Obama slips another one by us: No more guns in plane cockpits ?

[amrchaos]

Let say Obama is anti-gun.

SO?

The thing is :"Is he coming after YOUR guns?"


I thought that planes will have Air Marshalls assigned to them--so it does leave the question of Why should the pilots carry their piece on board. What if one of the pilots go nuts and blow his and his co-pilots Brains out?

On the other hand, what if the Air marshall is an agent of Al qaeda that was able to bury deep into american security all in hopes of crashing a Passenger jet into your House!! I do mean YOUR house!!

What then?

When your block turns into a heap of burning twisted metal and poisonous fumes, I'll send you down the street neigbors marshmellows!!

 

[glockmail]

Let say Obama is anti-gun.

SO?

The thing is :"Is he coming after YOUR guns?"


I thought that planes will have Air Marshalls assigned to them--so it does leave the question of Why should the pilots carry their piece on board. What if one of the pilots go nuts and blow his and his co-pilots Brains out?

On the other hand, what if the Air marshall is an agent of Al qaeda that was able to bury deep into american security all in hopes of crashing a Passenger jet into your House!! I do mean YOUR house!!

What then?

When your block turns into a heap of burning twisted metal and poisonous fumes, I'll send you down the street neigbors marshmellows!!

Wow you're a dumb-****. If the pilot made the qualifications to 1) become an experienced pilot and 2) passed the review required to carry a gun on board, then 3) suddenly turned nut-bag as you suggest, what's to stop him from sneaking a weapon on board illegally?

 

[007]

Take out Biden then we'll have Peolsi. Holy shit are we screwed.

Yeah we're screwed for the next four years no matter HOW you look at it. All we can hope for is for the conservatives to retake the majority next year, and I full expect that to happen. The latest polls show it.

We, as the collective voters, need to get screwed.

I agree completely. The American voter enlarge seems to be a rather ignorant, gullible sort. Had someone the day after 9/11 said, "our next Presidents name will be BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA," people would have called that person a stark, raving, lunatic. But look what we have. And so people voted all these filthy, stinking, spend drunk, liberals into power, AND LOOK WHAT WE HAVE! People only have themselves to blame for the mess we're in. People need to learn the HARD away it appears. So again, yes, I agree with you.

 

[Toome]

I was initially opposed to the FFDO program because we already had the FAM program in place. However, you can't argue with history and facts. There are incidents of FAMs falling asleep on the job, perhaps overreacting to an incident and/or not reacting at all, and some have even been on the job under the influence of alcohol. There hasn't been anything, to my knowledge, negative about the FFDOs nor would I expect there to be. They are airline pilots first and foremost and act accordingly. Not advocating ending the FAM program; just pointing out that when you compare the two, there are several negative incidents involving FAMs and none involving FFDOs. Yet it's the FFDO program that is being cut. Go figure.

BTW, FFDOs are not law enforcement officers. They are pilots who are authorized to use deadly force as a defense against attacks that threaten the lives of crew and passengers. I can't see the wisdom behind letting this program die on the vine and wither away. I can't see the wisdom behind letting this become public knowledge. Letting potential terrorists know that now there is nothing to fear in the cockpit only gives them the advantage and puts pilots, their crews and their passengers at a disadvantage.

While I'd like something more than just an editorial to go on, I don't think the Washington Times would post this editorial without facts to back them up. And given that a full day has gone by since this was made public and that there are no denials or clarifications made by the White House, this suggests that this editorial is more truth than fiction.

I anticipated that President Obama might change some of the policies from the previous administration. Never thought he'd turn the tables around and give the advantage back to the terrorists.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

give the advantage back to the terrorists.

But they're not terrorists anymore. That term isn't allowed. I substitute "neighbors with a beef" until they come up with the official new term.

