June 14, 2016

President Obama's Sermon of 2 Perversions.

President Obama addressed the Orlando massacre in a 25-minute speech today. I'll just focus on what he said about calling ISIS "radical Islamists":
For a while now, the main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made in the fight against ISIL is to criticize this administration and me for not using the phrase "radical Islam." That's the key, they tell us. We can't beat ISIL unless we call them radical Islamists.

What exactly would using this label would accomplish? What exactly would it change? Would it make ISIL less committed to trying to kill Americans? Would it bring in more allies? Is there a military strategy that is served by this? The answer, is none of the above. Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away. This is a political distraction.
So there's no value to using this phrase, he says, but I'll note the obvious: If it's only a "political distraction," you could make the distraction go away by using the term. So the key is that there's value in not saying it. That's where he goes next. The familiar idea, as you can see below, is that he wants to convey the message that the form of Islam used by the terrorists is an incorrect interpretation of Islam.

This puts the President of the United States in the position of saying what is orthodox in religion. (I'm reminded — and this is Flag Day — of the Supreme Court's Pledge of Allegiance case with the great line: "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion...".) But that's his approach and he's sticking to it. Here's how he repeated his iffy religious pronouncement:
Since before I was president, I've been clear about how extremist groups have perverted Islam to justify terrorism. 
There are many versions of all of the religions. How is he supposed to know what versions are perversions? It sounds awful: perversion! But how can it mean more than that it's religion that seems bad to him? In which case, it's still religion. It's religion he doesn't like.
As president, I have called on our Muslim friends and allies at home and around the world to work with us to reject this twisted interpretation of one of the world's great religions.
This is a pragmatic political point. He wants to maintain good relations with the masses of people around the world who have preferable interpretations of Islam.
There has not been a moment in my seven and a half years as president where we have not able to pursue a strategy because we didn't use the label "radical Islam." Not once has an adviser of mine said, "Man, if we really use that phrase, we're going to turn this whole thing around." Not once.
That's amusingly put, and I'm impressed that he found a way to be so amusing in the aftermath of a horror, but, again, he's speaking as a practical man. He doesn't need to say "radical Islam."
So if someone seriously thinks that we don't know who we're fighting, if there is anyone out there who thinks we're confused about who our enemies are -- that would come as a surprise to the thousands of terrorists who we've taken off the battlefield....
There are some people who think you're confused about what our enemies are. They think you might be denying that these people do believe in their religion, recruit through religious belief, and act because of religious belief.
They know who the nature of the enemy is. 
Again with the "who," even where it is not idiomatic English. A straightforward, clear speaker of English as a first language would say: They know what the nature of the enemy is. He is suppressing something. He doesn't want to talk about what these people are really like inside. He's dwelling on identifying them as bomb targets, not understanding how their mind works. He knows who they are without delving into their Islamism, but not what they are.
So, there is no magic to the phrase "radical Islam." It's a political talking point. It's not a strategy.
Those 3 sentences are all different. 1. No one said there was any "magic," as if they'd disappear if you said the words, Rumpelstiltskinesquely. 2. It sure is a political talking point, but that doesn't mean it's only a political talking point, and you yourself are using political points, and you could, if you wanted, make a political talking point out of using the phrase and wreck their talking point. 3. It may not be a strategy, but it could be part of various strategies (since it involves understanding their motives and determination).
And the reason I am careful about how I describe this threat has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with actually defeating extremism.
Okay, so he's about to explain how refraining from using the phrase fits into a better strategy for defeating them.
Groups like ISIL and al-Qaeda want to make this war a war between Islam and America, or between Islam and the West. They want to claim that they are the true leaders of over a billion of Muslims around the world who reject their crazy notions.
Oh! He said "crazy"! This is like Hillary yesterday calling Omar Mateen a "madman." The terrorists not only don't have religion, they don't even have ideas, only "crazy notions."
They want us to validate them by implying that they speak for those billion-plus people, that they speak for Islam. 
So, the idea — not a terrible idea, I'd say — is that by saying "Islam" at all, even in the formulation "radical Islamists," there's a risk of being heard as recognizing the terrorists as the leaders of Islam or representing the Islam side in an us-vs.-them war.
That's their propaganda, that's how they recruit. And if we fall into the trap of painting all Muslims with a broad brush, and imply that we are at war with an entire religion, then we are doing the terrorists' work for them.
The people who want to say "radical Islamists" — most of them — don't mean to make that broader statement, but the problem, Obama is saying, is that it can be heard that way.

At this point, Obama turns his attention to Donald Trump. It's one thing to have "partisan" "yapping," but much more dangerous to have a policy proposal that "singles out immigrants and suggests entire religious communities are complicit in violence."
Where does this stop? The Orlando killer, one of the San Bernardino killers, the Fort Hood killer -- they were all U.S. citizens. Are we going to start treating all Muslim Americans differently? Are we going to start subjecting them to special surveillance? Are we going to start discriminating against them, because of their faith?...
It's a bad direction to take, a turning away from American values, a — now, this is the right word — perversion.

