Clarity on the President's Strategy to Combating Violent Extremism

  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Feb 19, 2015 2:58 PM GMT
    For those who may be confused by the misrepresentation in the media.

    http://www.c-span.org/video/?324398-4/president-obama-remarks-countering-violent-extremism

    Comments about the language of particular interest begin at 13:00.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2015 1:11 AM GMT
    Obama wants to give Islamic Terrorists jobs and social welfare programs.

    A new CBS Poll indicates that 57% of Americans now want ground troops sent to Iraq and Syria to stop ISIS:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/do-americans-want-to-send-ground-troops-to-fight-isis/
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Feb 20, 2015 1:42 AM GMT
    mx5guynj saidObama wants to give Islamic Terrorists jobs and social welfare programs.


    I'm sure that's exactly what he wants to do icon_rolleyes.gif
    Maybe some Obamaphones too.

    mx5guynj said
    A new CBS Poll indicates that 57% of Americans now want ground troops sent to Iraq and Syria to stop ISIS:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/do-americans-want-to-send-ground-troops-to-fight-isis/


    Seems to me that that is exactly what ISIS is trying to provoke. ISIS is trying to make this a West v Muslim thing and I don't know why anyone would want to take the bait. While I'm sure ground troops will be necessary eventually, I think it would be more effective if the troops came from countries over there, like Jordan, etc., rather than here.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Feb 20, 2015 2:13 AM GMT
    wasnt Osama bin laden relatively wealthy?

    Also what was accomplished by this meeting other than the usual lecture from the President? No new Presidential directive/ order or plan?

    Seems like a waste of time .
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Feb 20, 2015 2:41 AM GMT
    musclmed saidwasnt Osama bin laden relatively wealthy?

    Also what was accomplished by this meeting other than the usual lecture from the President? No new Presidential directive/ order or plan?

    Seems like a waste of time .


    I don't think OBL's wealth has any bearing. It's the mostly young men that people like OBL exploit who would be less inclined to become radicalized if their economic and political climates were better.

    The summit ended today, so I'm sure the pundits will now begin their process.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Feb 20, 2015 3:03 AM GMT
    Physiqueflex said
    musclmed saidwasnt Osama bin laden relatively wealthy?

    Also what was accomplished by this meeting other than the usual lecture from the President? No new Presidential directive/ order or plan?

    Seems like a waste of time .


    I don't think OBL's wealth has any bearing. It's the mostly young men that people like OBL exploit who would be less inclined to become radicalized if their economic and political climates were better.

    The summit ended today, so I'm sure the pundits will now begin their process.


    Well its just pure speculation about the socioeconomic contributing or causing it . What proves that it is just rhetoric, is how easy the Bin Ladens example is dismissed.

    As for pundits I dont think the usual ones need to criticize this administration in its foreign policy. Even MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell called it a dog and pony show.


    http://launch.newsinc.com/share.html?trackingGroup=90046&siteSection=dailycaller&videoId=28594211
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Feb 20, 2015 3:22 AM GMT
    musclmed said
    Physiqueflex said
    musclmed saidwasnt Osama bin laden relatively wealthy?

    Also what was accomplished by this meeting other than the usual lecture from the President? No new Presidential directive/ order or plan?

    Seems like a waste of time .


    I don't think OBL's wealth has any bearing. It's the mostly young men that people like OBL exploit who would be less inclined to become radicalized if their economic and political climates were better.

    The summit ended today, so I'm sure the pundits will now begin their process.


    Well its just pure speculation about the socioeconomic contributing or causing it . What proves that it is just rhetoric, is how easy the Bin Ladens example is dismissed.

    As for pundits I dont the usual ones need to criticize this administration in its foreign policy. Even MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell called it a dog and pony show.


    http://launch.newsinc.com/share.html?trackingGroup=90046&siteSection=dailycaller&videoId=28594211


    What do you mean "dismissed"? The notion of the contribution of socioeconomics is applied to those who would be recruited. Extremist groups are much like cults. Charismatic sociopaths leading their desperate and misguided followers. It seems that the current strategy is to kill the leaders, and address the desperation of would-be followers.