 

[glockmail]

I agree completely. The American voter enlarge seems to be a rather ignorant, gullible sort. Had someone the day after 9/11 said, "our next Presidents name will be BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA," people would have called that person a stark, raving, lunatic. But look what we have. And so people voted all these filthy, stinking, spend drunk, liberals into power, AND LOOK WHAT WE HAVE! People only have themselves to blame for the mess we're in. People need to learn the HARD away it appears. So again, yes, I agree with you.

After the last election I dared these liberals to go hard left, as fast as they can, and sure enough, they are. The American voter can either take it up the ass or rebel. If there is a rebellion, make it long and bloody. I've got plenty of bullets, and would love to have a few hundred Democrat scalps hanging up on the back of my wood shed.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You're such an asshole and an idiot. Its obvious from this post that you think that the US pilots who were on 9-11 were cowards.

The official policy of the airlines prior to 9-11 was for their flight personnel NOT to oppose hijackers and to give them whatever they asked for, without even getting proof that they really were armed. If someone held up a teddy bear and said, "There's a grenade in here; fly us to Havana", they were instructed to just take their word for it and do it. This is because prior to 9-11, it wasn't expected that hijackers actually WANTED to kill everyone on the plane as their primary objective, so the airlines were willing to eat whatever costs in order to get as many people out safely as possible. A pilot violating this policy would have found himself summarily fired.

And you're right. Kitten IS an asshole and an idiot.

while i agree with most of your post, i disagree with the last line

Go ahead. It's an opinion, and everyone's free to have one.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Let say Obama is anti-gun.

SO?

The thing is :"Is he coming after YOUR guns?"


I thought that planes will have Air Marshalls assigned to them--so it does leave the question of Why should the pilots carry their piece on board. What if one of the pilots go nuts and blow his and his co-pilots Brains out?

On the other hand, what if the Air marshall is an agent of Al qaeda that was able to bury deep into american security all in hopes of crashing a Passenger jet into your House!! I do mean YOUR house!!

What then?

When your block turns into a heap of burning twisted metal and poisonous fumes, I'll send you down the street neigbors marshmellows!!

Wow you're a dumb-****. If the pilot made the qualifications to 1) become an experienced pilot and 2) passed the review required to carry a gun on board, then 3) suddenly turned nut-bag as you suggest, what's to stop him from sneaking a weapon on board illegally?

Or from flying the big ******* weapon he's already been trusted with - aka the passenger jet full of people - into a building? We've arleady seen how effective THAT is in the hands of nuts.

 

[Ravi]

I was initially opposed to the FFDO program because we already had the FAM program in place. However, you can't argue with history and facts. There are incidents of FAMs falling asleep on the job, perhaps overreacting to an incident and/or not reacting at all, and some have even been on the job under the influence of alcohol. There hasn't been anything, to my knowledge, negative about the FFDOs nor would I expect there to be. They are airline pilots first and foremost and act accordingly. Not advocating ending the FAM program; just pointing out that when you compare the two, there are several negative incidents involving FAMs and none involving FFDOs. Yet it's the FFDO program that is being cut. Go figure.

BTW, FFDOs are not law enforcement officers. They are pilots who are authorized to use deadly force as a defense against attacks that threaten the lives of crew and passengers. I can't see the wisdom behind letting this program die on the vine and wither away. I can't see the wisdom behind letting this become public knowledge. Letting potential terrorists know that now there is nothing to fear in the cockpit only gives them the advantage and puts pilots, their crews and their passengers at a disadvantage.

While I'd like something more than just an editorial to go on, I don't think the Washington Times would post this editorial without facts to back them up. And given that a full day has gone by since this was made public and that there are no denials or clarifications made by the White House, this suggests that this editorial is more truth than fiction.

I anticipated that President Obama might change some of the policies from the previous administration. Never thought he'd turn the tables around and give the advantage back to the terrorists.

