03-09-16 11:18 PM
567 ... 1415161718 ...
tools
  1. leglace1's Avatar
    This from the one person who believed the Iraq invasion was a reasonable answer to 9/11. Worry less about who laughs at you. That isn't what matters. Kudos on spelling Iran correctly though.
    "The one person"? I caught that. You realize that the polls showed that the public had supported it. I also caught how you conveniently throw the talking point about connecting it to 9/11. That was not how the threat was presented. We were emotional and reeling from being attacked by ideologues in the middle east. The country united behind our president and our military. We had an enemy in Saddam at the time who was pretty unhappy with us. A threat is a threat. The majority of the country trusted Colin Powell, who by the way sold it, and our Congress when they agree with the president. It was convenient timing. I love how people conveniently act like they knew all along. Most who opposed it did so because they did not think the threat presented was justified, which I disagree. The problem wasn't that I supported the action to be on the offensive to not allow unstable governments to build up unconventional weapon stockpiles, including biological (I believe Zika virus was a result of a biological weapon) and wait for one of our allies to be on the defensive. The problem was being lied to about supposed intel.
    That was the moment in my lifetime I absolutely knew our government is capable of lying at such a massive scale. To act like you knew all this all along is hard to swallow. Suspicious, sure I would buy however.

    Posted via CB10
    02-21-16 08:55 AM
  2. grover5's Avatar
    "The one person"? I caught that. You realize that the polls showed that the public had supported it. I also caught how you conveniently throw the talking point about connecting it to 9/11. That was not how the threat was presented. We were emotional and reeling from being attacked by ideologues in the middle east. The country united behind our president and our military. We had an enemy in Saddam at the time who was pretty unhappy with us. A threat is a threat. The majority of the country trusted Colin Powell, who by the way sold it, and our Congress when they agree with the president. It was convenient timing. I love how people conveniently act like they knew all along. Most who opposed it did so because they did not think the threat presented was justified, which I disagree. The problem wasn't that I supported the action to be on the offensive to not allow unstable governments to build up unconventional weapon stockpiles, including biological (I believe Zika virus was a result of a biological weapon) and wait for one of our allies to be on the defensive. The problem was being lied to about supposed intel.
    That was the moment in my lifetime I absolutely knew our government is capable of lying at such a massive scale. To act like you knew all this all along is hard to swallow. Suspicious, sure I would buy however.

    Posted via CB10
    I did know all along as did anyone paying attention. Sadam hated al quaeda more than we did. You weren't paying attention. Like you said you were emotional and trusting in your republican leaders. Its the exact reason you use their talking points when discussing the iran deal. You need to be told what to think. Sorry. No more foreign policy talk from you.
    02-21-16 09:30 AM
  3. SeeBeeEss's Avatar
    Who is your US presidential candidate?-paulsen.jpg

    Unfortunately, Pat Paulsen died in 1997 and even though Donald Trump is a lot like "Pat," he's just not as musical!

    Paulsen's campaigns used obvious lies, double talk, and tongue-in-cheek attacks on the major candidates, and he responded to all criticism with his catchphrase "Picky, picky, picky". His campaign slogan was "Just a common, ordinary, simple savior of America's destiny."
    02-21-16 09:31 AM
  4. grover5's Avatar
    Although I am not choosing sides in this debate, I want to point out two things in regard to your statement that make it not at all surprising.

    1) People are drawn to like minded people, thus, you will seek out and associate with those who have the same beliefs and ideologue as yourself. There is a comfort in group think.

    2) Because all, or at least all most all the facts, of the events leading up to and after the Iraq war are now out, it's much easier to choose the pertinent view on it's appropriateness.

