|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Sept 15, 2012 17:29:29 GMT -5
The Video Didn’t Do ItLee Smith September 24, 2012, Vol. 18, No. 02 It was bad enough, two years ago, that Defense Secretary Robert Gates called fringe Florida pastor Terry Jones to ask him not to burn copies of the Koran, or last week, that chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Martin Dempsey took his turn to call Jones to ask him to stop publicizing a YouTube video, The Innocence of Muslims. But then on Friday, White House spokesman Jay Carney told the world that the violent protests in Cairo and Benghazi and elsewhere were a “response not to United States policy, and not obviously the administration or the American people,” but were “in response to a video, a film we have judged to be reprehensible and disgusting.” Carney repeated the point for emphasis: “This is not a case of protests directed at the United States at large or at U.S. policy, but in response to a video that is offensive to Muslims.” Carney’s comments lie outside the range of plausible spin, even by Obama administration standards, and if his bosses believe them—as we fear they do—are simply delusional. But they are not without consequence. Nor are Gates’s and Dempsey’s phone calls. They all send the message to America’s enemies that if you kill our diplomats and lay siege to the our embassies, the first move the American government will make is to denounce . . . Americans. Our leaders apparently believe that the way to protect Americans from extremists and terrorists abroad is to tell other Americans to shut up. What’s next? Where does it go from here? There are more than 300 million ways in which Americans expressing themselves might give offense to those who make it their business to be offended. Maybe it’s some other film, maybe it’s a book or even just a tossed-off phrase that our enemies might seize on to galvanize support for their causes. Is the White House going to put every American crank on speed-dial so it can tell them to shut up whenever a mob gathers outside a U.S. embassy or consulate? It’s worth noting that virtually every description in our media of the movie that is supposed to have touched off the protests was attended by various aesthetic qualifiers—laughable, crude, amateurish—as if the mobs and their organizers were motivated by considerations of artistic craft. Let’s recall that similar murderous campaigns of terror were waged to protest Salman Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses, at the direction of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Would the editorial boards and newsrooms of our leading media debate the merits of White House officials warning prestige novelists to keep their mouths shut lest they anger extremists? The Constitution was not written on behalf of poets and philosophers and film producers but to enshrine the rights of all citizens. Since 9/11 and our ensuing engagements in the Middle East, there have been appropriate occasions during which the American people have debated how the so-called clash of civilizations might be ameliorated. This is not one of those occasions. To debate the right of an American to criticize religion does not indicate sophisticated sensitivity to the feelings of others but a willingness to turn tail and abandon our principles at the first sign of a fight. And to take seriously the notion that all those riots and attacks are about a video, not about American principles and power and policy, is silly. What we have seen unfold in the Middle East over the last week is what distinguishes the region’s societies from our own. The protests in Cairo and Benghazi were not really about the film, the preacher, or Muslim sensitivities. They were an exercise in raw power politics, partly aimed at intramural rivals in the Arab political sphere, but mainly against the United States. If the reaction of U.S. officials in the face of such an assault is to “condemn . . . efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims” (the initial response of the U.S. embassy in Cairo) and to try to silence individual citizens, there is good reason for the terrorists to believe that, with more acts of terror, they will also change American policies. The unpleasant fact is that the Obama administration has encouraged our adversaries to keep at it. President Obama believed that to maintain “credibility with the Arab states,” as he once told a group of Jewish leaders, he had to put some daylight between ourselves and Israel. His administration sought desperately to “engage” Iran and Syria, two state sponsors of terror that have been killing Americans for decades. The same Joint Chiefs chairman who told journalists in London that he doesn’t want to be “complicit” in any Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities now advises an American citizen to stop alienating Muslim mobs. A president who began his tenure by going to Cairo to say he considered it his “responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear” should not be surprised that the U.S. embassy in Cairo tweets similar apologetics while it is under siege. It would be nice to have an American administration that stood up for America, for its people and its principles. It would also make the world far less dangerous for Americans—and for decent people of all faiths. www.weeklystandard.com/articles/video-didn-t-do-it_652387.html
|
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Sept 16, 2012 0:39:19 GMT -5
Well for the people that voted for Obama its summed up well.....
|
|
|
|
Post by fordworker95 on Sept 17, 2012 0:45:46 GMT -5
Well for the people that voted for Obama its summed up well..... I think this video would sum things up after a ROMNEY WIN AS WELL |
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Sept 17, 2012 14:00:49 GMT -5
In 1986, when Reagan was
President,
Libya Killed Americans
He Bombed Their Leader's
House.
Libya was Quiet
for Almost 25 Years.