And now, Obama gets to do the kind of sermon that warrants a President in the pulpit:
This is a country founded on basic freedoms, including freedom of religion. We don't have religious tests here. Our founders, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, are clear about that. And if we ever abandon those values, we would not only make it a lot easier to radicalize people here and around the world, but we would have betrayed the very things we are trying to protect.The pluralism and the openness, our rule of law, our civil liberties, the very things that make this country great. The very things that make us exceptional. And then the terrorists would have won, and we cannot let that happen. I will not let that happen.

408 comments:

1 – 200 of 408   Newer›   Newest»
Rae said...

Our president is never more animated than when he criticizes his fellow countrymen.

rhhardin said...

Radical islam tells you about a connection, is the reason to use it.

Radical is a softening word that allows for but does not require that all muslims or most muslims are similarly dangerous.

There's no religious test within the country; but there can and should be at the border. Say no immigrants from muslim majority nations. Those would be to likely to be too at home with shiria law for everybody.

BDNYC said...

Can you imagine Obama's relief when he found out Mateen was a US citizen?

johns said...

This is really a pretty big come-down for Obama. He is abandoning the moral high ground from which he previously lectured us that it was bigoted to refer to radical Islam. It reminds me of Mel Brooks coming down from the mountain with "FIFTEEN...(oops)...TEN commandments!"

Hagar said...

Mr. Obama, it is what the hell is the matter with you that you can't call a spade a spade that we want to know about.
If you don't like "radical Islam," then think of another descriptive term that you can live with, but also is understandable by us mere mortals.

Paul Zrimsek said...

A few years of hearing about the frightfully important, night-and-day difference between same-sex marriage and civil unions has left me slightly less receptive to the argument about the meaninglessness of labels than I otherwise might have been.

Gahrie said...

Groups like ISIL and al-Qaeda want to make this war a war between Islam and America,

Iran did that 37 years ago when it began this war.

or between Islam and the West.

That war began over 1,400 years ago, and once again it was the Muslims who started it.

They want to claim that they are the true leaders of over a billion of Muslims around the world who reject their crazy notions.

Do they reject them? Where are the Muslim protest marches? Where are the calls to reject sharia law? A very large percentage of those billion Muslims in fact support sharia law, and support the actions of the terrorists, and say so every time they are asked.

hombre said...

In Obama's case, it is just a reality check to reassure his constituents that he actually knows that the terrorists are Islamists and are not "his friends across the aisle."

The Bergall said...

He was being defensive and made zero sense...........

AllenS said...

Our country was founded by men willing to die for their freedom. I doubt if most Americans understand this fact. Muslim extremism didn't just start. Think back to the pirates from the Barbary States seizing American merchant ships and holding the crews for ransom.

Ask Obama about the Marine Corpse. His pronunciation, not mine.

Anglelyne said...

"Calling a threat by a different name does not make it go away."

Sweet zombie Jesus. Who the fuck is saying that it will? Absolutely no one. Calling a spade a spade is merely the first necessary step toward solving the problem. While avoiding that necessary first step is the road to failure.

The president seems a bit confused. I do believe it's the progressive side, not its critics, that is convinced of the magical power of labels and demanding the change of labels.

The progressive nominalists seem to be losing their minds right now.

Unknown said...

Ok, rhhardin at 4:31 p.m. just proved himself to be one of those exceptions to: 'The people who want to say "radical Islamists" — most of them — don't mean to make that broader statement, but the problem, Obama is saying, is that it can be heard that way.'

I actually think that many, many people, quite possibly most people, who want to say "radical Islamists" very much do mean to make that broader statement. I do. Aayan Hirsi Ali does. For all I know, Hillary Clinton does. Nearly any feminist, male or female, would.

But that doesn't mean we go the rhhardinesque next step on immigration. Here's an interesting question: if you REALLY think the number of professing Muslims who would commit or support mass murder of the recent Orlando variety are vanishingly few, then you will agree that banning immigration from majority Muslim countries is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It would be the same as banning males, since 100% of all these mass shooters--Muslim and not--are male.

So, if you want to ban immigrants from Muslim countries (expressed that way, because it avoids the problem of determining "who is a Muslim") then either one of the following is true: A. You would be in favor of banning immigration by males. B. You think the percentage of people from Muslim lands who could commit mass murder is actually rather high.

Myself, I think men should not be allowed to own guns, and women should be required to undergo rigorous training and be armed to the teeth when in public--concealed carry or open--there's your solution to most of the violent killing, right there. And, if you let your son or husband or lover or any other male hold your gun, the penalty is death to them (not to you), if caught. Enforce it as a religious precept. ANYTHING to keep guns out of men's hands. No good comes of it, and much bad.

Gahrie said...

So, the idea — not a terrible idea, I'd say

Of course not...it is your only justification for your position.

— is that by saying "Islam" at all, even in the formulation "radical Islamists," there's a risk of being heard as recognizing the terrorists as the leaders of Islam

If it is not the terroists who are the leaders...who are? Where are the Muslim leaders condemning Islamic terrorism?

or representing the Islam side in an us-vs.-them war.

You don't think that the terrorists, and other Muslims don't already see themselves this way?

That's their propaganda, that's how they recruit.

true...and they;ve been doing it for 1,400 years.

And if we fall into the trap of painting all Muslims with a broad brush,

Why isn't it a trap when Muslims paint the West, or the United States with a broad brush?

and imply that we are at war with an entire religion,

We are. And the Muslims have known this for 1,400 years. Islam demands the destruction of our civilization and the imposition of a world wide caliphate.

then we are doing the terrorists' work for them

As I have already noted, the "work" was done 1,400 years ago, by a man named Mohamed.