Here you go:

Federal officials are denying a report that the Obama administration is seeking to end a program that allows trained airline pilots to carry guns.
In an editorial published Tuesday in The Washington Times, the newspaper wrote that "President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology."
Sterling Payne, a spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration, denied the report and said the program that oversees a reported 12,000 federal flight deck officers (FFDO) is actually expanding.
"It's inaccurate, this program continues to grow," Payne told FOXNews.com of the editorial. "TSA continues to recruit and put new FFDOs on planes, and we continue to train them and do recurring training."

Federal Officials Deny Report That Obama Seeks to End Pilot Gun Program - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com

Now we should question both the Washington Times and the posters on this thread on their motives for passing along disinformation and wonder why they would wish to make terrorists think our aviation system is easy pickings.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

I agree completely. The American voter enlarge seems to be a rather ignorant, gullible sort. Had someone the day after 9/11 said, "our next Presidents name will be BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA," people would have called that person a stark, raving, lunatic. But look what we have. And so people voted all these filthy, stinking, spend drunk, liberals into power, AND LOOK WHAT WE HAVE! People only have themselves to blame for the mess we're in. People need to learn the HARD away it appears. So again, yes, I agree with you.

After the last election I dared these liberals to go hard left, as fast as they can, and sure enough, they are. The American voter can either take it up the ass or rebel. If there is a rebellion, make it long and bloody. I've got plenty of bullets, and would love to have a few hundred Democrat scalps hanging up on the back of my wood shed.

That's really fucked up. Like people say, the criminals will have guns either way.

Why is the government so stupid? What did the pilots do to provoke this dumb law? Did they shoot a passenger, the copilot, anyone? Did they threaten anyone? No. This is another attempt to "bring down taxes" by not having protection for pilots if something ever, God forbid, happened on another airplane. Does he not care if there is another 9/11? Does he not want our pilots to be able to protect themselves? And yet another wonderful idea from our government. Way to go.

You KNOW terrorists look at things we do here in this country with disbelief. So we made it harder for them to hijack a plane. Now we turn around and make it easier again. They have to look at each other when shit like this happens and LAUGH! "Those STUPID Americans!" That's why the terrorists are always pulling for the liberals to be in charge here in America, because it's ALWAYS the LIBERALS that pull stupid shit like this.

I'd be interested in finding out. I'm sure there is a small minority that thinks as you say, but my guess is most Muslims just think they're less likely to be invaded and bombed under a liberal President. There are certainly extremists who want to destroy us, but I have my doubts it's normally because they hate the fact that we have "freedom." It's because they hate how we interfere with their affairs and support their worst enemy (Israel). I am not sure if they would immediately stop attacking us if we stopped actions that appear to be attempts to destroy Islam, or if it would take generations.

 

[Toome]

I was initially opposed to the FFDO program because we already had the FAM program in place. However, you can't argue with history and facts. There are incidents of FAMs falling asleep on the job, perhaps overreacting to an incident and/or not reacting at all, and some have even been on the job under the influence of alcohol. There hasn't been anything, to my knowledge, negative about the FFDOs nor would I expect there to be. They are airline pilots first and foremost and act accordingly. Not advocating ending the FAM program; just pointing out that when you compare the two, there are several negative incidents involving FAMs and none involving FFDOs. Yet it's the FFDO program that is being cut. Go figure.

BTW, FFDOs are not law enforcement officers. They are pilots who are authorized to use deadly force as a defense against attacks that threaten the lives of crew and passengers. I can't see the wisdom behind letting this program die on the vine and wither away. I can't see the wisdom behind letting this become public knowledge. Letting potential terrorists know that now there is nothing to fear in the cockpit only gives them the advantage and puts pilots, their crews and their passengers at a disadvantage.

While I'd like something more than just an editorial to go on, I don't think the Washington Times would post this editorial without facts to back them up. And given that a full day has gone by since this was made public and that there are no denials or clarifications made by the White House, this suggests that this editorial is more truth than fiction.