    Therefore, views on the Iraq war, and any political agenda will have a slight tainted angle when discussing the issues.
    Midd the same facts existed before it started. If you simply read the reports of wmd you could see, as did many, that the Intel was very weak. Richard Clark was on any show that would have him. He explicitly laid out the fact that W had been desperately trying to get his intelligence community to tie Iraq to 9/11 in any way they could. All the information was there for anyone who cared enough to see it. We might have to agree to disagree on this one.
    02-21-16 09:38 AM
  5. TomatoPaste's Avatar
    "The one person"? I caught that. You realize that the polls showed that the public had supported it. I also caught how you conveniently throw the talking point about connecting it to 9/11. That was not how the threat was presented. We were emotional and reeling from being attacked by ideologues in the middle east. The country united behind our president and our military. We had an enemy in Saddam at the time who was pretty unhappy with us. A threat is a threat. The majority of the country trusted Colin Powell, who by the way sold it, and our Congress when they agree with the president. It was convenient timing. I love how people conveniently act like they knew all along. Most who opposed it did so because they did not think the threat presented was justified, which I disagree. The problem wasn't that I supported the action to be on the offensive to not allow unstable governments to build up unconventional weapon stockpiles, including biological (I believe Zika virus was a result of a biological weapon) and wait for one of our allies to be on the defensive. The problem was being lied to about supposed intel.
    That was the moment in my lifetime I absolutely knew our government is capable of lying at such a massive scale. To act like you knew all this all along is hard to swallow. Suspicious, sure I would buy however.

    Posted via CB10
    I know it might seem hard to swallow, but, there are several people who think differently from the masses thanks to their method of thinking and Inquisitive nature. When one doesn't think for one's self , it's easier to believe anything and everything one's told. One can vote for whom ever one wants, but at the end of the day, we should all utilise our brains. We should ask questions, research and study more so that our grasp will widen and our knowledge will increase.

    For example:
    I, for a very long time thought cream fraiche and sour cream were the same thing. Upon further research, I discovered it's the fat content that separates them into two different categories. Now granted I could have used a better example or could have chosen whipping cream instead, but, the point I'm trying to make is : one must ask the appropriate questions when one is not sure. No need for "emotions" to be the driving force; gaining "knowledge" should be.

    Now excuse me while I milk my cows. I have milk to sell.

    Posted via CB10
    middbrew likes this.
    02-21-16 09:43 AM
  6. middbrew's Avatar
    Midd the same facts existed before it started. If you simply read the reports of wmd you could see, as did many, that the Intel was very weak. Richard Clark was on any show that would have him. He explicitly laid out the fact that W had been desperately trying to get his intelligence community to tie Iraq to 9/11 in any way they could. All the information was there for anyone who cared enough to see it. We might have to agree to disagree on this one.
    I said I wasn't taking sides in the debate, just merely pointing out that like minded people group together for the comfort of their ideology. Those that believed what W was saying grouped with those that believed what W said. Those that didn't agree with W group with those that don't agree with what W said.
    TomatoPaste and grover5 like this.
    02-21-16 09:46 AM
  7. leglace1's Avatar
    I did know all along as did anyone paying attention. Sadam hated al quaeda more than we did. You weren't paying attention. Like you said you were emotional and trusting in your republican leaders. Its the exact reason you use their talking points when discussing the iran deal. You need to be told what to think. Sorry. No more foreign policy talk from you.
    Nobody without proper clearance knew all the facts. I just love all these geniuses that find it convenient now to say they knew all the facts, now. Secondly, I don't recall having ever linked Al Qaida. Emotion only plaid a factor in sense of urgency rather than the decision altogether. It did not make me believe anyone I did not already trust. We tend to trust people in life until we have a valid reason not to. As we grow older, we find so few people can be trusted that we turn it upside down. We only trust those that earn our trust, which is sad. You are free to disagree here.

    None of this debate really has bearing on my position on what candidate I trust. I trust very little and do not support either party, well before it became popular. I do believe in conservatism because it makes more sense to me. That is a whole debate in itself, but we are grown ups. I do not consider religious social issues conservatism. That is a by product of Republicans selling out to the religious right for votes. That's sad. I do also subscribe to a lot of libertarian views. I do not live my life as if I am entitled anything beyond freedom and rights from our constitution.

    Suddenly I am on republican talking points. Haha.
    Now riddle me. What is so great about the Iran deal. Tell me how it differs from the North Korea failure where we not only failed in stopping them from building weapons (as they too said it was for energy) but we helped enable them with our money. Now you can give me your Obama talking points

    Any deal where we release sanctions and instead give them money without knowing what the money will be spent on already sounds like a weak deal. Tell me what we accomplished really.