Gusty Winds said...

Obama purposefully uses the term ISIL instead of ISIS to insult Israel.

So he's full of shit when he says he is not willing to use a certain term for advancement of his world view and agenda.

Original Mike said...

"Since before I was president, I've been clear about how extremist groups have perverted Islam to justify terrorism."

Why should we take your word for it?

I used to believe this (or maybe I just wanted to believe it), but I've come to admit to myself that the evidence for the proposition is scanty.

n.n said...

Obama is doctrinaire pro-choice. It's the "secular" version of Islam's Taqiya. He is also a [class] diversity advocate, presumably to create leverage through marginalization of emergent and natural human relationships. As for constructing legitimate classes for scrutiny, that can only be legitimately done based on commonly-held principles or uniform expression of an orientation (i.e. bias).

Miriam said...

Hombre has a point.

He knows who the enemy is, he wants you to know he knows, just in case some of you think he may be a secret extremist Muslim sympathizer, while Trump has tried to plant that seed a bit deeper into your psyche. Good for him for not kowtowing to right wing talking points. He's sent out enough drones that have killed enough terrorists to prove to most rational people that he knows just exactly who the enemy is.

khesanh0802 said...

Obama, as usual, misses the point. By identifying the "enemy" as radical islamists you immediately differentiate them from the general Islamist population. We (and a lot of Muslims) are fighting against "radical islamists". One could even argue that Trump is trying to help Obama by getting him to sharpen his rhetoric (fat chance!). Obama's military adventures suffer from the fact that in being unable to clearly identify the opposition he is unable to develop a realistic strategy for defeating them.

Trump has put both Obama and Hillary on the defensive. No matter the blather from them, anyone with any common sense will agree that continuing to allow unfettered immigration from Muslim countries is foolish in the short term. Trump is stating the obvious and the DC establishment on both sides (Ryan) are misreading the tea leaves. To the people this is not a question of tolerance, but a question of security. Without security there is little room for tolerance.

AJ Lynch said...

Obama is so f-ing smart. What will we do without him?

Real American said...

"Are we going to start discriminating against them, because of their faith?..."

start? Islam is the only religion that leftists don't want to discriminate against.

David Begley said...

Obama constantly sets up straw men in order to knock them down.

Obama can't face the fact that a significant number of Muslims are all in favor of these murders. It is right in the Koran. Mohammed cut off the heads of his enemies. Murdering enemies is not a perversion. Compare The Holy Prophet to the words and deeds of Jesus Christ.

Barack ought to read Andy McCarthy of NR on this topic instead of playing golf. Might learn something.

Obama's methods have massively failed. We need a whole new approach. Obama is the weak horse.

n.n said...

The progressive nominalists seem to be losing their minds right now.

They're desperate to regain control of the narrative, and thereby hearts and minds, and wealth. The refugee crises (i.e. willful abandonment, progressive wars, opportunistic regime changes) and excessive/illegal immigration are a backup plan in case the natives find a common cause to oppose their anti-native policies in the Middle East, Eurasia, Europe, America, etc.

Gahrie said...

Are we going to start treating all Muslim Americans differently?

Perhaps. Every terrorist attack by one raises the odds.

Are we going to start subjecting them to special surveillance?

We'd be stupid not to, so probably not.
Are we going to start discriminating against them, because of their faith?.

Why not..we have been discriminating against people because of their faith since before we became a nation. See Roger Williams and the Massachusetts Bay colony. Or we could ask the Mormons.....or even the dreaded Catholics....

Real American said...

This from the guy who dismissed ISIS as the "jayvee team." He clearly doesn't have a fucking clue what he's doing and its because he sympathizes with the Islamists having been raised and educated among them. As a leftist, he also sees Muslims on the higher moral superiority end of the oppression hierarchy so they get more leeway to behead and blow up buses and murder gays, etc. Overall, he won't call it Radical Islam because he believes the problem is America - not Islamic terrorists.

And he shouldn't be so worried about pissing off the Muslims that don't believe in Isis's interpretation of Islam - they hardly exist. For the most part, disagreement with Isis is over tactics, not orthodoxy.

jeff said...

Anyone that has been to a AA meeting knows that by saying "hi my name is Jeff and I'm an alcoholic" you are admitting you have a problem. Once you say Islamic extremist, saying more people die in bathtubs accidence in America, than by terrorist attacks, just doesn't work anymore.

JAORE said...

The president's words would ring truer if he had not actively DOWNPLAYED tactics that would have potentially helped in the security effort in the name of thou shalt not criticize Islam.

Troublesome connections centered on a specific Mosque? Forget it.

Suspicious activity? Despite the "See something, say something" mantra you'll be labeled racist. (It has become as helpful as "Just say no".) So we can drop the Orlando guy off the watch list. Ignore complaints about the Fort Hood shooter/sorry perpetrator of workplace violence.

And let's make sure the entire Federal system knows Islam holds a special status. After all the NASA mission doesn't prioritize involving Hindus in space flight, does it?

But criticize Christians, cops, bitter gun clingers? Oh yeah, that's the ticket. Now, tell me again what the benefit is there.