    What some people can't seem to handle is the somewhat more detached approach Obama is taking with ISIS. I think a lot of people want to see him go in with both guns blazing. I also think that is a short-sighted approach and plays into the hand of the enemy. Better Muslim nations do the heaving lifting here. This way the enemy can't play us against those they are trying to recruit.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2015 6:03 AM GMT
    Physiqueflex said
    mx5guynj saidObama wants to give Islamic Terrorists jobs and social welfare programs.


    I'm sure that's exactly what he wants to do icon_rolleyes.gif
    Maybe some Obamaphones too.

    mx5guynj said
    A new CBS Poll indicates that 57% of Americans now want ground troops sent to Iraq and Syria to stop ISIS:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/do-americans-want-to-send-ground-troops-to-fight-isis/


    Seems to me that that is exactly what ISIS is trying to provoke. ISIS is trying to make this a West v Muslim thing and I don't know why anyone would want to take the bait. While I'm sure ground troops will be necessary eventually, I think it would be more effective if the troops came from countries over there, like Jordan, etc., rather than here.


    Newsflash to Liberals and Obama: Islamic Terrorists like ISIS have declared jihad on the USA. Here's the definition of jihad from Merriam Webster:

    "a war fought by Muslims to defend or spread their beliefs".
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Feb 20, 2015 1:05 PM GMT
    mx5guynj said
    Physiqueflex said
    mx5guynj saidObama wants to give Islamic Terrorists jobs and social welfare programs.


    I'm sure that's exactly what he wants to do icon_rolleyes.gif
    Maybe some Obamaphones too.

    mx5guynj said
    A new CBS Poll indicates that 57% of Americans now want ground troops sent to Iraq and Syria to stop ISIS:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/do-americans-want-to-send-ground-troops-to-fight-isis/


    Seems to me that that is exactly what ISIS is trying to provoke. ISIS is trying to make this a West v Muslim thing and I don't know why anyone would want to take the bait. While I'm sure ground troops will be necessary eventually, I think it would be more effective if the troops came from countries over there, like Jordan, etc., rather than here.


    Newsflash to Liberals and Obama: Islamic Terrorists like ISIS have declared jihad on the USA. Here's the definition of jihad from Merriam Webster:

    "a war fought by Muslims to defend or spread their beliefs".


    Not much of a newsflash since they started this "jihad" many years ago, but what's your point? The extremists have killed far more other Muslims than they have Americans.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Feb 20, 2015 2:23 PM GMT
    Physiqueflex said
    mx5guynj said
    Physiqueflex said
    mx5guynj saidObama wants to give Islamic Terrorists jobs and social welfare programs.


    I'm sure that's exactly what he wants to do icon_rolleyes.gif
    Maybe some Obamaphones too.

    mx5guynj said
    A new CBS Poll indicates that 57% of Americans now want ground troops sent to Iraq and Syria to stop ISIS:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/do-americans-want-to-send-ground-troops-to-fight-isis/


    Seems to me that that is exactly what ISIS is trying to provoke. ISIS is trying to make this a West v Muslim thing and I don't know why anyone would want to take the bait. While I'm sure ground troops will be necessary eventually, I think it would be more effective if the troops came from countries over there, like Jordan, etc., rather than here.


    Newsflash to Liberals and Obama: Islamic Terrorists like ISIS have declared jihad on the USA. Here's the definition of jihad from Merriam Webster:

    "a war fought by Muslims to defend or spread their beliefs".


    Not much of a newsflash since they started this "jihad" many years ago, but what's your point? The extremists have killed far more other Muslims than they have Americans.

    .

    So what if more muslims are killed? Does that mean Muslim lives are less valuable? --- Sounds possibly racist to me....= When one dances the dance of the straw man argument they often end up hurting the argument.



    You can re vomit up the spin of the white house. You will find very few who actually are believing it. In fact many of the liberals are actually questioning it, like on MSNBC. The world is ablaze and whe have had terrorist attacks at home. No matter how much window dressing you give it the policy is a FAIL.
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Feb 20, 2015 2:38 PM GMT
    musclmed said
    Physiqueflex said
    mx5guynj said
    Physiqueflex said
    mx5guynj saidObama wants to give Islamic Terrorists jobs and social welfare programs.