    Posted via CB10
    Last edited by leglace1; 02-21-16 at 10:22 AM.
    02-21-16 09:59 AM
  8. grover5's Avatar
    Nobody without proper clearance knew all the facts. Too many people find it convenient now to say they knew all the facts, now. Secondly, I don't recall having ever linked Al Qaida. Emotion only plaid a factor in sense of urgency rather than the decision altogether. It did not make me believe anyone I did not already trust. We tend to trust people in life until we have a valid reason not to. As we grow older, we find so few people can be trusted that we turn it upside down. We only trust those that earn our trust, which is sad. You are free to disagree here.

    None of this debate really has bearing on my position on what candidate I trust. I trust very little and do not support either party. I do believe in conservatism because it makes more sense to me. That is a whole debate in itself, but we are grown ups. I do not consider religious social issues conservatism. That is a by product of Republicans selling out to the religious right for votes. That's sad.

    Suddenly I am on republican talking points. Haha.
    Now riddle me. What is so great about the Iran deal. Tell me how it differs from the North Korea failure where we not only failed in stopping them from building weapons (as they too said it was for energy) but we helped enable them with our money. Now you can give me your Obama talking points

    Any deal where we release sanctions and instead give them money without knowing what the money will be spent on already sounds like a weak deal. Tell me what we accomplished really.

    Posted via CB10
    I never used talking points. You did. If you feel Iran cannot be trusted to hold up their end of an agreement then it isn't about this deal being bad. It's about any deal being bad. You don't want a deal with them. That leaves two options. Ignore them or engage them to force your desired outcome. I helped you think beyond the talking points to the end. It's a good deal if you believe in deals.

    You also believed the Iraq war was the right thing to do back in the day. Instead of recognizing and growing from that error in judgement you wave it away based on company. You had so many others joining you in your error. It makes it ok in your mind. But you didn't learn.

    You only needed to pay attention to know the proposed Iraq invasion was BS. You needed common sense and to control your emotions. It's offensive to insinuate it was a reasonable choice based on what we knew. It's lazy. You're doing it again with Iran. The least you can do is cut to the chase.

    You don't want a deal. The issue isn't how well the admin negotiated. The issue is that they did negotiate. I disagree with that position and I call into question your ability to think independently on these topics of foreign policy.
    02-21-16 10:36 AM
  9. leglace1's Avatar
    I never used talking points. You did. If you feel Iran cannot be trusted to hold up their end of an agreement then it isn't about this deal being bad. It's about any deal being bad. You don't want a deal with them. That leaves two options. Ignore them or engage them to force your desired outcome. I helped you think beyond the talking points to the end. It's a good deal if you believe in deals.

    You also believed the Iraq war was the right thing to do back in the day. Instead of recognizing and growing from that error in judgement you wave it away based on company. You had so many others joining you in your error. It makes it ok in your mind. But you didn't learn.

    You only needed to pay attention to know the proposed Iraq invasion was BS. You needed common sense and to control your emotions. It's offensive to insinuate it was a reasonable choice based on what we knew. It's lazy. You're doing it again with Iran. The least you can do is cut to the chase.

    You don't want a deal. The issue isn't how well the admin negotiated. The issue is that they did negotiate. I disagree with that position and I call into question your ability to think independently on these topics of foreign policy.
    You gave me zero argument on what made it a good deal. Just a lot of deflection. There are good deals and there are bad deals. I gave you an example of a bad deal we had in North Korea. This is eerily similar. If we take the threat of a nuclear Iran seriously, we would take exception to it.

    You question my credibility yet you think we did great in the Iran Deal, and the deal to release 5 high level prisoners to get Bo Bergdahl, nothing else.

    Tell me then, why you think all those democrats, including Hillary thought our intel justified unilateral action. Those democrats were in complete opposition to W Bush after he questionably stole an election. What would their motives be? They had way more clearance than we did and they also fault bad intel. But you know so much more. They should have consulted with you first. Of course.