I anticipated that President Obama might change some of the policies from the previous administration. Never thought he'd turn the tables around and give the advantage back to the terrorists.

Here you go:

Federal officials are denying a report that the Obama administration is seeking to end a program that allows trained airline pilots to carry guns.
In an editorial published Tuesday in The Washington Times, the newspaper wrote that "President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology."
Sterling Payne, a spokeswoman for the Transportation Security Administration, denied the report and said the program that oversees a reported 12,000 federal flight deck officers (FFDO) is actually expanding.
"It's inaccurate, this program continues to grow," Payne told FOXNews.com of the editorial. "TSA continues to recruit and put new FFDOs on planes, and we continue to train them and do recurring training."

Federal Officials Deny Report That Obama Seeks to End Pilot Gun Program - Presidential Politics | Political News - FOXNews.com

Now we should question both the Washington Times and the posters on this thread on their motives for passing along disinformation and wonder why they would wish to make terrorists think our aviation system is easy pickings.

Agreed that the Washington Times now has egg on its face for publishing this editorial; however, I wonder if there's some protection because it was an editorial as opposed to a news story.

As for the posters who responded, I don't hold it against them for responding. Thus is the nature of the internet.

And I don't fault people for wondering just what the hell President Obama is thinking these days. The Director of DHS has publicly stated that she will use the term "man-caused disasters" instead of terrorism; and the Obama administration is already going on record abandoning the term "enemy combatant" (which, by the way, was NOT the Bush administration's term; the correct term was "illegal combatant"). Given the trend in other areas of pursuing a socialist agenda, I wouldn't be so quick to defend President Obama. The seed of doubt is already there as a result of his own actions and decisions.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Now we should question both the Washington Times and the posters on this thread on their motives for passing along disinformation and wonder why they would wish to make terrorists think our aviation system is easy pickings.

Ahhh... The administration has denied the allegations. That should settle the question completely.

It's now up to the Times to either reveal their sources or print a retraction/apology.

 

[DiveCon]

Now we should question both the Washington Times and the posters on this thread on their motives for passing along disinformation and wonder why they would wish to make terrorists think our aviation system is easy pickings.

Ahhh... The administration has denied the allegations. That should settle the question completely.

It's now up to the Times to either reveal their sources or print a retraction/apology.

yeah, just like they denied knowing about the AIG bonus crap

 

[Cecilie1200]

I agree completely. The American voter enlarge seems to be a rather ignorant, gullible sort. Had someone the day after 9/11 said, "our next Presidents name will be BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA," people would have called that person a stark, raving, lunatic. But look what we have. And so people voted all these filthy, stinking, spend drunk, liberals into power, AND LOOK WHAT WE HAVE! People only have themselves to blame for the mess we're in. People need to learn the HARD away it appears. So again, yes, I agree with you.

After the last election I dared these liberals to go hard left, as fast as they can, and sure enough, they are. The American voter can either take it up the ass or rebel. If there is a rebellion, make it long and bloody. I've got plenty of bullets, and would love to have a few hundred Democrat scalps hanging up on the back of my wood shed.

That's really fucked up. Like people say, the criminals will have guns either way.

Why is the government so stupid? What did the pilots do to provoke this dumb law? Did they shoot a passenger, the copilot, anyone? Did they threaten anyone? No. This is another attempt to "bring down taxes" by not having protection for pilots if something ever, God forbid, happened on another airplane. Does he not care if there is another 9/11? Does he not want our pilots to be able to protect themselves? And yet another wonderful idea from our government. Way to go.

You KNOW terrorists look at things we do here in this country with disbelief. So we made it harder for them to hijack a plane. Now we turn around and make it easier again. They have to look at each other when shit like this happens and LAUGH! "Those STUPID Americans!" That's why the terrorists are always pulling for the liberals to be in charge here in America, because it's ALWAYS the LIBERALS that pull stupid shit like this.