Putz.

Anglelyne said...

I made the mistake of turning on the radio in the car today. Heard only Obama re-re-re-re-re-re-bleating "...at war with a billion people..." meme. Turned it off.

Not all muslims...gun control...right wingers killed all those gays in Orlando...notallmuslimsnotallmuslimsnotalllmuslims guncontrolguncontrolguncontrol religionofpeacereligionofpeacereligionofpeace haterhaterhater hatespeechhatespeechhatespeech....

Sounds like its getting near time to get the straight jackets out and some nice soothing tranquilizers for these poor tormented souls. They really are starting to lose it.

Real American said...

the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem. Obama refuses to admit he has a problem. If he can't even properly describe the enemy, how can he defeat them (assuming that's his goal - big assumption!)

CStanley said...

Agree with Gahrie @ 4:51. Is there the slightest bit of evidence that ISIL recruitment has been negatively impacted by the policy of this administration refraining from using the term "Islamist terrorism"? Are there Muslims who are rejecting the propaganda because Obama is doing this oh-so-clever mental jiujitsu? Seems incredibly unlikely.

And what there is evidence of is a trickling down effect of a defensive posture, so that everyone from national security experts to law enforcement, military leaders, and employers are afraid to report or take seriously things they witness. This is where it would be helpful for the administration to set an example, showing that it is permissible and necessary to have an index of suspicion since we know there is a segment of the Muslim population that harbors violent anti-American views.

Gahrie said...

This is a country founded on basic freedoms, including freedom of religion.

True. although many on the Left believe it is a freedom from religion.


The very things that make us exceptional....

Ooops...you slipped here. America isn't exceptional...remember? You have told us so many times.


David Begley said...

If you ever doubt that murder and violence is a "perversion" of Islam, check out the website called The Religion of Peace.

The weekly numbers are shocking.

David Begley said...

Day 9 of Ramadam

72 attacks.
614 dead.

More to come.

And ZERO killed by all other religions combined.

James said...

The clear inference is that Americans who speak of radical Islamic terrorism are "doing the terrorists' work." That is a serious charge to make against a significant number of Americans.

Darrell said...

What's Obama yammering about?

Gahrie said...

We don't have religious tests here. Our founders, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, are clear about that. And if we ever abandon those values, we would not only make it a lot easier to radicalize people here and around the world, but we would have betrayed the very things we are trying to protect.

But Islam is more than a religion..it is also a political ideology, and the backbone of a civilization. A civilization at war with us. Islam is every bit as much a threat to the United States as Communism was, and should be fought in exactly the same way.

The pluralism and the openness, our rule of law, our civil liberties, the very things that make this country great.

Except when they apply to Republicans..right? Fuck them.

Bay Area Guy said...

Red flag alert:

When someone asks a good question (like Obama did), but doesn't let you answer it.

Obama asks:

What exactly would using this label would accomplish? What exactly would it change?

By naming the enemy who is actively killing innocent people (see, Paris, Charlie Hebdo, San Bernadino, Fort Hood shooter, Orlando, etc, etc.), it tends to focus our country and our citizenry on the actual threat.

The actual threat is radical Islam. There are many strains of it -- Hezbollah, Taliban, Al Queda, Isis.

There are some folks who probably providing financial support to these bad guys --we should highlight that, too.

There are some Muslims who are aiding and abetting these bad guys -- we should highlight that, too.

There are immigration policies what we could enforce that would reduce the risk of having these bad guys enter our country.

There are FBI policies we could employ to surveil these bad guys, and God forbid, try to prevent them from conducting these attacks.

The President sets the tone -- this President, for some reason, has tried to minimize the threat of Radical Islam, and maximize the threat of, say, global warming, or Islamaphobia, or something else.

Finally, the converse question, is also good: "Mr. President, why are you bending over backwards to avoid naming the guys who murder innocents, when we all know it's radical Islam?"


Anglelyne said...

Unknown: So, if you want to ban immigrants from Muslim countries (expressed that way, because it avoids the problem of determining "who is a Muslim") then either one of the following is true:

No, neither one of those things necessarily follows.

Here's an interesting question:

"Interesting" only to the degree that one finds the thought processes of logic-challenged question-beggers "interesting".

(Since they're a dime-a-dozen, not that interesting.)

David Begley said...

I guess Obama missed the Islamist attack described below because it did not happen in Kenya.

"The bodies of 42 fishermen kidnapped by Boko Haram last week have been recovered from Lake Chad, the Cameroonian military said late Monday."

Miriam said...

President Obama said,"The very things that make us exceptional...."

Gahrie sez,
"Oops...you slipped here. America isn't exceptional...remember? You have told us so many times."

Donald Trump Says He Doesn't Believe in "American Exceptionalism". "I don't think it's a very nice term."

Hagar said...

This is just more rank misdirection from the President. He is setting up strawmen to divert attention from himself. It is where he stands we want to know.
And that this is the "new normal" and we should just accept some level of attacks by the "radical Islam" movement, which seems to be the policy he is following, is not acceptable.

The Cracker Emcee said...

"So, if you want to ban immigrants from Muslim countries (expressed that way, because it avoids the problem of determining "who is a Muslim") then either one of the following is true: A. You would be in favor of banning immigration by males. B. You think the percentage of people from Muslim lands who could commit mass murder is actually rather high."