    Posted via CB10
    Last edited by leglace1; 02-21-16 at 11:28 AM.
    02-21-16 10:51 AM
  10. grover5's Avatar
    You gave me zero argument on what made it a good deal. Just a lot of deflection. There are good deals and there are bad deals. I gave you an example of a bad deal we had in North Korea. This is eerily similar. If we take the threat of a nuclear Iran seriously, we would take exception to it.

    You question my credibility yet you think we did great in the Iran Deal, and the deal to release 5 high level prisoners to get Bo Bergdahl, nothing else.

    Tell me then, why you think all those democrats, including Hillary thought our intel justified unilateral action. Those democrats were in complete opposition to W Bush after he questionably stole an election. What would their motives be? They had way more clearance than we did and they also fault bad intel. But you know so much more. Yeah.

    Posted via CB10
    Those Democrats are politicians and behaved as such. I have no desire to defend anyone who voted for that war and I never will.

    I think the Iran deal was the best one we could get. It keeps them under watch and slows their process. That's good. I'm fine with 5 for Bo. I wanted Bo back. We got him back.

    You've given zero argument on why the deals were bad. You just keep repeating what you've been told. It's unfortunate but also makes me wonder what you think you're bringing to this discussion. We already heard the Republicans repeat these same talking points over and over again. You've only demonstrated your ability to repeat them.

    I tried to help you get past the talking points to the obvious conclusion. The only good deal is no deal. I'm not sure what more you want.
    02-21-16 11:32 AM
  11. middbrew's Avatar
    I never used talking points. You did. If you feel Iran cannot be trusted to hold up their end of an agreement then it isn't about this deal being bad. It's about any deal being bad. You don't want a deal with them. That leaves two options. Ignore them or engage them to force your desired outcome. I helped you think beyond the talking points to the end. It's a good deal if you believe in deals.



    You only needed to pay attention to know the proposed Iraq invasion was BS. You needed common sense and to control your emotions. It's offensive to insinuate it was a reasonable choice based on what we knew. It's lazy. You're doing it again with Iran. The least you can do is cut to the chase.

    You don't want a deal. The issue isn't how well the admin negotiated. The issue is that they did negotiate. I disagree with that position and I call into question your ability to think independently on these topics of foreign policy.
    So am I to understand you agree that the US should have formed an agreement and you like the agreement the US made with Iran?
    02-21-16 11:44 AM
  12. grover5's Avatar
    So am I to understand you agree that the US should have formed an agreement and you like the agreement the US made with Iran?
    Yes and yes. I think it's as good as we could get and I think we have a good chance of coming out ahead on it. It's important, in my opinion, to see this not as a one and done. This deal is only the beginning. We will be wrangling and dealing with Iran for a very long time. This was a good start for us.
    02-21-16 11:48 AM
  13. LoneStarRed's Avatar
    I was at a dinner party tonight and I actually brought up the fact I had run across someone who, at the time, bought into the Iraq war. The eyes were popping out across the room.
    Shocking that you hang out with people who think like you. It was probably a gathering of MENSA right. Folks, like yourself who are wicked smart, humble, know it all and open minded. Oh and I forgot, neither you nor they are ever snarky. Did I miss something?



    "I don't think that word means what you think it means."
    02-21-16 11:55 AM
  14. grover5's Avatar
    Shocking that you hang out with people who think like you. It was probably a gathering of MENSA right. Folks, like yourself who are wicked smart, humble, know it all and open minded. Oh and I forgot, neither you nor they are ever snarky. Did I miss something?



    "I don't think that word means what you think it means."
    I have no idea what's you're talking about. I'm extremely snarky. It was a gathering of people who like to eat and drink at a party.
    02-21-16 11:57 AM
  15. LoneStarRed's Avatar
    Yes and yes. I think it's as good as we could get and I think we have a good chance of coming out ahead on it. It's important, in my opinion, to see this not as a one and done. This deal is only the beginning. We will be wrangling and dealing with Iran for a very long time. This was a good start for us.
    I am obviously not as intelligent as you are, but if you sincerely believe that then it tells me volumes.

    "I don't think that word means what you think it means."
    02-21-16 11:58 AM
  16. leglace1's Avatar
    Those Democrats are politicians and behaved as such. I have no desire to defend anyone who voted for that war and I never will.