I'd be interested in finding out. I'm sure there is a small minority that thinks as you say, but my guess is most Muslims just think they're less likely to be invaded and bombed under a liberal President. There are certainly extremists who want to destroy us, but I have my doubts it's normally because they hate the fact that we have "freedom." It's because they hate how we interfere with their affairs and support their worst enemy (Israel). I am not sure if they would immediately stop attacking us if we stopped actions that appear to be attempts to destroy Islam, or if it would take generations.

HE was talking about terrorists. What the hell are YOU talking about "most Muslims" for? What are you, some sort of bigot, that you think they're interchangeable terms?

 

[LiveUninhibited]

After the last election I dared these liberals to go hard left, as fast as they can, and sure enough, they are. The American voter can either take it up the ass or rebel. If there is a rebellion, make it long and bloody. I've got plenty of bullets, and would love to have a few hundred Democrat scalps hanging up on the back of my wood shed.

That's really fucked up. Like people say, the criminals will have guns either way.

You KNOW terrorists look at things we do here in this country with disbelief. So we made it harder for them to hijack a plane. Now we turn around and make it easier again. They have to look at each other when shit like this happens and LAUGH! "Those STUPID Americans!" That's why the terrorists are always pulling for the liberals to be in charge here in America, because it's ALWAYS the LIBERALS that pull stupid shit like this.

I'd be interested in finding out. I'm sure there is a small minority that thinks as you say, but my guess is most Muslims just think they're less likely to be invaded and bombed under a liberal President. There are certainly extremists who want to destroy us, but I have my doubts it's normally because they hate the fact that we have "freedom." It's because they hate how we interfere with their affairs and support their worst enemy (Israel). I am not sure if they would immediately stop attacking us if we stopped actions that appear to be attempts to destroy Islam, or if it would take generations.

HE was talking about terrorists. What the hell are YOU talking about "most Muslims" for? What are you, some sort of bigot, that you think they're interchangeable terms?

Just put me on ignore, you ******* *****. I covered both in my post. Terrorist would be equivalent to extremist. Bolded above in case anybody else is as ******* dense as you are.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That's really fucked up. Like people say, the criminals will have guns either way.



I'd be interested in finding out. I'm sure there is a small minority that thinks as you say, but my guess is most Muslims just think they're less likely to be invaded and bombed under a liberal President. There are certainly extremists who want to destroy us, but I have my doubts it's normally because they hate the fact that we have "freedom." It's because they hate how we interfere with their affairs and support their worst enemy (Israel). I am not sure if they would immediately stop attacking us if we stopped actions that appear to be attempts to destroy Islam, or if it would take generations.

HE was talking about terrorists. What the hell are YOU talking about "most Muslims" for? What are you, some sort of bigot, that you think they're interchangeable terms?

Just put me on ignore, you ******* *****. I covered both in my post. Terrorist would be equivalent to extremist. Bolded above in case anybody else is as ******* dense as you are.

Put you on ignore? And miss seeing you get all defensive and froth at the mouth when you're called on your worthless bullshit? Not hardly, Punkin. You're one of my favorite liberal toys, because you're just so damned easy.

And WHY was it you covered both in your post? No one mentioned Muslims but you, but for some reason, you felt you HAD to include a defense of them against accusations no one offered. So who's ******* dense here, Sweet Cheeks? Guess that would be you, not realizing what you just revealed about yourself.

Like I said, so damned easy.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

HE was talking about terrorists. What the hell are YOU talking about "most Muslims" for? What are you, some sort of bigot, that you think they're interchangeable terms?

Just put me on ignore, you ******* *****. I covered both in my post. Terrorist would be equivalent to extremist. Bolded above in case anybody else is as ******* dense as you are.

Put you on ignore? And miss seeing you get all defensive and froth at the mouth when you're called on your worthless bullshit? Not hardly, Punkin. You're one of my favorite liberal toys, because you're just so damned easy.