Or C. You think Islam is a fascist, homophobic, misogynist ideology, demonstrably prone to the slaughter of innocents, and inconsistent with the classic liberalism that informs American values.

Your strawman is laughably clumsy.

eric said...

This is why it's so important for the media to cover up Muslim celebrations of evil deeds, like 9/11.

It gives the lie to what Obama is attempting to say. And they have to protect the lie.

It's true, we don't want to go to war with millions of Muslims.

Unfortunately, they are already at war with us.

Last night I watched the final two episodes of the old HBO series band of brothers. The third time I watched the series. The Americans find their first concentration camp and liberate it. The people in the nearby town all pretend ignorance that they even knew it existed.

This is usually how it works. You only need a small percent of the population to be radical. The nearby townfolk weren't doing the evil at the camp. They just were looking the other way.

The same is true in Islam. Maybe only 10% are radical,but the other 90% are looking the other way.

wildswan said...

Lois Lerner was able to find and harass Tea Party groups but the FBI cannot find or do anything about radical Islamic terrorists. But she knew what the Tea Party was - that was her job - while the FBI is not allowed to find out about or even name radical Islamic terrorism.

The Cracker Emcee said...

Of course, I also think most of C applies to the Democrat Party as well. Well, not homophobic. Not as long as they keep ponying up.

Gahrie said...

Donald Trump Says He Doesn't Believe in "American Exceptionalism". "I don't think it's a very nice term."

So what? I am not a Trump supporter...I plan on writing in my own name in November.

steve uhr said...

The Constitution doesn't prevent Obama or any other elected official from pontificating on what they think constitutes true Islam. They are not dictating what others are permitted to think or believe.

I agree with Obama that we are talking about semantics. We all know who the enemy is. They are the ones who are killing innocent Americans in the name of Islam. They self-label as Muslims. Whether you say ISIS or ISIL or radical Islamists or jihadists doesn't much matter.

Anglelyne said...

Darrell: What's Obama yammering about?

Maybe it's a cry for help.

The rulers of the West are sounding stupider and crazier by the day. The magical vacuous slogans just aren't working anymore, at all, even with the loyal MSM cranking the dose up to 11, and it's all they've got.

They're frustration is understandable, poor dears.

Amadeus 48 said...

Once again, in all his glory, comes Obama-a better speechwriter than his speechwriters, knows more about policy than his policy directors, and a better political director than his political director--and now, to top it all, a better imam than your imam. I am telling you, what did we do before this guy came along? He is like Bottum in Midsummer Night's Dream wanting to play every part in Pyramus and Thisbe.

Althouse, Obama is delusional. If he can't make the appropriate distinctions among what various Muslims believe for purposes of defending the people of the USA, including our fellow Muslim citizens, and certainly our gay citizens, then he isn't trying very hard.

Let me do it for him:

"Here in the USA, our Bill of Rights prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion or impeding the free exercise of religion. We welcome and will protect all who seek to practice their religions in our country in accordance our laws. Some in Islam, proclaiming a radical interpretation of the Koran which seeks to establish sharia law throughout the world, have declared our country, with its founding principles, to be their enemy and have encouraged their adherents to attack our citizens at home and abroad. We saw a tragic example of this in Orlando just this past weekend. We will stand strong to oppose those voices of hatred and religious bigotry. Our country is a pluralistic society where all may live their lives in peace. Those who seek to attack us and our founding principles will find themselves at risk."

See, that wasn't hard

Gahrie said...

I agree with Obama that we are talking about semantics.

But semantics are important. That is why we have a term for them and study them in universities.

We all know who the enemy is.

No..we don't. Witness all the millions of words written and spoken this week telling us that Islam isn't our enemy.

They self-label as Muslims

Who are you to tell them they are not Muslims?

Whether you say ISIS or ISIL or radical Islamists or jihadists doesn't much matter.

Then why won't Obama do so, even though his failure is harming him politically, and accomplishing nothing?

exhelodrvr1 said...

" We don't have religious tests here"

Oh, really?

jr565 said...

So there's no value to using this phrase, he says, but I'll note the obvious: If it's only a "political distraction," you could make the distraction go away by using the term

Exactly! If its not a big deal, then what's the big deal calling it what it is?

Anita said...

Obama wants us to think that these terrorists are on the fringes of Islam and that Christian groups have similar “crazies.” But he fails to understand the meaning of the word “radical.” It doesn’t mean someone who is on the fringe, but rather someone living at the radix, the root, of this faith. This is true Islam.

Not convinced? Ask yourself what a radical Christian is? Do you imagine a violent maniac? Or someone whose decision to follow Jesus is at the core of his being? Mother Teresa was a radical Christian. St. Maximilian Kolbe, offering his life for a fellow prisoner at Auschwitz was a radical Christian.

Left Bank of the Charles said...

We always knew that we were fighting the Germans, but we made a point of calling them Nazis so that we could separate the Nazis from the Germans at the end of the war. In many cases, it was just a matter of degree.

The complaint about defining orthodoxy cuts both ways. If you say it's not a perversion of Islam you are also doing that.

Quaestor said...