    I think the Iran deal was the best one we could get. It keeps them under watch and slows their process. That's good. I'm fine with 5 for Bo. I wanted Bo back. We got him back.

    You've given zero argument on why the deals were bad. You just keep repeating what you've been told. It's unfortunate but also makes me wonder what you think you're bringing to this discussion. We already heard the Republicans repeat these same talking points over and over again. You've only demonstrated your ability to repeat them.

    I tried to help you get past the talking points to the obvious conclusion. The only good deal is no deal. I'm not sure what more you want.
    Zero? Have you even read anything. Ok, I will repeat some for you.

    1. Our deal requires we give $150 billion in tax dollars to Iran in agreement that they do not build the weapon. This is the same failed principal we did with North Korea? This is foreshadowing of what is to come.
    2. We crippled our inspection process by giving them 24 day (not 24 hour) notice. Total cave in.
    3. Not only did we effectively lift all sanctions, we also lifted a weapons trade embargo which was needed as leverage to keep Iran in compliance. We gave it all away with just their promise. Iran is kicking **** so far.


    What did we leave as leverage?

    Posted via CB10
    Last edited by leglace1; 02-21-16 at 12:44 PM.
    02-21-16 12:16 PM
  17. grover5's Avatar
    Zero? Have you even read anything. Ok, I will repeat some for you.

    1. Our deal requires we give $150 billion in tax dollars to Iran in agreement that they do not build the weapon. This is the same failed principal we did with North Korea? This is foreshadowing of what is to come.
    2. We crippled our inspection process by giving them 24 day (not 24 hour) notice. Total cave in.
    3. Not only did we effectively lift all sanctions, we also lifted a weapons trade embargo which was needed as leverage to keep Iran in compliance. We gave it all away with just their promise. Iran is kicking **** so far.


    What did we leave as leverage?

    Posted via CB10
    The deal lifts sanctions that at the highest level would equal $150 billion dollars in impact to the Iranian economy. The more realistic estimates given their debt to China among other things is $56 billion. It isn't all US money obviously so to call it $150 billion in tax payer money is false unless you are concerned about European taxpayers as well and are ignoring what the Iranians will need to pay out.

    The 24 hour inspection would never happen. No country would agree to that. We do have cameras in some facilities and 24 days is enough to discourage and delay them.

    Under the deal, Iran will lose 97 percent of its stockpile of enriched uranium. It will also give up 14,000 of its 20,000 centrifuges, the machines used to enrich uranium, and agree to only enrich uranium to a level unsuitable for weapons for 15 years.

    That last paragraph was lifted from politifact. I didn't want to retype it and I had to look up the numbers for the uranium they were giving up.

    It's a good deal and a good start. Russia and China never really were sanctioning them and had already stated that they would eliminate any semblance of sanctions regardless of the outcome of the deal. We used our leverage well.
    02-21-16 12:39 PM
  18. leglace1's Avatar
    Most important part of the deal was that they ship their enriched uranium. They walked away from this at first, but then finally came back. You know why, because they are shipping it to Russia. 12.5 tons of enriched uranium has went to Russia. Russia has lifted it's ban on exporting nuclear equipment with Iran now. They are sending 140 tons of uranium back to Iran. Iran already has the means to enrich it again. Russia made out here because they will get good dollar value on underhandedly selling them what they need, paid for by our dollars of everyone involved.

    "It also committed to shipping out the 20-percent enriched uranium, turn it into low-enriched uranium or turn it into fabricated fuel plates for the Tehran Research Reactor.

    In exchange, Iran is to receive 140 tons of raw uranium from Russia." I don't trust Russia here. http://news.yahoo.com/russia-iran-si...QDBHNlYwNzcg--

    http://m.dw.com/en/iran-ships-uraniu...eal/a-18946426

    http://m.dw.com/en/putin-eases-ban-o...ran/a-18869168

    Posted via CB10
    Last edited by leglace1; 02-21-16 at 01:06 PM.
    02-21-16 12:48 PM
  19. grover5's Avatar
    Most important part of the deal was that they ship their enriched uranium. They walked away from this at first, but then finally came back. You know why, because they are shipping it to Russia. 12.5 tons of enriched uranium has went to Russia. Russia has lifted it's ban on exporting nuclear equipment with Iran now. They are sending 140 tons of uranium back to Iran. Iran already has the means to enrich it again. Russia made out here because they will get good dollar value on underhandedly selling them what they need, paid for by our dollars of everyone involved.