    I'm sure that's exactly what he wants to do icon_rolleyes.gif
    Maybe some Obamaphones too.

    mx5guynj said
    A new CBS Poll indicates that 57% of Americans now want ground troops sent to Iraq and Syria to stop ISIS:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/do-americans-want-to-send-ground-troops-to-fight-isis/


    Seems to me that that is exactly what ISIS is trying to provoke. ISIS is trying to make this a West v Muslim thing and I don't know why anyone would want to take the bait. While I'm sure ground troops will be necessary eventually, I think it would be more effective if the troops came from countries over there, like Jordan, etc., rather than here.


    Newsflash to Liberals and Obama: Islamic Terrorists like ISIS have declared jihad on the USA. Here's the definition of jihad from Merriam Webster:

    "a war fought by Muslims to defend or spread their beliefs".


    Not much of a newsflash since they started this "jihad" many years ago, but what's your point? The extremists have killed far more other Muslims than they have Americans.

    .

    So what if more muslims are killed? Does that mean Muslim lives are less valuable? --- Sounds possibly racist to me....= When one dances the dance of the straw man argument they often end up hurting the argument.



    You can re vomit up the spin of the white house. You will find very few who actually are believing it. In fact many of the liberals are actually questioning it, like on MSNBC. The world is ablaze and whe have had terrorist attacks at home. No matter how much window dressing you give it the policy is a FAIL.


    It seems you missed the point. I was responding to the poster who said that the extremists have declared "Jihad" on the West. The fact that they are also killing more Muslims shows that it's not simply a West v Muslim thing, but that's what the hawks in the US keep trying to make it.

    Since you consider the current policy to be a "fail", what would you prefer? I've asked this before in other threads but have not received a response. From what I gather from those who question our current policy, they'd like to see more American ground troops in Iraq and Syria. Is that what you would do?
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Feb 20, 2015 3:05 PM GMT
    Physiqueflex said
    musclmed said
    Physiqueflex said
    mx5guynj said
    Physiqueflex said
    mx5guynj saidObama wants to give Islamic Terrorists jobs and social welfare programs.


    I'm sure that's exactly what he wants to do icon_rolleyes.gif
    Maybe some Obamaphones too.

    mx5guynj said
    A new CBS Poll indicates that 57% of Americans now want ground troops sent to Iraq and Syria to stop ISIS:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/do-americans-want-to-send-ground-troops-to-fight-isis/


    Seems to me that that is exactly what ISIS is trying to provoke. ISIS is trying to make this a West v Muslim thing and I don't know why anyone would want to take the bait. While I'm sure ground troops will be necessary eventually, I think it would be more effective if the troops came from countries over there, like Jordan, etc., rather than here.


    Newsflash to Liberals and Obama: Islamic Terrorists like ISIS have declared jihad on the USA. Here's the definition of jihad from Merriam Webster:

    "a war fought by Muslims to defend or spread their beliefs".


    Not much of a newsflash since they started this "jihad" many years ago, but what's your point? The extremists have killed far more other Muslims than they have Americans.

    .

    So what if more muslims are killed? Does that mean Muslim lives are less valuable? --- Sounds possibly racist to me....= When one dances the dance of the straw man argument they often end up hurting the argument.



    You can re vomit up the spin of the white house. You will find very few who actually are believing it. In fact many of the liberals are actually questioning it, like on MSNBC. The world is ablaze and whe have had terrorist attacks at home. No matter how much window dressing you give it the policy is a FAIL.


    It seems you missed the point. I was responding to the poster who said that the extremists have declared "Jihad" on the West. The fact that they are also killing more Muslims shows that it's not simply a West v Muslim thing, but that's what the hawks in the US keep trying to make it.

    Since you consider the current policy to be a "fail", what would you prefer? I've asked this before in other threads but have not received a response. From what I gather from those who question our current policy, they'd like to see more American ground troops in Iraq and Syria. Is that what you would do?


