinky pants-legs.

 

[PGreen]

He has misrepresented himself for years, refused to uphold the laws he swore to uphold. Should we force him to now swear to uphold our laws on the koran?

 

[Kondor3]

Correction: It is a matter of not going into their nest to start with, unless a substantive present-day or future threat exists, which it is in our best interests to squash.

It is not safe for us to slip away back into early 1900s "Isolationist" mode, as you would have us do. The world has changed, and become a much more dangerous place. It's far too late to fall back on old and discredited foreign policy methodologie3s.

Actually, there's a big difference between being an isolationist and getting involved in someone else' civil war...

Agreed.

...In 1900, we were trying to do the exact same thing you advocate today in the Philippines. We sent a huge army over there and fought a ten year war against the Filipinos who didn't want us there. President McKinley, who couldn't even find the Philippines on a globe said that we had to go over there to Christianize them. (Forgetting that 90% of Filipinos were Roman Catholics.) The end result of the thing was a war that killed 4000 Americans and 100,000 Filipinos...

Disagree.

In 1900, we were hip-deep in the earliest phase of a New Era American Imperial Destiny - it is the stuff that the Spanish-American War was made of - and, after seizing the Philippines from the Spanish, we decided to pacify the Philippines so that we could utilize it as a forward military base in the Asian-Pacific theater of operations - devising White Man's Burden -type juicy rationalizations, in order to justify our presence and operations there.

Hell... I view the Spanish-American War, and our seizure of both Cuba and the Philippines, even more harshly and unfavorably than you probably do.

...Flash forward Sixty More years, and we were in Vietnam, trying to prop up a government of French Quislings over Nationalists heroes who happened to be Communists. after killing more than a million Vietnamese and losing 56,000 of our own, we finally got chased out. ...

Oh, stop trying to canonize Ho Chi Minh, will you? Nobody's buying it. At the time, any non-Communist government was preferable to a Communist one, during the days of the Cold War, when every Win and every Loss meant far more for future prospects than we give them credit for now. Nevertheless, we backed a Loser, and it cost us dearly, and was, in that respect, a very great Mistake - but mistaken more for our poor assessment of prospects and outcome than in choosing sides.

...Now, here we are, 50 years after that, 14 years after 9/11. Still trying to win civil wars that have nothing to do with us, a lot of which we caused...

We're out of Afghanistan - or very close to it, and are no longer engaged in independent combat operations.

We're out of Iraq altogether.

The former was a 'righteous shoot' but we should have been in and out in 6 months, not 13 years, and we should have killed bin-Laden et al in Tora Bora.

The latter was an 'un-righteous shoot' that squandered American blood and treasure for no good reason, and it left a vacuum into which ISIS has flowed.

ISIS-ISIL-IS is a threat to Mankind at large.

We did, indeed, have a hand in creating the conditions by which it was spawned and by which it originally prospered, but this was by no means exclusively or even primarily our doing or our fault.

But, with respect to the culpability that we DO have, we owe it to ourselves, and the rest of the world, to participate in its destruction or neutralization.

Consider it 'Aftercare' for Iraq, and 'Preemptive Intervention' for Syria and the rest of that lot.

If, by some chance, the Arab-Muslims of the region manage to get off their dead asses and take care of this themselves, all the better.

But, one way or another, the job needs doing, and, if our so-called Arab allies cannot do this in a timely and decisive manner, we must be prepared to participate far more actively.

ISIS-ISIL-IS is far too dangerous a Beast to allow to thrive... far better to stop Hitler at Munich in 1938, then to limp-wristedly deny the Elephant in the Room.

...

When 6,000,000 of your own People - men, women and children - have been slaughtered - you'll have a place at the table with such a position.

They weren't killed by Palestinians or Arabs. They were killed by Good Christian Germans wearing buckles that said, "Gott Mit Uns". so, no, it isn't an excuse for what they are doing in Palestine...

Who the hell cares about Palestine?

We're talking about ISIS-ISIL-IS... the 10,000 lb Elephant in the Room.

Israel-Palestine is a sideshow in this context... there are much bigger things at stake than the pissant Palestinian knuckle-scrapers.

 

[Liminal]

More proof he is a Muslim.

I would guess you don't actually need any proof, you can always fall back on your opinions.

 

[Kondor3]

More proof he is a Muslim.

I would guess you don't actually need any proof, you can always fall back on your opinions.

Opinions make for an excellent point of departure in most things of a political nature.

 

[Liminal]

More proof he is a Muslim.

I would guess you don't actually need any proof, you can always fall back on your opinions.

Opinions make for an excellent point of departure in most things of a political nature.

In this case a departure from reality.

 

[Kondor3]

More proof he is a Muslim.

I would guess you don't actually need any proof, you can always fall back on your opinions.

Opinions make for an excellent point of departure in most things of a political nature.

In this case a departure from reality.

Probably, but, still, there seems to be a kernel of truth embedded in that unreal perception; namely, that Obumble is far more forgiving and accommodating to Islam than man folks feel an American President should be.

 

[NYcarbineer]

More proof he is a Muslim.

I would guess you don't actually need any proof, you can always fall back on your opinions.

Opinions make for an excellent point of departure in most things of a political nature.

In this case a departure from reality.

Probably, but, still, there seems to be a kernel of truth embedded in that unreal perception; namely, that Obumble is far more forgiving and accommodating to Islam than man folks feel an American President should be.