    "It also committed to shipping out the 20-percent enriched uranium, turn it into low-enriched uranium or turn it into fabricated fuel plates for the Tehran Research Reactor.

    In exchange, Iran is to receive 140 tons of raw uranium from Russia." I don't trust Russia here. http://news.yahoo.com/russia-iran-si...QDBHNlYwNzcg--

    http://m.dw.com/en/iran-ships-uraniu...eal/a-18946426

    http://m.dw.com/en/putin-eases-ban-o...ran/a-18869168

    Posted via CB10
    The point was to get rid of the enriched uranium and most of the centrifuges. Don't worry. Many more countries will be dealing with them beyond Russia. They already were, including Russia.
    02-21-16 01:08 PM
  20. middbrew's Avatar
    The deal lifts sanctions that at the highest level would equal $150 billion dollars in impact to the Iranian economy. The more realistic estimates given their debt to China among other things is $56 billion. It isn't all US money obviously so to call it $150 billion in tax payer money is false unless you are concerned about European taxpayers as well and are ignoring what the Iranians will need to pay out.

    The 24 hour inspection would never happen. No country would agree to that. We do have cameras in some facilities and 24 days is enough to discourage and delay them.

    Under the deal, Iran will lose 97 percent of its stockpile of enriched uranium. It will also give up 14,000 of its 20,000 centrifuges, the machines used to enrich uranium, and agree to only enrich uranium to a level unsuitable for weapons for 15 years.

    That last paragraph was lifted from politifact. I didn't want to retype it and I had to look up the numbers for the uranium they were giving up.

    It's a good deal and a good start. Russia and China never really were sanctioning them and had already stated that they would eliminate any semblance of sanctions regardless of the outcome of the deal. We used our leverage well.
    I would agree with you that this is a good deal if for one minute I thought Iran would follow the agreement as the US has intended it to be. There are just so many ways to get around the restriction. I, for one, don't trust Iran, a country that has for decades made atrocious threats to the US. I personally don't like our government, no matter who is in charge, dealing with countries that would rather stick a knife in our backs then shake our hands. But that just might be.
    02-21-16 02:20 PM
  21. Captain_Hilts's Avatar
    Obama had an opportunity during the Ferguson riots. However, collectively, Obama has only sided against police each and every time, consistently (Ferguson, Baltimore, Beer Summit thing where police acted "stupidly", Trayvon) even if it's just a few words. It has become a new narrative, as he fans the flames in justifying racial anger. Especially with the youth. He has rushed to judgement before all facts were out on the table in at least a couple cases. We have had a couple years with some questionable issues with the police, no doubt. The one in Cleveland was ridiculous. However, he should be finding common ground between the community and the police that are protecting them. We now have greater friction. I think he did a poor job. Maybe I am nit picking, but he has no problem calling out a small percentage of crooked police officers but not a small percentage of radical muslim terrorists.
    With all due respect, Obama has not sided "against police." That is such a gross generalization and mischaracterization of what he's actually said and done. You are making the claim that Obama is against the police as a whole, but you could not be more wrong. Let's not forget that in cases where police clearly have acted with extreme force in shooting unarmed young black men and even children (those "questionable issues with police," as you put it), have you noticed that each and every time he condemns the few crooked police officers, he also praises the police service as a whole as a noble profession with young men and women who risk their lives to keep us safe? If you say he's against police while ignoring his very public statements in support of police, then you are either misinformed at best or disingenuous at worst.