    To get into the details of what I prefer would assume different choices in likely a thousand decisions along the way that lead up to this. However as the staunch administration defender in this thread with the "clarity" of the strategy. What is clear about the strategy? Its complete and utter garbage. Even Farheed Zakaria said the conference was just a political move. So did this conference cause a change in the foreign policy? I haven't heard one point that suggest that. So while as usual its so easy to attack a theoretical argument what evidence is available that anything he has done has worked one bit?

    The President suggests that Islamic Terrorists/ISIL are petulant children craving attention and legitimacy. Before that they were just "JV". What is incredible is that he feels comfortable chastising and lecturing on a the North Carolina Muslims students who were murdered and implies they were murdered because they were muslim ( facts actually are fairly muddy on this) and simultaneously calls the Egyptian coptics "Egyptian citizens" leaving out the fact they were targeted because they were christian.

    The President has been promoting his foreign policy for over 6 years and all that I see is a steady deterioration of the world.

    You open saying "for those who maybe confused by misrepresentation in the media",.... enlighten us what is the policy since you understand it.
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Feb 20, 2015 3:27 PM GMT
    I have already made the points you're asking for in this and other threads. I'm sorry you can't return in kind. You say that, "To get into the details of what I prefer would assume different choices in likely a thousand decisions along the way that lead up to this," yet you can second guess the decisions the president makes, with input from the Joint Chiefs, the State Department, world leaders, etc., and call his policy "complete and utter garbage."

    Still, what I see happening in this battle is more involvement by countries other than US and England, such as Jordan. I see more countries in the Muslim world are becoming involved in the fight and believe this is because Obama is not following the Bush Doctrine, which was an abject failure given where the world is now. This approach will be far more effective in the long run than anything we've done in the past.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Feb 20, 2015 3:48 PM GMT
    Physiqueflex saidI have already made the points you're asking for in this and other threads. I'm sorry you can't return in kind. You say that, "To get into the details of what I prefer would assume different choices in likely a thousand decisions along the way that lead up to this," yet you can second guess the decisions the president makes, with input from the Joint Chiefs, the State Department, world leaders, etc., and call his policy "complete and utter garbage."

    Still, what I see happening in this battle is more involvement by countries other than US and England, such as Jordan. I see more countries in the Muslim world are becoming involved in the fight and believe this is because Obama is not following the Bush Doctrine, which was an abject failure given where the world is now. This approach will be far more effective in the long run than anything we've done in the past.



    The only argument I see you can make is in the failings of another policy. You cannot even in 2 paragraphs tell me what the "clarity is". What is the policy? simply not give terrorist the "clout" they seek? When has that ever worked in human history?

    Isn't it easy to be "opposed" for years and it hard to wear the big boy pants. There is no clarity in Obama's foreign policy. I see failed states in Yemen, Libya , Iraq, and Syria. Upcoming issues in Ukraine and Afghanistan maybe eventually EGYPT.
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Feb 20, 2015 4:06 PM GMT
    musclmed said
    Physiqueflex saidI have already made the points you're asking for in this and other threads. I'm sorry you can't return in kind. You say that, "To get into the details of what I prefer would assume different choices in likely a thousand decisions along the way that lead up to this," yet you can second guess the decisions the president makes, with input from the Joint Chiefs, the State Department, world leaders, etc., and call his policy "complete and utter garbage."

    Still, what I see happening in this battle is more involvement by countries other than US and England, such as Jordan. I see more countries in the Muslim world are becoming involved in the fight and believe this is because Obama is not following the Bush Doctrine, which was an abject failure given where the world is now. This approach will be far more effective in the long run than anything we've done in the past.



    The only argument I see you can make is in the failings of another policy. You cannot even in 2 paragraphs tell me what the "clarity is". What is the policy? simply not give terrorist the "clout" they seek? When has that ever worked in human history?

    Isn't it easy to be "opposed" for years and it hard to wear the big boy pants. There is no clarity in Obama's foreign policy. I see failed states in Yemen, Libya , Iraq, and Syria. Upcoming issues in Ukraine and Afghanistan maybe eventually EGYPT.


    I point to the failings of past policies because what I hear from you and others is that we should maintain them. Who in their right mind would do that? Our hands are anything but clean in the failed states you mention.