LOL. Just because I call you a ******* ***** doesn't mean you got to me. What kind of sadistic sicko are you? I'm generally more tactful than I was in that post, but you cross the troll line in almost every post. So damned easy? No idea what you mean. I don't have a problem with people who disagree with me. My main problem is while I don't value what you have to say, I feel the need to respond to address your assertions for the benefit of others. If I had an ignore list, you'd be the first on it.

And WHY was it you covered both in your post?

The post I was responding to conjectured that the terrorists like liberals because they make it easy for them to attack us. 80-90% of the world wanted Obama to win, especially the Muslim countries, so there's reason to question that conjecture unless you believe the world is full of terrorists. Not talking about Islam when talking about Islamic terrorists would be like not talking about Christians when Christian extremists/terrorists bomb abortion clinics. Islam is a huge aspect of their lives. So we might want to consider what makes some of them extremists and what makes most of them moderates. Whether they would attack us with the same determination and numbers if we stopped harassing them is an important question.

No one mentioned Muslims but you, but for some reason, you felt you HAD to include a defense of them against accusations no one offered. So who's ******* dense here, Sweet Cheeks? Guess that would be you, not realizing what you just revealed about yourself.

Like I said, so damned easy.

You're very impressed with yourself, aren't you? I think if anybody is bigotted against Islam, it's people who think it produces people who would want to kill us only because they hate freedom.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Just put me on ignore, you ******* *****. I covered both in my post. Terrorist would be equivalent to extremist. Bolded above in case anybody else is as ******* dense as you are.

Put you on ignore? And miss seeing you get all defensive and froth at the mouth when you're called on your worthless bullshit? Not hardly, Punkin. You're one of my favorite liberal toys, because you're just so damned easy.

LOL. Just because I call you a ******* ***** doesn't mean you got to me. What kind of sadistic sicko are you? I'm generally more tactful than I was in that post, but you cross the troll line in almost every post.

Oh, yeah. "Just put me on ignore, you ******* *****" REALLY sounds like you're just casually laughing and I didn't get to you.

So damned easy? No idea what you mean.

Suuuuure you don't.

What I mean is that it's so easy to get you spitting and foaming and tripping over your own lies to try to cover your ass. You're like a dancing chicken on a hot stove.

I don't have a problem with people who disagree with me.

Yeah, I'll bet you call your wife a "******* *****" while you're making love. You probably don't have to bother telling her to "just ignore" you, though.

My main problem is while I don't value what you have to say, I feel the need to respond to address your assertions for the benefit of others. If I had an ignore list, you'd be the first on it.

Your main problem is actually that I don't value what YOU have to say, and make it painfully obvious to everyone that there's no reason I should. If you really didn't value what I say, you wouldn't feel it was worth the effort of addressing it for others.

Whereas I answer you just for the entertainment value of watching you pitch a hissy fit.

And WHY was it you covered both in your post?

The post I was responding to conjectured that the terrorists like liberals because they make it easy for them to attack us. 80-90% of the world wanted Obama to win, especially the Muslim countries, so there's reason to question that conjecture unless you believe the world is full of terrorists.

So what you're saying is that the other poster was actually saying that everyone who wanted Obama to win was a terrorist? But I notice you didn't feel the need to defend WASP liberals from any accusations of terrorism. For that matter, did he even specifically mention Obama's election, or did he just mention dumbass policy decisions? I still see YOU, and only you, automatically associating "Muslim" with "terrorist".

Not talking about Islam when talking about Islamic terrorists would be like not talking about Christians when Christian extremists/terrorists bomb abortion clinics.

Was he talking only about Islamic terrorists? They certainly aren't the only terrorists in teh world, although they're the most prominent at the moment. And even if he was, why does the fact that they're Islamic automatically translate to "all Muslims" to you? I'M certainly aware that not all Muslims are terrorists, and certainly don't jump to the conclusion that a statement made about terrorists MUST have been aimed at all Muslims. So we're back to YOU being a bigot.