What has he forgiven?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Correction: It is a matter of not going into their nest to start with, unless a substantive present-day or future threat exists, which it is in our best interests to squash.

It is not safe for us to slip away back into early 1900s "Isolationist" mode, as you would have us do. The world has changed, and become a much more dangerous place. It's far too late to fall back on old and discredited foreign policy methodologie3s.

Actually, there's a big difference between being an isolationist and getting involved in someone else' civil war...

Agreed.

...In 1900, we were trying to do the exact same thing you advocate today in the Philippines. We sent a huge army over there and fought a ten year war against the Filipinos who didn't want us there. President McKinley, who couldn't even find the Philippines on a globe said that we had to go over there to Christianize them. (Forgetting that 90% of Filipinos were Roman Catholics.) The end result of the thing was a war that killed 4000 Americans and 100,000 Filipinos...

Disagree.

In 1900, we were hip-deep in the earliest phase of a New Era American Imperial Destiny - it is the stuff that the Spanish-American War was made of - and, after seizing the Philippines from the Spanish, we decided to pacify the Philippines so that we could utilize it as a forward military base in the Asian-Pacific theater of operations - devising White Man's Burden -type juicy rationalizations, in order to justify our presence and operations there.

Hell... I view the Spanish-American War, and our seizure of both Cuba and the Philippines, even more harshly and unfavorably than you probably do.

...Flash forward Sixty More years, and we were in Vietnam, trying to prop up a government of French Quislings over Nationalists heroes who happened to be Communists. after killing more than a million Vietnamese and losing 56,000 of our own, we finally got chased out. ...

Oh, stop trying to canonize Ho Chi Minh, will you? Nobody's buying it. At the time, any non-Communist government was preferable to a Communist one, during the days of the Cold War, when every Win and every Loss meant far more for future prospects than we give them credit for now. Nevertheless, we backed a Loser, and it cost us dearly, and was, in that respect, a very great Mistake - but mistaken more for our poor assessment of prospects and outcome than in choosing sides.

...Now, here we are, 50 years after that, 14 years after 9/11. Still trying to win civil wars that have nothing to do with us, a lot of which we caused...

We're out of Afghanistan - or very close to it, and are no longer engaged in independent combat operations.

We're out of Iraq altogether.

The former was a 'righteous shoot' but we should have been in and out in 6 months, not 13 years, and we should have killed bin-Laden et al in Tora Bora.

The latter was an 'un-righteous shoot' that squandered American blood and treasure for no good reason, and it left a vacuum into which ISIS has flowed.

ISIS-ISIL-IS is a threat to Mankind at large.

We did, indeed, have a hand in creating the conditions by which it was spawned and by which it originally prospered, but this was by no means exclusively or even primarily our doing or our fault.

But, with respect to the culpability that we DO have, we owe it to ourselves, and the rest of the world, to participate in its destruction or neutralization.

Consider it 'Aftercare' for Iraq, and 'Preemptive Intervention' for Syria and the rest of that lot.

If, by some chance, the Arab-Muslims of the region manage to get off their dead asses and take care of this themselves, all the better.

But, one way or another, the job needs doing, and, if our so-called Arab allies cannot do this in a timely and decisive manner, we must be prepared to participate far more actively.

ISIS-ISIL-IS is far too dangerous a Beast to allow to thrive... far better to stop Hitler at Munich in 1938, then to limp-wristedly deny the Elephant in the Room.

...

When 6,000,000 of your own People - men, women and children - have been slaughtered - you'll have a place at the table with such a position.

They weren't killed by Palestinians or Arabs. They were killed by Good Christian Germans wearing buckles that said, "Gott Mit Uns". so, no, it isn't an excuse for what they are doing in Palestine...

Who the hell cares about Palestine?

We're talking about ISIS-ISIL-IS... the 10,000 lb Elephant in the Room.

Israel-Palestine is a sideshow in this context... there are much bigger things at stake than the pissant Palestinian knuckle-scrapers.

Once again your true self slips out.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Obama is a Muslim, because he won't call all Muslims evil. Got it.

 

[Kondor3]

More proof he is a Muslim.

I would guess you don't actually need any proof, you can always fall back on your opinions.

Opinions make for an excellent point of departure in most things of a political nature.

In this case a departure from reality.

Probably, but, still, there seems to be a kernel of truth embedded in that unreal perception; namely, that Obumble is far more forgiving and accommodating to Islam than man folks feel an American President should be.

What has he forgiven?

Strike that...

Good catch...

Make that '...far more accommodating and willing to make excuses for Islam..."

There.

All fixed.

 

[Liminal]

More proof he is a Muslim.

I would guess you don't actually need any proof, you can always fall back on your opinions.

Opinions make for an excellent point of departure in most things of a political nature.

In this case a departure from reality.

Probably, but, still, there seems to be a kernel of truth embedded in that unreal perception; namely, that Obumble is far more forgiving and accommodating to Islam than man folks feel an American President should be.

And of course that contrived perception just naturally compels some people to say the most ridiculous things they can think of.

 

[NYcarbineer]

...You are the one frothing at the mouth trying to get us into another war.

Incorrect. I am one person - among many - who understand the dogmatic and philosophical Poison Pill embedded within Islam - rendering it perpetually susceptible to the spawning of new Radicalisms and new Militancies - one who advocates for perpetual skepticism and vigilance and realism in dealing with this unreformed and barbaric religion.

lol