Not gonna debate trans politics here. Yes, he’s progressive on it, but that doesn’t explain why you called them transvestites.
What are you talking about regarding Obama giving an award to Jenner? Cite? Or is this from the same source that you get your false information about Obama on other policies you get the facts wrong about?
You don’t like Obama’s rhetorical strategy, even though he’s been by far the most effective anti terrorist president ever. Fine. Can you at least acknowledge the reasoning behind it, that he is trying to prevent the millions of Muslims in the middle from being less likely to cooperate with anti terrorist forces? Must you take the right wing radio POV on this, or can you acknowledge that good people can disagree on the most effective rhetorical strategy?
As for the crusades, they are absolutely part of a long history of Western intervention in the middle east. They’re not the only reason for radical Islamic terrorism, but western intervention is part of it. You know that this is what Bill Maher believes, right? He’s stated it very clearly multiple times.
So much of what you say about Obama is factually inaccurate that I assume your sources are often faulty. Where did you get the stuff about Obama giving an award to Jenner?
How has Obama been the “most effective anti-terrorist POTUS” any more than Bush? Even with Obama’s rhetoric, global Islamic extremism hasn’t slowed like people thought it would with his “rapproachment” with the Muslim world. And his dishonor of Israel hasn’t helped, even tho he thought “daylight” between allies would somehow make America’s popularity great again in the ME (as if it ever was great in that part of the world, before or after 1948).
I also can’t buy the idea that its somehow wrong to say “Islamic terrorism” because that would insult Muslims. The same people who said that also claimed that “War on Terrorism” cheesed off Muslims. Nothing would be good enough for the white liberals or those Muslims who can’t engage in self-reflection short of “apologizing” for things that happened 1000 yrs ago.
The Crusades were a reaction to the fitnas in which the Abbasid and Fatamid caliphates took over much of southwestern Europe and nearly took France in the late first millenium AD. Those fitnas were unprovoked. That’s just pure history. And in the end, the Muslims “won” the Crusades given how quickly the Crusaders were driven out (much quicker than the Reconquista) and how when they were, the Ottomans not only took Anatolia, they took Southeastern Europe too!
I shoulda also added the Ummayads before Abbasid and Fatamids. And at the Ottoman’s greatest extent, if that were a state today, using this site, it’s population might be bigger than ours. If it were among the pre-Crusade caliphates, it would be even more. Both would have a lot of economic wealth and strategic space to be global superpowers.
We’re arguing about Obamas tone towards Radical Islam, which is to the left of the mainstream and more in line with a lot but not all of progressive Dems.
Why do you think that we should judge the success of the policy based on recognizing that terrorism still exists?
Why do you think that political based denunciations of a religion of hundreds of millions people—the vast majority of whom aren’t terrorists—would improve that result?
What are you talking about when it comes to the Crusades? It’s an issue that riles up people in the Arab world. Acknowledging that fact harms terrorism policy how? And how does the fact that the West lost the Crusades help that argument?
So you are offended that Obama sent a tweet saying something positive about Jenner? What do you think he should be saying instead and what purpose would that serve?
LOL. This sentence should win an award for lamest justification of a factual error.
It’s okay just to say “I made a mistake, he didn’t give her an award”.
Because Obama hasn’t gotten thousands of Americans killed in stupid wars against terrorists like Bush did. Bush made us much, much weaker, while Obama’s policies have greatly strengthened us, in general, even while it’s been far from perfect.
He also killed the mastermind of 9/11 after Bush gave up and said it wasn’t important any more, and killed far more terrorists (without putting Americans in danger) than Bush did.
He hasn’t dishonored Israel – that’s entirely false, and almost to the level of a conspiracy theory. Disagreement with Israel’s President (who isn’t very popular in Israel) isn’t dishonoring the country.
Global opinion of America’s role in the world has increased greatly, throughout the Middle East, Europe, Africa, and Asia. That’s a huge part of the long term fight against extremism.
What a bullshit argument – did you even read what I wrote? Do you accept that there are millions of Muslims who both don’t like the terrorists and aren’t particularly fond of us? Do you accept that there’s some non-zero chance that, depending on the rhetoric of American leadership, they may be more or less likely to cooperate with those fighting against terrorists?
Also, why would it help if Obama used the language you prefer? How does that harm the terrorists? Considering that’s specifically what ISIS wants, why do you want the President to act in the way that ISIS would prefer?
That’s an incredible simplification. The Crusades were stupid wars, often against people that had never attacked Europe in any way. Further, they’re stupid wars that most Muslims still see as Western atrocities. Why would we use language that might increase anger? Why do you want to do ISIS’s job? ISIS wants to increase Muslim anger against the West, and ensure all Muslims see us as their enemy. Why do you want a rhetorical strategy that increases that likelihood?
In short, why is your plan (which coincides with ISIS’s plan) better than Obama’s plan? Shouldn’t we avoid doing what ISIS wants?
**iiandyiiii **already called attention to it, but I find the following admission to be stunning and instructive.
[QUOTE=DerekMichaels00]
The guy gave Bruce Jenner (who has a Y-chromosome) an award. WTF!
[/QUOTE]
“Some people say” that right-wingers and Fauxites have low regard for facts and logic. Perhaps Derek will introspect a bit, and tell us how a tweet transubstantiated into an “award.” Did FoxNews lie to you? Did you have a memory loss? (And if so, could your bigotry have contributed subconsciously to the failure?) Did you remember that it was a tweet but felt that the exaggeration bolstered your case? Are you preaching a “deeper truth” that transcends mere facts?
In any event, do you see that such falsehoods contribute to the low opinions that many of us have of right-wingers and Fauxites?
For now at any rate. Though there appears to be a movement, that I find some of the Sanders’ supporters backing to form a somewhat Tea-Party like “purity test”. When someone like Hillary Clinton gets called a DINO in some quarters, it’s going to be a bit scary for those who are more in the middle.
I wonder if in that instance, then the time would be ripe for a new third party - springing from the center.
I don’t see any daylight whatsoever between President Obama’s tone towards Islam & terrorism and President Bush’s. Was President Bush left of the mainstream and more in line with progressive Dems?
anyone not named GW Bush could’ve taken office and global opinion of America would’ve increased.
Sorry, the terrorists are savages and I have no sympathy for anyone who would ever liken America to them, either before September 11, or after September 11. Suicide bombing in any form, be it by belts, planes, etc. is SAVAGERY and depravity. The end.
Yes, strength, resolve, and clarity are weakness, weakness is strength, resolve, and clarity. Orwellian sounding to me.
DerekMichaels00, what posts are you actually reading? Because what you’re replying to doesn’t appear to be the same thing as what you’re quoting, or what actually shows up in this thread.
Classic ‘bull in a china shop’ thinking. You probably would’ve been right comfortable with TR’s Big Stick diplomacy. But this is the modern world, not the turn of the 20th century.
I know it’s awkward, but we only have one functioning party in the US today. The other is devoted to obstructionism and can continue that way as long as attacks on a Democratic President lead to gains during the midterms. The Democratic Party is a big tent consisting of business and labor. The Republican Party basically persists by leveraging white resentment on behalf of the incomes of the donor class.
The unfortunate part is that the Republicans have successfully smeared an honorable woman. Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy: the attacks on her have been either been bullshit irrelevant to policy or smears that don’t survive scrutiny. But most of the public believes reasonably that where there’s smoke there’s probably some fire. Except in this case there really isn’t.
You have to take on those savages. Every day. Like I do. With my hands.
Islamic terrorism is the biggest potential problem facing the US. You know this. I know this. Every day when I leave my door I keep my eyes peeled for them. And every day they stay hidden. Why? Because they are afraid of me. That’s what keeps the terrorists at bay. Me. And my hands. I have a 110% success rate.
You’re welcome. Fighting terrorism is its own reward.
The ‘Yet’ is the part I was focused on. Some Sanders’ supporters are claiming that they need to primary those who aren’t far left enough - starting with super delegates who are for Clinton in states that went overwhelming to Sanders. Who knows where this leads, but the potential could be akin to what the Tea Party has done on the other side.