Then Somebody
Apologized
---shared |
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Sept 18, 2012 1:25:16 GMT -5
Well for the people that voted for Obama its summed up well..... I think this video would sum things up after a ROMNEY WIN AS WELL Unless you have some psychic abilities your speaking out your ass. Obama has removed any and all doubt that he was WAY under qualified to do the job given him. He makes Carter look good.   |
|
|
|
Post by driveshaftgrunt on Sept 18, 2012 19:03:29 GMT -5
The "initial response" by people in the embassy to the mob gathered outside was a tweet by an individual trying to keep a little gasoline off the flame..........But don't let that fact bug ya.
I could post several videos of the Bush administration actually using the word "apologize" when talking about the Koran burnings, target practice on the Muslim holy book etc. etc.
Look guys, just a few years ago the Bush administration had everybody convinced that we WANTED an end to dictatorships in the Middle East. Well, this is what you get. A power vacuum for the forseeable future. And its going to get much, much worse. Democratic govts. in the Middle East WILL NOT by sympathetic to our interests, at least not for some time.
And really, the quote about Reagan? You're kidding? The terrorist bombing in Lebanon that killed a couple of hundred marines? His reaction was to pull out, which could be considered "running". The same President that sold arms to the Islamist/Shia NUTJOBS running Iran? That's a major fail on your part, major, major fail.
Lets remember, the Quadaffi was bombed by Reagan, but deposed while Obama was in office.........
|
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Sept 18, 2012 23:02:19 GMT -5
The "initial response" by people in the embassy to the mob gathered outside was a tweet by an individual trying to keep a little gasoline off the flame..........But don't let that fact bug ya. I could post several videos of the Bush administration actually using the word "apologize" when talking about the Koran burnings, target practice on the Muslim holy book etc. etc. Look guys, just a few years ago the Bush administration had everybody convinced that we WANTED an end to dictatorships in the Middle East. Well, this is what you get. A power vacuum for the forseeable future. And its going to get much, much worse. Democratic govts. in the Middle East WILL NOT by sympathetic to our interests, at least not for some time. And really, the quote about Reagan? You're kidding? The terrorist bombing in Lebanon that killed a couple of hundred marines? His reaction was to pull out, which could be considered "running". The same President that sold arms to the Islamist/Shia NUTJOBS running Iran? That's a major fail on your part, major, major fail. Lets remember, the Quadaffi was bombed by Reagan, but deposed while Obama was in office......... Since you brought up Bush & Regan what was the unemployment rate under both presidents ? National debt numbers??? You forgot to mention Carter when Iran held Americans hostage for over 400 days and were released when Regan stepped up likely becasue they knew force would follow over a "time out". No one president is "best" in every situation. Some are strong on defense and others have the smarts to balance debt to spending. Obama is neither. You do realize the government is spending 40 BILLION a month on bonds and for the next 12 month another 40 billion each month. Its a feeble attempt to boost the economy by printing even more money we do not have or a band aid on bullet holes. Lets spend even MORE money we do not have.....idiots. tinyurl.com/8wkokxt |
|
|
|
Post by driveshaftgrunt on Sept 19, 2012 16:34:01 GMT -5
The "initial response" by people in the embassy to the mob gathered outside was a tweet by an individual trying to keep a little gasoline off the flame..........But don't let that fact bug ya. I could post several videos of the Bush administration actually using the word "apologize" when talking about the Koran burnings, target practice on the Muslim holy book etc. etc. Look guys, just a few years ago the Bush administration had everybody convinced that we WANTED an end to dictatorships in the Middle East. Well, this is what you get. A power vacuum for the forseeable future. And its going to get much, much worse. Democratic govts. in the Middle East WILL NOT by sympathetic to our interests, at least not for some time. And really, the quote about Reagan? You're kidding? The terrorist bombing in Lebanon that killed a couple of hundred marines? His reaction was to pull out, which could be considered "running". The same President that sold arms to the Islamist/Shia NUTJOBS running Iran? That's a major fail on your part, major, major fail. Lets remember, the Quadaffi was bombed by Reagan, but deposed while Obama was in office......... Since you brought up Bush & Regan what was the unemployment rate under both presidents ? National debt numbers??? You forgot to mention Carter when Iran held Americans hostage for over 400 days and were released when Regan stepped up likely becasue they knew force would follow over a "time out". No one president is "best" in every situation. Some are strong on defense and others have the smarts to balance debt to spending. Obama is neither. You do realize the government is spending 40 BILLION a month on bonds and for the next 12 month another 40 billion each month. Its a feeble attempt to boost the economy by printing even more money we do not have or a band aid on bullet holes. Lets spend even MORE money we do not have.....idiots. tinyurl.com/8wkokxtActually, they were released because Bill Casey told the Iranians they'd get a better deal if they waited........... "Smarts to balance debt to spending"............lol. Show me one decent modern GOP president when it comes to balancing budgets. I suggest you read Reagan's former budget director's thoughts on that one........ Jesus dude, you DO understand that a dramatic drop in govt. spending the last couple of years would have meant more unemployment............... Drastic drop in federal outlays = drop in GDP = higher unemployment. Its not debatable, even the GOP nominee expressed as much........ Now I would agree that the bond buying is no guarantee of a boost to growth. Its the last bullet in the Fed gun. But it will extend record low interest rates, and drive down bond yields, which won't hurt. And "money we don't have" doesn't really acknowledge monetary policy, which is what this is, not fiscal policy. |
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Oct 12, 2012 18:00:11 GMT -5
Hallelujah, Finally "Equality for Women" They are as deceitful, as moronic, as incompetent; and certainly as mendacious and as malicious as any male in an equivalent leadership position (Question: is it too politically incorrect to be astonished at the vapidness and stupidity of women in leadership today?) PROOF 1 (Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, DNC Chair) youtu.be/-_u7u9SB7QcPROOF 2 (Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter ) videos.mediaite.com/video/Fox-Cutter-101112;recently_viewedPROOF 3 (Susan Rice, UN Ambassador) youtu.be/6oOxAyU8QwMPROOF 4 (Hillary Clinton, you know who she is) youtu.be/6fG6XNIwBaYAnd, I don't need to post videos of -Nancy Pelosi -Barbara Boxer -Cynthia McKinney - the list goes on and on.... |
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Feb 18, 2013 3:57:03 GMT -5
|
|
rukus
Amateur
IIMZIIGZ
Posts: 152
|
Post by rukus on Feb 18, 2013 8:54:40 GMT -5
Hey cal, he is so under qaulified that he was re-elected for a second term
|
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Feb 18, 2013 13:49:18 GMT -5
Rational ignorance occurs when the cost of educating oneself on an issue exceeds the potential benefit that the knowledge would provide.
Ignorance about an issue is said to be "rational" when the cost of educating oneself about the issue sufficiently to make an informed decision can outweigh any potential benefit one could reasonably expect to gain from that decision, and so it would be irrational to waste time doing so. This has consequences for the quality of decisions made by large numbers of people, such as general elections, where the probability of any one vote changing the outcome is very small.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 18, 2013 16:30:48 GMT -5
Hey cal, he is so under qaulified that he was re-elected for a second term Lets see, how many dead people, illegals, made up names and voters who got to vote numerous times, voted for obama? ACORN won the first election. Sorry Rukus, didnt mean to interupt your Black Panther Party. |
|
rukus
Amateur
IIMZIIGZ
Posts: 152
|
Post by rukus on Feb 18, 2013 18:08:58 GMT -5
Im white you racist turd
|
|
rukus
Amateur
IIMZIIGZ
Posts: 152
|
Post by rukus on Feb 18, 2013 18:18:03 GMT -5
And unlike u and all your analspasmic boyfriends on here I could give two shits, take that back, THREE shits what color the mfer is...but I love all of your whining, I told everybody on here how much it amuses me when I rubbed it in after he chalked up his bid for a second term...and we get to do this for 4 more years...Allah Akbar, god is good, and so is the easter bunny...giggity
|
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Feb 19, 2013 19:43:48 GMT -5
Hey cal, he is so under qaulified that he was re-elected for a second term I assume you mean qualified.....lol. The masses voted for Hitler as well. So much for mass logic. (It was a mistake) |
|
rukus
Amateur
IIMZIIGZ
Posts: 152
|
Post by rukus on Feb 19, 2013 21:07:14 GMT -5
No buddy, I meant exactly what I wrote...u said he's "WAY under qaulified"...so in my mocking voice I said he's "so under qaulified he was re-elected".....which means I was being a smartass
|
|
rukus
Amateur
IIMZIIGZ
Posts: 152
|
Post by rukus on Feb 19, 2013 21:27:42 GMT -5
Hindenburg appointed Hitler as chancellor of Germany. Within a year and a half, Hitler was able to take over both the position of president (Hindenburg died) and chancellor and combine them into one position of supreme leader, the Fuhrer. After gaining power in Germany, Hitler began solidifying his position by putting those that disagreed with him into concentration camps.......For some reason I dont recall Obama, who our people voted in twice, strong arming us to vote for him or threaten to toss citizens and their families in a concentration camp if we didnt stand behind him and his beliefs...Its obvious, you are still here sucking up the free air...your comparrison is retarded
|
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Feb 19, 2013 22:03:15 GMT -5
..one vote at a time cal.