    And come on, "fan the flames in justifying racial anger"? Are you applying for a job at Fox News? Sorry, just a little joke. ;-) First, Trayvon Martin was not murdered by police; he was murdered by a wannabe cop, a thug who has since been arrested numerous times for weapons charges and domestic abuse. When Obama said afterward that if he had a son, he would look like Trayvon, he was speaking factually. Obama is a black man, after all, and he knows, as all decent people know, that Trayvon didn't have to die, especially at the hands of a vigilante who targeted Trayvon because of what he looked like and what he was wearing. Second, regarding Ferguson and Baltimore, regardless of the events that took place in those cities (Freddie Gray's case in particular is exceptionally horrific), both cities have a history of entrenched and systemic racism that influences how the police departments there have enforced the law - as DOJ and other independent investigations have shown. So, to blame Obama for inciting violence in those cities is, to put it plainly, foolishly ignoring history. I suggest you educate yourself with regards to this discussion about urbanization / suburbanization, gentrification, and the redistribution of wealth away from the working and middle classes towards the top 1% in the Reagan-era shift to finance capitalism because, again, all you seem to be doing is parroting talking points and disproven claims from right wing media.

    Finally, as to this paragraph of yours, Obama not calling out "a small percentage of radical Muslim terrorists" is not just nitpicking, it's dangerous. It shows that you are motivated by fear, because Obama HAS singled out those few who have distorted Islamic teachings - just not in the language that you would prefer, which I'm guessing is "radical Muslim terrorists." About this, let me ask you two things: 1) do you support the use of the designation "radical Christian terrorists" to describe people like Scott Roeder (who murdered Dr. George Tiller in his church) and Robert Dear (who shot up a Planned Parenthood center in Colorado) and 2) the individuals most in favor of the term "radical Muslim terrorists" are ISIS members because they want a holy war, so why would you even want to use that term? You say below that we have never been so divided as a nation (I am safe in assuming, then, that you either were alive during the Civil War and just forgot about it or just never studied it. Sorry, another little joke. Don't get all mad.), well then why would you want him to use a term that is specifically designed to create an "us versus them" mentality, whose purpose is to create a division between Islam and evangelical Christianity?

    We have never been so divided as a nation, and I fault him for doing a bad job on the PR. I expected him as a community organizer to have been good at finding that common ground.
    Reagan tried to do the right thing without sending a message that coming here illegally is the way, but he did do a poor job with negotiating the wall. He was too trusting. Both parties winded up doing him after his tenure. My point was that what he did was so different than the executive action of using presidential discretion to not enforce certain drug laws and immigration. They have taken it further by discouraging border patrol. That is where national security is being compromised.
    Discouraging border patrol? Completely false. Obama's EO (which, AGAIN, would have been a congressional action like Reagan's if republicans did not conspire to never work with him on anything; I swear, you DO know this happened, right?) did not tell border patrol agents (for whom he has proposed increased funding while republicans have of course blocked his proposals) to ignore the law; it only applied to those already here and who meet certain conditions.

    Posted via CB10
    grover5 likes this.
    02-21-16 05:13 PM
  22. leglace1's Avatar
    With all due respect, Obama has not sided "against police." That is such a gross generalization and mischaracterization of what he's actually said and done. You are making the claim that Obama is against the police as a whole, but you could not be more wrong. Let's not forget that in cases where police clearly have acted with extreme force in shooting unarmed young black men and even children (those "questionable issues with police," as you put it), have you noticed that each and every time he condemns the few crooked police officers, he also praises the police service as a whole as a noble profession with young men and women who risk their lives to keep us safe? If you say he's against police while ignoring his very public statements in support of police, then you are either misinformed at best or disingenuous at worst.

    And come on, "fan the flames in justifying racial anger"? Are you applying for a job at Fox News? Sorry, just a little joke. ;-) First, Trayvon Martin was not murdered by police; he was murdered by a wannabe cop, a thug who has since been arrested numerous times for weapons charges and domestic abuse. When Obama said afterward that if he had a son, he would look like Trayvon, he was speaking factually. Obama is a black man, after all, and he knows, as all decent people know, that Trayvon didn't have to die, especially at the hands of a vigilante who targeted Trayvon because of what he looked like and what he was wearing. Second, regarding Ferguson and Baltimore, regardless of the events that took place in those cities (Freddie Gray's case in particular is exceptionally horrific), both cities have a history of entrenched and systemic racism that influences how the police departments there have enforced the law - as DOJ and other independent investigations have shown. So, to blame Obama for inciting violence in those cities is, to put it plainly, foolishly ignoring history. I suggest you educate yourself with regards to this discussion about urbanization / suburbanization, gentrification, and the redistribution of wealth away from the working and middle classes towards the top 1% in the Reagan-era shift to finance capitalism because, again, all you seem to be doing is parroting talking points and disproven claims from right wing media.