Obama says ISIL (ISIS, Islamic State, Daesh, whatever) is a perversion of Islam, and to avoid insulting less radical Muslims he doesn't use the term Islam when speaking of ISIL, or the terrorism it practices, supports, and incites.

Obama must think we're all idiots, especially Muslims, and especially the Muslims we've have for allies, however nominal they may be. Some Americans have a bit of education. They can read. They know some history, and what they don't know they can acquire from highly respected scholars. Muslims also know a few things. They know their religion, at least some of it. They know their scriptures, especially Muslims who are literate in Arabic as a their mother tongue. The can read the Koran. Many have memorized it as part of their education. If ISIL's theology is heretical they'd know it. Muslims wouldn't flock to its banners, or read its websites. or follow its fleeting Twitter accounts. However, the fact is they do. They do because ISIL speaks the language of Islam in the terms used by its founder. As for their theology, it is Wahhabism, or more properly muwahhid (unification) a school of Sunni Islam which insists on a strict reading of the Koran in the light of the Haddiths, and strict monotheism without any trace of idolatry, which is why the ISIL banner has no heraldry, and why ISIL has been busy destroying archeological sites that fall under its control. Wahhabism is also the theology of one of our key "allies", the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. When Obama says the followers of ISIl are crazy or heretical, he defeats his own stated purpose for not calling a spade a spade. Many Muslims do not agree with our President's religious scholarship, perhaps the majority. They see their own states as heretical. The propagandists of ISIL can cite chapter and verse to justify its policies and aims. The governments of secular states like Jordan, Tunisia, and Egypt struggle to find religious argument to counter that propaganda, which is why they have been more concerned with silencing their critics rather than defeating their arguments. ISIL is not an interpretation of Islam, it's Islam without interpretation.

jr565 said...

"The familiar idea, as you can see below, is that he wants to convey the message that the form of Islam used by the terrorists is an incorrect interpretation of Islam."

Again, true. But even if that's his intent, how would calling Islamic extremism Islamic Extremism be bad, considering that would be the form of Islam that would be differentiated from the more moderate version simpy by calling it extreme.

narciso said...


nothing to see here:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/06/14/mateens-twin-trips-to-saudi-arabia-raise-suspicions.html

JAORE said...

Well, to be fair perhaps the President is saying these guys aren't that extreme since he spent decades in a church where, "God damn America" reflects mainstream Christianity.

Francisco D said...

Miriam/Amanda/Inga,

Please read slowly in case my words are too big or the syntax is too complex. I will try to dumb it down for you, if that is possible.

You strike me (Yes. The psychologist who specializes in assessing intelligence, among other things) as someone who repeats others' talking points and makes simple deductions that a bright seventh grader would avoid. In other words, you are the typical liberal troll, maybe Garage Mahal's BFF.

Trumps may not like the term "American Exceptionalism," but that is not the same as not believing in it. He is a practitioner of it. (Hillary does it by selling her influence. He does with real estate deals. One is shady. The other is traitorous). Please try to use slightly more complex logic. This is an adult forum not a seventh grade discussion.

Thank you for your time.

steve uhr said...

"Who are you to tell them they are not Muslims?"

? If they say they are Muslim I take them at their word.

Ken B said...

I feel no need to discuss whether to be truthful. Obama, as a politician, does.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Using a label accomplishes nothing. Using a hashtag, on the other hand...

Hagar said...

Hillary! repeated WaPo's headline accusation word for word.

Jeh Johnson just had a remarkable interview with Bret Baier. Repeated several times that "we must prevent these extreme elements from acquiring 'assault weapons,'" etc., and also Obama's B.S. about maligning all Moslems by using the term "radical Islam."

Peter said...

"But Islam is more than a religion..it is also a political ideology"

And beyond the President's refusal to use the word "Islamic" (with modifiers such as "radical"), this is the point that somehow keeps getting missed.

Islam the religion is fully protected by the First Amendment.

BUT there's also Islam the legal system, and the ideology of Islamic Supremacy. Both demand that all the world submit to Islam- by threat of death, if necessary.

And while the First Amendment protects citizens rights to advocate for Islamic Law and Islamic Supremacy no less than it protects a citizens' right to promote Nazi ideology, I fail to see why the USA would have any more obligation to admit would-be immigrants who are advocates of Sharia or Islamic Supremacy than we would have an obligation to admit Nazis.

Unknown said...

During the Northern Ireland decades of "Troubles" between the Unionists (pro-British Protestants) and the Provisional IRA (Irish Republican Army, Republican Catholics), the Prime Minister of the UK, Margaret Thatcher insisted on calling the IRA "terrorists" instead of political freedom fighters. Thatcher didn't want to give the IRA legitimacy. Most of the UK public supported Thatcher's position and it worked for her as she did win 3 general elections in a row. Eventually, the IRA came to the negotiating table and peace deal was made.

Trump and his Trumpsters are up in arms because the President of the US doesn't want to call ISIL "radical islam" for similar strategic security reasons as Thatcher. Makes you wonder whose side all the Trumpsters are really on.

Paul Snively said...

Gee, I could have sworn that when I learned English in elementary school, one of the things I learned is that you use adjectives to modify nouns in order to be more specific about what you're referring to. Put mathematically, when you modify a noun with an adjective, you are referring to a subset of a larger set. "Radical Islam" is an acknowledgement that not all adherents of Islam are radical.