Islam is a huge aspect of their lives. So we might want to consider what makes some of them extremists and what makes most of them moderates. Whether they would attack us with the same determination and numbers if we stopped harassing them is an important question.

Feel free to find out what makes terrorists tick, but you might want to start by not assuming all Muslims are terrorists. And none of this changes the fact that YOU were the only one who assumed that the two were interchangeable.

No one mentioned Muslims but you, but for some reason, you felt you HAD to include a defense of them against accusations no one offered. So who's ******* dense here, Sweet Cheeks? Guess that would be you, not realizing what you just revealed about yourself.

Like I said, so damned easy.

You're very impressed with yourself, aren't you? I think if anybody is bigotted against Islam, it's people who think it produces people who would want to kill us only because they hate freedom.

Well, I'm more impressed with myself than I am with you. On the other hand, I'm more impressed with my navel lint than I am with you.

And by your own definition, you're STILL the only one who has been a bigot here.

 

[LiveUninhibited]

Put you on ignore? And miss seeing you get all defensive and froth at the mouth when you're called on your worthless bullshit? Not hardly, Punkin. You're one of my favorite liberal toys, because you're just so damned easy.

LOL. Just because I call you a ******* ***** doesn't mean you got to me. What kind of sadistic sicko are you? I'm generally more tactful than I was in that post, but you cross the troll line in almost every post.

Oh, yeah. "Just put me on ignore, you ******* *****" REALLY sounds like you're just casually laughing and I didn't get to you.



Suuuuure you don't.

What I mean is that it's so easy to get you spitting and foaming and tripping over your own lies to try to cover your ass. You're like a dancing chicken on a hot stove.



Yeah, I'll bet you call your wife a "******* *****" while you're making love. You probably don't have to bother telling her to "just ignore" you, though.



Your main problem is actually that I don't value what YOU have to say, and make it painfully obvious to everyone that there's no reason I should. If you really didn't value what I say, you wouldn't feel it was worth the effort of addressing it for others.

Whereas I answer you just for the entertainment value of watching you pitch a hissy fit.



So what you're saying is that the other poster was actually saying that everyone who wanted Obama to win was a terrorist? But I notice you didn't feel the need to defend WASP liberals from any accusations of terrorism. For that matter, did he even specifically mention Obama's election, or did he just mention dumbass policy decisions? I still see YOU, and only you, automatically associating "Muslim" with "terrorist".



Was he talking only about Islamic terrorists? They certainly aren't the only terrorists in teh world, although they're the most prominent at the moment. And even if he was, why does the fact that they're Islamic automatically translate to "all Muslims" to you? I'M certainly aware that not all Muslims are terrorists, and certainly don't jump to the conclusion that a statement made about terrorists MUST have been aimed at all Muslims. So we're back to YOU being a bigot.



Feel free to find out what makes terrorists tick, but you might want to start by not assuming all Muslims are terrorists. And none of this changes the fact that YOU were the only one who assumed that the two were interchangeable.

No one mentioned Muslims but you, but for some reason, you felt you HAD to include a defense of them against accusations no one offered. So who's ******* dense here, Sweet Cheeks? Guess that would be you, not realizing what you just revealed about yourself.

Like I said, so damned easy.

You're very impressed with yourself, aren't you? I think if anybody is bigotted against Islam, it's people who think it produces people who would want to kill us only because they hate freedom.

Well, I'm more impressed with myself than I am with you. On the other hand, I'm more impressed with my navel lint than I am with you.

And by your own definition, you're STILL the only one who has been a bigot here.

Okay you win. I am a total bigot. Will you shut the **** up now?

 

[glockmail]

...
That's really fucked up. Like people say, the criminals will have guns either way.

.

The Tories called the Patriots criminals also, so it depends who wins, don't it? Take a guess on who it would be, conservatives with guns, or liberals with signs?