    Listen to the speech I posted or read the transcript of it in the same link. Read what I've written in this thread and in the one regarding Obama's comments at the Prayer Breakfast.

    What I find almost as frightening as violent extremism is the way the Republicans and the media are misrepresenting what the president is doing. Good or bad, undermining the presidents foreign policy with lies is mind-numbingly dangerous. More so than it has been suggested of the policy itself.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2015 4:23 PM GMT
    Physiqueflex said
    musclmed said
    Physiqueflex saidI have already made the points you're asking for in this and other threads. I'm sorry you can't return in kind. You say that, "To get into the details of what I prefer would assume different choices in likely a thousand decisions along the way that lead up to this," yet you can second guess the decisions the president makes, with input from the Joint Chiefs, the State Department, world leaders, etc., and call his policy "complete and utter garbage."

    Still, what I see happening in this battle is more involvement by countries other than US and England, such as Jordan. I see more countries in the Muslim world are becoming involved in the fight and believe this is because Obama is not following the Bush Doctrine, which was an abject failure given where the world is now. This approach will be far more effective in the long run than anything we've done in the past.



    The only argument I see you can make is in the failings of another policy. You cannot even in 2 paragraphs tell me what the "clarity is". What is the policy? simply not give terrorist the "clout" they seek? When has that ever worked in human history?

    Isn't it easy to be "opposed" for years and it hard to wear the big boy pants. There is no clarity in Obama's foreign policy. I see failed states in Yemen, Libya , Iraq, and Syria. Upcoming issues in Ukraine and Afghanistan maybe eventually EGYPT.


    I point to the failings of past policies because what I hear from you and others is that we should maintain them. Who in their right mind would do that? Our hands are anything but clean in the failed states you mention.

    Listen to the speech I posted or read the transcript of it in the same link. Read what I've written in this thread and in the one regarding Obama's comments at the Prayer Breakfast.

    What I find almost as frightening as violent extremism is the way the Republicans and the media are misrepresenting what the president is doing. Good or bad, undermining the presidents foreign policy with lies is mind-numbingly dangerous. More so than it has been suggested of the policy itself.


    "undermining the presidents foreign policy"

    Trying to remind us of Jimmy Carter, are you?
  • Destinharbor

    Posts: 4435

    Feb 20, 2015 4:26 PM GMT
    Republicans have finally crossed over the ultimate line. When their President leads us into a disastrous war (that his father had the sense to avoid) that destabilized the entire region, and more American men were killed than by Osama bin Ladin due to his, and their lies, and bullshit patriot talk, they say nothing. When this President tries to clean up the mess without full scale invasion and loss of life and treasury, for a cause WE cannot fix or end, they try to blame it on weakness. And violate the most sacred line that says we are united as a people once outside our borders, especially while we still have combat forces in the region. I'm sick of the asshole Repukes thinking they have the right to be ugly publicly to Obama. It is racism. It is cowardly because as President he can't reply in kind although I don't think he operates on that base level. I appreciate that Obama is trying to create a coalition of the local countries as well as the civilized world, INCLUDING MUSLIMS to fight this war. Repukes tried to go in guns blazing in Iraq and all that accomplished was to empower Iran. And create ISIL. I'm sick of cowardly Repukes who will send their children to a pointless slaughter just because they want to look tough.
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Feb 20, 2015 4:35 PM GMT
    Destinharbor saidRepublicans have finally crossed over the ultimate line. When their President leads us into a disastrous war (that his father had the sense to avoid) that destabilized the entire region, and more American men were killed than by Osama bin Ladin due to his, and their lies, and bullshit patriot talk, they say nothing. When this President tries to clean up the mess without full scale invasion and loss of life and treasury, for a cause WE cannot fix or end, they try to blame it on weakness. And violate the most sacred line that says we are united as a people once outside our borders, especially while we still have combat forces in the region. I'm sick of the asshole Repukes thinking they have the right to be ugly publicly to Obama. It is racism. It is cowardly because as President he can't reply in kind although I don't think he operates on that base level. I appreciate that Obama is trying to create a coalition of the local countries as well as the civilized world, INCLUDING MUSLIMS to fight this war. Repukes tried to go in guns blazing in Iraq and all that accomplished was to empower Iran. And create ISIL. I'm sick of cowardly Repukes who will send their children to a pointless slaughter just because they want to look tough.