    Finally, as to this paragraph of yours, Obama not calling out "a small percentage of radical Muslim terrorists" is not just nitpicking, it's dangerous. It shows that you are motivated by fear, because Obama HAS singled out those few who have distorted Islamic teachings - just not in the language that you would prefer, which I'm guessing is "radical Muslim terrorists." About this, let me ask you two things: 1) do you support the use of the designation "radical Christian terrorists" to describe people like Scott Roeder (who murdered Dr. George Tiller in his church) and Robert Dear (who shot up a Planned Parenthood center in Colorado) and 2) the individuals most in favor of the term "radical Muslim terrorists" are ISIS members because they want a holy war, so why would you even want to use that term? You say below that we have never been so divided as a nation (I am safe in assuming, then, that you either were alive during the Civil War and just forgot about it or just never studied it. Sorry, another little joke. Don't get all mad.), well then why would you want him to use a term that is specifically designed to create an "us versus them" mentality, whose purpose is to create a division between Islam and evangelical Christianity?



    Discouraging border patrol? Completely false. Obama's EO (which, AGAIN, would have been a congressional action like Reagan's if republicans did not conspire to never work with him on anything; I swear, you DO know this happened, right?) did not tell border patrol agents (for whom he has proposed increased funding while republicans have of course blocked his proposals) to ignore the law; it only applied to those already here and who meet certain conditions.

    Posted via CB10
    Where do I start.

    As for border patrol, first thing: Obama has claimed prosecutoral discretion, which means he can choose to not go after border crossers. A memo went out stating such.

    "[P]rosecutorial discretion should apply not only to the decision to issue, serve, file, or cancel a Notice to Appear, but also to a broad range of other discretionary enforcement decisions, including deciding: whom to stop, question, and arrest; whom to detain or release; whether to settle, dismiss, appeal, or join in a motion on a case; and whether to grant deferred action, parole, or a stay of removal instead of pursuing removal in a case."
    http://c7.nrostatic.com/sites/defaul...discretion.pdf

    According to the president of the national border control council, they federal government has used this discretion to not enforce the border. http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/20...licy-illegals/

    As for my complaints about handling of racial issues.
    Trayvon case was about the police ruling that there was no crime and he sent the DOJ to pressure the chief to resign without having all the facts first. He did the same thing in the Massachusetts case where he said the police acted stupidly, only to find out he did not have all the facts. To save face he offered the beer summit thing.





    Posted via CB10
    02-21-16 05:51 PM
  23. middbrew's Avatar
    02-21-16 09:52 PM
  24. jbfair728's Avatar
    BlackBerry --> Who is your presidential candidate? --> Trump, Hillary, Jeb, Iraq, etc. --> Obama sucks --> Obama is great --> next topic?

    Posted via CB app on my BlackBerry Classic
    02-21-16 10:07 PM
  25. LoneStarRed's Avatar
    I wish Obama was running again. If I could get a fraction of the free stuff he's given to Iran, Cuba, etc, I would be set for life!

    "I don't think that word means what you think it means."
    02-21-16 10:19 PM
567 ... 1415161718 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Is it worth getting a q10,rather than a classic in 2016?
    By CrackBerry Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-01-16, 11:29 AM
  2. Why has my phone restarted several times?
    By CrackBerry Question in forum General BlackBerry Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-29-16, 02:32 PM
  3. What is a BBM cross platform ? How do I download one ?
    By CrackBerry Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-29-16, 01:36 AM
  4. Is BlackBerry priv available in India?
    By thevoyager in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-28-16, 11:31 PM
  5. Is there a Free tethering option for my Bold 9900?
    By Amine Mohamed in forum BlackBerry 7
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-28-16, 10:11 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD