Obama '08?

Haven't seen any indications of that, okie. It's probably more likely that he didn't want to go shoot fellow Moslems, a fairly common kind of stumbling block for a lot of people--as for example a lot of Americans in various contexts have mentioned over the years they'd have a lot of problems shooting fellow Americans (wouldn't you?)

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

The chickens DID come home to roost on 9/11. That is an entirely accurate statement, for US meddling in the Middle East is part of the reason 9/11 happened. This isn't even debatable.Cycloptichorn

I did not address this statement of yours very well after you made it, but I think it is appropriate for all on this forum to read this again, digest it, and I would like to comment on it again.

Cyclops, first of all, do you realize how extreme and what company this places you in terms of your opinion, if you actually believe what you wrote? I have to ask you, do you actually believe what you wrote? If you do, it needs to be part of the record here, and I hope you realize where that places you in terms of the company you are in, such as the likes of the whacko, Jeremiah Wright, none other than the religious and political mentor of Barack Obama for many many years. And when he said those crazy things to his Chicago congregation, ranting about the chickens coming home to roost, even Obama claimed he never heard those words, although I doubt personally that Obama was telling the truth in his denials.

I don't know about other people on this forum, but I am pretty disgusted with your attitude. I do not think those people in New York deserved to die, as you seem to be implying by suggesting that this country brought it upon us, it was our fault. It is frankly insulting, cyclops, to think there are people like you with sympathies toward terrorists. Then again, I do not know if you actually understand what you wrote, or you are so consumed with your liberal leftist indoctrination that your kneejerk reaction is to "blame America first." Whatever it is, it displays a shallowness and naivity, and mindset that is not only sad, but also dangerous.

1 Reply

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

spendius wrote:

You don't even read or understand what has been said before you rush in blurting insults and invective fatuities.

Generally why most people have him on ignore.

As I have processed him, Cyclo and Setanta of late, and man do I feel refreshed!

0 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

I remember a time, not too long ago, when I defended the President and a bunch of people would criticize him every day. Blowing every little thing he did out of proportion and trying their very best to show what a bad guy he was. Now, the tables have turned and those that would attack the President daily are now defending, with the very same vigor and almost the same vocabulary, a President that has made many mistakes so far, accomplished very little and yet he is staunchly held up to the lowest possible standards by those that expected the very best from the last President.

*tsk*

So do I, and I also remember thinking that the silver lining of a Democratic victory in 2008 would be that I would be able to move from defense to offense.

It's a meager spoil but I like it.

I fully appreciate that a more noble personage would refrain from taking up the practices he condemned, but I'm merely a peasant.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

Haven't seen any indications of that, okie. It's probably more likely that he didn't want to go shoot fellow Moslems, a fairly common kind of stumbling block for a lot of people--as for example a lot of Americans in various contexts have mentioned over the years they'd have a lot of problems shooting fellow Americans (wouldn't you?)

Then maybe you need to do a better job of staying current, Monterey? For example, this is just one paragraph of one story:

"At least six months ago, Hasan came to the attention of law enforcement officials because of Internet postings about suicide bombings and other threats, including posts that equated suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the lives of their comrades."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572509,00.html

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

MontereyJack wrote:

Haven't seen any indications of that, okie. It's probably more likely that he didn't want to go shoot fellow Moslems, a fairly common kind of stumbling block for a lot of people--as for example a lot of Americans in various contexts have mentioned over the years they'd have a lot of problems shooting fellow Americans (wouldn't you?)

Then maybe you need to do a better job of staying current, Monterey? For example, this is just one paragraph of one story:

"At least six months ago, Hasan came to the attention of law enforcement officials because of Internet postings about suicide bombings and other threats, including posts that equated suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the lives of their comrades."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572509,00.html

okie my friend

Why do we stay engaged in this forum?

0 Replies

okie and Finn, did you guys miss the next sentence of that news story, or did you omit it intentionally?
"They had not determined for certain whether Hasan is the author of the posting, and a formal investigation had not been opened before the shooting, said law enforcement officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the case."

1 Reply

Do you guys ever actually read anything you cite? Nothing in that article gives an indication that he had terrorist leanings. The contrary, in fact.

0 Replies

That's muddying the real issues with facts, MJ.

2 Replies

@snood,

While I dont know, and wont speculate, about what (if any) ties this shooter had with any radical groups, he IS a terrorist.
Ho opened fire on UNARMED people, including women and children.
That, in my eyes, makes him a terrorist.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

That generally makes him a murderer.

Personally, I think calling people "terrorists", like they're something more than common criminals, lends them legitimacy.

Terrorists are simply organized crime, but the focus is body count, not money.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

What can we expect from okie when his news source is FOX News?

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

cyclo wrote:

I'd say that the biggest difference, is that Obama is a smart guy who is dealing with a Congress which resists his plans, whereas Bush was a ******* idiot who had 6 years of a totally compliant Congress -

Yeah, right, Obama is real smart guy...who doesn't know the difference between the Presidential Medal of Freedom (which he awarded Medicine Crow two months ago) and the Congressional Medal of Honor (which no one has ever awarded Medicine Crow). Had Bush made the same error you and most every other left-winger would have been shouting from the rooftop that he's an idiot.

As for the rest of your comparison, you're off your usual game. Bush, with his small majority in Congress, never had the open field that Obama enjoys to accomplish his objectives. Can't believe you even tried to draw that comparison.

1 Reply

@slkshock7,

Who gives one crap about "medals." Bush started two wars, ended none, and put our economy into the worst recession since the great depression. Those are firsts that no other president can beat.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

But Obama's only been in office for 9 months....give him time...he's got more than 3 years to drive this nation into the crapper....and he's certainly done a good job of it so far.

1 Reply

@slkshock7,

I've not been a big fan of Obama, so what he's able to ruin or accomplish will be strictly up to him. I don't try to forecast future events any more than I try to guess how the stock market will perform from day to day.

Obama also has three years to repair much of Bush's destructions, but don't forget that it took Bush eight years.

One more thing: the republicans are out to destroy Obama. I hope they end up destroying themselves.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

If they do the Dems will have to split or you'll have to face up to a one party state.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Not necessarily; a third party can be born out of this chaos.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

okie and Finn, did you guys miss the next sentence of that news story, or did you omit it intentionally?
"They had not determined for certain whether Hasan is the author of the posting, and a formal investigation had not been opened before the shooting, said law enforcement officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the case."

Monterey Jack, nobody said anything was known for sure, and much more investigation needs to be done, but I simply pointed out that some evidence of possibilities was beginning to emerge, thats all, and I think it is entirely appropriate to be informed about what is beginning to be found. This seems so simply obvious to me, and why it is so difficult for some people to grasp, such as apparently you, I cannot explain it.

I will not make any wagers, but I think when all the investigations are done, I am comfortable with the chances that I may not end up being too far off the mark with my comments and suspicions so far.

1 Reply

@okie,

I noticed one of my guesses may have turned out pretty close:

okie wrote:

We do not know all the details, but I suspect there may be parallels. For example, I think we may find the guy may be connected with terrorist connections, also he opposed the wars because America was an aggressor against the peoples of the Middle East and against Islam, perhaps, I am guessing here but I think I might be close. ....

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/06/national/main5553466.shtml

"A classmate of the Fort Hood shooting suspect says Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was an outspoken opponent of the U.S. war on terror and called it a "war against Islam.""

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know