    Exactly right and well said, though I have two nits to pick. One is that they mostly want to send other people's children to the pointless slaughter, not their own. The other is that I don't think it's racism, but it is cowardly.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2015 4:43 PM GMT
    How about Obama extending ACA to extremists Muslims in Syria to get the "numbers" up . He won't have to go thru congress then. According to his executive orders everyone has the right to be a US citizen and receive health care.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2015 8:00 PM GMT


    OK, listen up!

    "Many here today have devoted their lives to the fight against global poverty, and you know the stakes. We fight against poverty because hope is an answer to terror. We fight against poverty because opportunity is a fundamental right to human dignity. We fight against poverty because faith requires it and conscience demands it. And we fight against poverty with a growing conviction that major progress is within our reach.
    ...
    We will challenge the poverty and hopelessness and lack of education and failed governments that too often allow conditions that terrorists can seize and try to turn to their advantage."



    President George W. Bush's Remarks To The International Conference on Financing for Development, United Nations, 3/22/02
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Feb 20, 2015 9:24 PM GMT
    "What I find almost as frightening as violent extremism is the way the Republicans and the media are misrepresenting what the president is doing. Good or bad, undermining the presidents foreign policy with lies is mind-numbingly dangerous. More so than it has been suggested of the policy itself. "

    Really republicans and the media, is that all the media ? Even the NY times and MSNBC. So they are all wrong ....

    So that is the most frightening thing. Not the be-headings or the rise of ISIL.

    You cannot simply state what the foreign policy is, so it isn't at all that clear is it.


    The thread started "for those who maybe confused".
    I listened and so did others (PRESS) and they had the same reaction.

    Kabuki theatre and window dressing. There is no policy what so ever.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 20, 2015 10:46 PM GMT
    musclmed said"What I find almost as frightening as violent extremism is the way the Republicans and the media are misrepresenting what the president is doing. Good or bad, undermining the presidents foreign policy with lies is mind-numbingly dangerous. More so than it has been suggested of the policy itself. "

    Really republicans and the media, is that all the media ? Even the NY times and MSNBC. So they are all wrong ....

    So that is the most frightening thing. Not the be-headings or the rise of ISIL.

    You cannot simply state what the foreign policy is, so it isn't at all that clear is it.


    The thread started "for those who maybe confused".
    I listened and so did others (PRESS) and they had the same reaction.

    Kabuki theatre and window dressing. There is no policy what so ever.


    No policy at all. All the talk about long term issues such as jobs and social issues is just an attempt to cover the lack of a policy to address the immediate problem. Seems most even the left leaning sites are noticing.

    Mayor Giuliani said in his opinion Obama doesn't love the country. I've run into a number of people who have the following opinions:

    Obama doesn't love the country.
    Obama doesn't even like the country.
    He said Bush was unpatriotic for a debt of $9T. Now with a debt of over $20T the same can be said about Obama.
    Obama is unpatriotic.
    He has systematically attempted to weaken the US both domestically and in the world.
    If he weren't black, he would have been impeached long ago - failing to defend and uphold the Constitution.
    He deserves to be impeached and convicted, removing him from office.
    He deserves to go before a tribunal and charged with treason.
    If found guilty, he deserves a life sentence at a facility such as Super Max.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3284

    Feb 21, 2015 2:08 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    musclmed said"What I find almost as frightening as violent extremism is the way the Republicans and the media are misrepresenting what the president is doing. Good or bad, undermining the presidents foreign policy with lies is mind-numbingly dangerous. More so than it has been suggested of the policy itself. "

    Really republicans and the media, is that all the media ? Even the NY times and MSNBC. So they are all wrong ....

    So that is the most frightening thing. Not the be-headings or the rise of ISIL.

    You cannot simply state what the foreign policy is, so it isn't at all that clear is it.


    The thread started "for those who maybe confused".
    I listened and so did others (PRESS) and they had the same reaction.

    Kabuki theatre and window dressing. There is no policy what so ever.


    No policy at all. All the talk about long term issues such as jobs and social issues is just an attempt to cover the lack of a policy to address the immediate problem. Seems most even the left leaning sites are noticing.

    Mayor Giuliani said in his opinion Obama doesn't love the country. I've run into a number of people who have the following opinions:

    Obama doesn't love the country.
    Obama doesn't even like the country.
    He said Bush was unpatriotic for a debt of $9T. Now with a debt of over $20T the same can be said about Obama.
    Obama is unpatriotic.
    He has systematically attempted to weaken the US both domestically and in the world.
    If he weren't black, he would have been impeached long ago - failing to defend and uphold the Constitution.
    He deserves to be impeached and convicted, removing him from office.
    He deserves to go before a tribunal and charged with treason.
    If found guilty, he deserves a life sentence at a facility such as Super Max.


    At this point, impeachment no. And I am not sure if I agree with Guiliani about "love" because thats a personal issue but I get what he meant by it. I have no idea whats in his heart.

    The totality of Obama's unscripted frank speech reflects a general uneasiness and embarrassment about the United States when he is abroad.

    Going forward I can predict it is unlikely we will ever elect a McGovern like President like him in several generations.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2015 3:27 AM GMT
    musclmed said
    socalfitness said
    musclmed said"What I find almost as frightening as violent extremism is the way the Republicans and the media are misrepresenting what the president is doing. Good or bad, undermining the presidents foreign policy with lies is mind-numbingly dangerous. More so than it has been suggested of the policy itself. "

    Really republicans and the media, is that all the media ? Even the NY times and MSNBC. So they are all wrong ....

    So that is the most frightening thing. Not the be-headings or the rise of ISIL.

    You cannot simply state what the foreign policy is, so it isn't at all that clear is it.


    The thread started "for those who maybe confused".
    I listened and so did others (PRESS) and they had the same reaction.

    Kabuki theatre and window dressing. There is no policy what so ever.


    No policy at all. All the talk about long term issues such as jobs and social issues is just an attempt to cover the lack of a policy to address the immediate problem. Seems most even the left leaning sites are noticing.

    Mayor Giuliani said in his opinion Obama doesn't love the country. I've run into a number of people who have the following opinions:

    Obama doesn't love the country.
    Obama doesn't even like the country.
    He said Bush was unpatriotic for a debt of $9T. Now with a debt of over $20T the same can be said about Obama.
    Obama is unpatriotic.
    He has systematically attempted to weaken the US both domestically and in the world.
    If he weren't black, he would have been impeached long ago - failing to defend and uphold the Constitution.
    He deserves to be impeached and convicted, removing him from office.
    He deserves to go before a tribunal and charged with treason.
    If found guilty, he deserves a life sentence at a facility such as Super Max.


    At this point, impeachment no. And I am not sure if I agree with Guiliani about "love" because thats a personal issue but I get what he meant by it. I have no idea whats in his heart.

    The totality of Obama's unscripted frank speech reflects a general uneasiness and embarrassment about the United States when he is abroad.

    Going forward I can predict it is unlikely we will ever elect a McGovern like President like him in several generations.

    Impeachment won't happen. Concern expressed is the checks and balances among the branches of govt generally assume each will play by the rules. Obama has already shown he will disregard the legislative branch, and I suspect he's not above disregarding the judicial branch, ignoring any rulings they might hand down. How much further damage to the country he'll do is anyone's guess. Impeachment is really the only effective way to deal with a rogue president, but it won't happen.

    I'd like to think that there will be soul searching in the future to try and figure out how someone could be elected with less credentials than required for a mid-level manager at a typical company. In any event, it took a generation after Jimmy Carter for another leftist to be elected. This guy makes Carter look like a saint, so hopefully the country will be spared this cancer for at least a generation. Can only hope.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 21, 2015 4:12 AM GMT
    I guess these 3 teenage girls don't want a job from Obama:

    http://nypost.com/2015/02/20/3-teenage-girls-flee-uk-for-isis/