Of the 69,498,660 who voted for Obama in 2008, a few
million were convinced not to vote for this idiot again...(65,899,660/2012)
...I'll wait! I'm patient....Obama will continue his unqualified
BS...and people including
Race Card Loving Rukus(RCLR) will see what THE ONE is really about....
|
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Feb 20, 2013 1:32:38 GMT -5
Hindenburg appointed Hitler as chancellor of Germany. Within a year and a half, Hitler was able to take over both the position of president (Hindenburg died) and chancellor and combine them into one position of supreme leader, the Fuhrer. After gaining power in Germany, Hitler began solidifying his position by putting those that disagreed with him into concentration camps.......For some reason I dont recall Obama, who our people voted in twice, strong arming us to vote for him or threaten to toss citizens and their families in a concentration camp if we didnt stand behind him and his beliefs...Its obvious, you are still here sucking up the free air...your comparrison is retarded Well to appreciate a Regan you need a Carter. If you really think Obama is doing a good job congratulations. You likely have a Carter bumper sticker on your car as well. I should have said the German people supported Hitler in mass. Even though not voted into office he was widely supported by the German people. Even after the bad facts emerged of Hitlers actions public support was still high. Quote: Before Hitler began his war, the equivalent of his approval rating (actual polls were not conducted) was probably in the 90's as he had achieved much up until that point. When the war started, Hitler had been right about so many things before then that the people gave him the benefit of a doubt, at least until it became obvious that it would not turn out well. Official polling was not done during the war, but the Gestapo regularly made internal reports on the public mood, and certain underground opposition groups did the same (the Reports of the Sopade, for example). The most reliable are the reports of the domestic intelligence branch of the SD, the so-called 'Meldungen aus dem Reich'. A close examination of these sources reveal, not surprisingly, that Hitler's approval rating diminished in direct proportion to German losses on the battlefield and the resultant effects on the German people at home. But at no point did the Germans of those days completely give up on their Fuehrer. When a group of Army officers attempted to assassinate Hitler shortly after the D-Day landings (the July 20, 1944 plot, known as Valkyrie, or simply 'the Bomb Plot'), they received no popular support. Here is documentation of a POLL of Germans taken many decades back. It is from a book by Albert Speer about the Nuremberg criminals who served time in Spandau prison in Berlin for their crimes. April 11, 1953 Spandau: The Secret Diaries: Through a clandestine note from his son-in-law, Doenitz has heard the results of a [July 1952] survey . . . . He himself stands at the head of the list of formerly prominent personages [former Nazis] whom the Germans still have a good opinion of. Doenitz has 46 percent; he is closely followed by Schacht with 42, Goering with 37, myself with 30, Hitler with 24 percent. Schirach and Hess lag behind with 22 percent. Seven percent have a bad opinion of Doenitz, 9 percent of me, 10 of Schacht, 29 of Schirach and Hess, 36 of Goering and 47 percent of Hitler. "Because the German people cherish me in their hearts, I shall soon be getting out," Doenitz observed complacently as he stood beside me today washing his hands. Nevertheless, the letter gave Doenitz no pleasure, for his son-in-law unforgivably passed on the information that he is now as popular as Rommel. In a tone of sharp repugnance, Doenitz commented that Rommel had been nothing but a propaganda hero because he participated in the July 20 conspiracy. Then Doenitz stalked off. This poll reveals that in 1952, a full 25% of Germans still thought well of Hitler, and only 47% would say they disapproved of him! This is truly remarkable when one considers how soundly Germany had been defeated in Hitler's War. An entire generation of Germans had grown up in the Hitler Youth and many would remain loyal to Hitler long after he was dead. I have not read any polls taken in modern times asking how Germans today feel about Hitler, but one imagines that, since so few of those who were alive during Hitler's day remain, the numbers would be low indeed. One would hope so, anyway. Conclusion: The German people were overwhelming in their support of Adolf Hitler long past the point where such support was rational. |
|
|
|
Post by cal50 on Feb 20, 2013 1:38:16 GMT -5
..one vote at a time cal. Of the 69,498,660 who voted for Obama in 2008, a few million were convinced not to vote for this idiot again...(65,899,660/2012) ...I'll wait! I'm patient....Obama will continue his unqualified BS...and people including Race card Loving rukus will see what THE ONE is really about.... The sad part is even after 8 years if things go further south ( That means bad for rukus or other slow people) they will never accept the negative outcome or the fact they voted for an idiot. Get ready for a new round of the blame game and finger pointing. |
|
rukus
Amateur
IIMZIIGZ
Posts: 152
|
Post by rukus on Feb 20, 2013 5:02:08 GMT -5
Haha slow...you be terrified to find out how slow I am, you would rather keep hiding behind that screen...oh, unless you mean my copy and paste skills, I admit that you and jobs got me on that...as far as that 8 years, I'm four deep, (you know, as your lady would say) and life just keeps getting better, especially with the laughter you bring to me...thanx buddy
|
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Feb 20, 2013 17:55:40 GMT -5
RCLR......lol
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2013 18:13:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on May 8, 2013 17:27:05 GMT -5
....continued
|
|