But what all radical Muslims are is Muslim, and anyone who is interested in being "evidence-based" has to contend with Bayes' Theorem, in this instance applied to the obvious observation that, while not all Muslims are terrorists, a truly shocking number of terrorists are Muslims. "What's the point of calling it 'radical Islam?'" is the kind of mindless pabulum that gives us the TSA pulling 80-year-old Irish grannies out of the line at the airport for a pat-down because we dare not profile anyone who looks, or for God's good sake self-identifies, as Muslim, has been on government watch lists, or, going back to the 9/11 hijackers, is here on an expired Visa and has attended flight-training school and shown a keen interest in automated navigation. It's the kind of putting one's fingers into one's ears and chanting la-la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you when the Fort Hood shooter runs through the hall yelling "Allahu Akbar!" and the incident is dismissed as "workplace violence."

It's reality- and evidence-avoiding. And the American people are so thoroughly fed up with it that we'll seriously consider an authoritarian Democrat-lite flapper-in-the-wind like Donald Trump, probably for the sole reason that of all his manifest flaws, one that he manifestly does not suffer from is being thus reality-challenged. That this is positively refreshing just tells you how toxic the discourse has become up to this point.

Terry said...

What makes Obama a second-rate thinker is his parochialism. During a formative period of his life, between the age of five and ten years, he lived in a Muslim majority country. Most of his exposure to religion has been to the Muslim religion and to the race-oriented Christianity of Jeremiah Wright. Obama's name is Muslim. His father was a Muslim. He simply cannot bring himself to believe anything bad about Islam. If Muslims do wicked things in the name of Islam, then they aren't practicing Islam. He proves this by assertion.

Amadeus 48 said...

Jeh Johnson and his team underperform for a living. Hack, hack, hack.

madAsHell said...

Trump has taken away Obama's pick for the supreme court, and now has forced Obama to say "radical Islam". I find it curious that Obama felt compelled to respond to the "radical Islam", but he did!

Trump has a portal into Obama's head. It's "Being John Malkovic" all over again. Come January, we will probably find Trump on the New Jersey turnpike.

traditionalguy said...

It's all revealed now. Watching the passionate evil eye and the hateful murder spirit of Mohammed in Obama's eyes as he stared out at good Americans for offending his religion of murder was all anyone will ever need to see.

Obama is our enemy's Great Leader.

Amadeus 48 said...

Obama's step-father, Lolo Soetero, was Muslim, too.

Meeeea said...

I was home and forced myself to watch it live--only time I've listened to a full talk of his. I was fuming. Posted this a few minutes after the speech--apologies for the unladylike language:

"Funny how he doesn't give a shit about little nuns' religious freedoms, but he'll stand up there in his petty way and diss Trump, all the while defending nothing but another religion, and defending every stripe of American except a regular American.

Obama: "What should we do, put all Muslims under surveillance?"

Well dumbfuck, isn't your administration not only surveilling, with the help of the IRS, HHS, ACLU et al, but also fighting in Supreme Court, and threatening with business-busting penalties, those that oppose paying for the mass murder of the unborn versus a different religious group that although only a few of them, want to conduct mass murder against fellow Americans? (And I'm not talking about outlawing abortion or abortifacients, I'm simply talking about people that do not wish to be directly involved in performing or paying for such.)

Why the hate for one group and the other gets defended? What a fucking bully this guy is."

Terry said...

As near as I can tell, Obama (and Hillary) think that we need to import more Muslim immigrants because some number of them will be terrorists and we need the non-terrorist Muslim immigrants to inform on them.
Do I have that right?
I am still trying to figure out why Obama thinks that he has to find a balance between the rights of non-Americans to emigrate here, and the rights of Americans not to be murdered in cold blood.

clint said...

The key point is: This is a war of ideas. You can't fight a war of ideas with drone strikes.

We have to engage with their ideas. We need our President -- our chief spokesman and commander-in-chief -- to say that their ideas and values are wrong, and to say why.

We didn't win the Cold War by shooting enough Northern Vietnamese soldiers. We won the Cold War when Ronald Reagan stood in Berlin and said, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." It was the culmination of years of rhetoric pointing out the *moral* differences between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., brought into stark relief -- the U.S.S.R. had to build walls with barbed wire and machine guns to keep their subjects from escaping.

We will never beat radical Islam -- or heck, let President Obama call it "perverted Islam" -- without a spokesman-in-chief willing to say clearly why our ideas and values are right, and theirs are wrong. President Obama has absolutely no trouble stating clearly why Donald Trump's ideas and values are wrong. Why does he find it so hard to explain why Anwar al-Awlaki's ideas and values are wrong?

Quaestor said...

Suppose America fought WWII without labels? How would we have gone about it? How would FDR have phrased his speech before the Joint Session of 8 December 1941?

Yesterday, December 7th, 1941, a date that will live in infamy, the United States was suddenly and deliberately attacked by a bunch of criminals who have nothing to do with each other, yet somehow managed to attack our fleet in the same place at the same time. Some of these criminals are said to be Oriental in appearance, and it is evident they have all acquired their equipment from the same suppliers, whoever they may be. Furthermore these criminals appear to share the same taste in attire. However, there is no justification to conclude that their physical appearance or proclivity to dress alike betokens any agreement among them regarding motives or methods. To ensure that similar criminal acts are not repeated I have instructed Mr. Hoover and the FBI to give this incident their fullest attention.

Miriam said...

Good lord in heaven are people going stark raving mad?

"It's all revealed now. Watching the passionate evil eye and the hateful murder spirit of Mohammed in Obama's eyes as he stared out at good Americans for offending his religion of murder was all anyone will ever need to see.

Obama is our enemy's Great Leader"


What the hell happened to you Traditional Guy? You used to sound so rational.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Whatever comes of this, I know one thing for certain:

Republicans will gladly defend to the death this guy's alleged gun-bearing rights. Because freedom from tyranny means dying with a bunch of gays in a nightclub that you gunned down. Freedom to keep them from exercising their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Republicans are rapidly becoming the Gun Rights for Muslim Terrorists group. This is a meme that definitely needs to get out there. Spread the word.

Rhythm and Balls said...

What the hell happened to you Traditional Guy? You used to sound so rational.

He's got a dual nature. Not a bad guy, but occasionally jumps the shark into the Kool-Aid waters. Or at least likes to dangle his toes in there every now and then.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Suppose America fought WWII without labels? How would we have gone about it?

No Japanese internment. Bummer.

hombre said...

Miriam (4:53): "Hombre has a point."

Quite right, but you either missed it or deliberately misstated it.

bgates said...

Don't tell me that words don't matter. (Who said it? I mean, who stole it from Deval Patrick?)

Especially not after spending years saying the only thing the administration ever did wrong was not communicating well.

Jonathan Graehl said...

I understand+respect Obama's strategy of saying "that's not the *true* Islam", except for one little detail: why is he so confident that he didn't line up support from [other] imams first, so as to not appear a mere laughing stock?

traditionalguy said...

Since Obama says his precious Muslims are really nice peaceful people, then why did he do everything in his power for 7 years to push through Nuclear Weapons and the delivery vehicle guided missiles for Iranians who have for 40 years been vowing to wipe the USA off the face of the earth? Could the Obama jerk be hiding that ALL Muslims despise any living Jews and Christians.

Quaestor said...

If Muslims do wicked things in the name of Islam, then they aren't practicing Islam. He proves this by assertion.

Obama is afflicted with the No True Scotsman syndrome.

Forbes said...

Obama: "The pluralism and the openness, our rule of law, our civil liberties, the very things that make this country great. The very things that make us exceptional."

And Islamic Shariah Law is compatible with America, how?

Personally, I think Islam is incompatible with the West, but if Obama can't address 'radical Islam,' what's his point? A lecture on language and usage? Instead of facing criticism, he's changing the subject.

Jim Sweeney said...

Why don't you just say it? Hussein was born, raised and remains a Muslim. That's the reason for his language. It is clear and straightforward. And, like most Muslims world-wide, he does not like Americans much. He promised early on to fundamentally change this country remember? To what, a perverted form of Islam.

Rhythm and Balls said...

"If Muslims do wicked things in the name of Islam, then they aren't practicing Islam. He proves this by assertion."

Obama is afflicted with the No True Scotsman syndrome.


A great many people are on that one. It's as if they feel that the concept/doctrine of "jihad" was invented by the West as a tool of anti-Muslim oppression.

Amadeus 48 said...

R and B--


I think most gun rights people wish there were twenty gays packing concealed weapons at Pulse.

Darrell said...

What the hell happened to you Traditional Guy?

He was Obaminized.

Beach Brutus said...

Freedom of Religion -- What is a Religion? When does a group's worldly activities, rather than eternal beliefs, mark it as a criminal enterprise? I don't think there is "radical Islam" only Islam - divided between those who are faithful in carrying out its violent dictates and those that aren't. The ratio of devout to backslidden does not change the content and meaning of its defining texts.

buwaya said...

I hear reason is out of fashion in the best universities these days.
Traditionalguy is just going with the zeitgeist.
I am inclined to follow. I am tired of this annoying superego.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Suppose America fought WWII without labels? How would we have gone about it?

#BringBackOurShips

YoungHegelian said...

Obama's speech shows just how ingrained & knee-jerk is the tendency to declare some person or parties on the "other side" of 21st C liberalism to be victims of "false consciousness". Those poor Salafist Muzzies just don't know how non-Muzzie they really are. But, Obama & his playmates are Islamic scholars, & they do.

Gyorgy Lukacs, I'll bet you're burning in Hell for inventing "false consciousness".

bflat879 said...

If Obama hated terrorists, as much as he hates Republicans, he'd have won this war 7 years ago. After 7 years, he still has no clue he's President of the United States. Isn't there anyone in that White House who understand the Office of the Presidency? How he can not call Governor Scott is beyond me, but since it's Obama I can figure it out.

As far as radical Islam is concerned, these people are being radicalized in 2 places, on the internet and in Mosques. They're not Catholic Mosques, they're not Baptist Mosques, they're not even KKK meeting places, they're Mosques. Since that's happening, I can't understand why he has such a hard time dealing with verbiage.

YoungHegelian said...

The Orlando killer, one of the San Bernardino killers, the Fort Hood killer -- they were all U.S. citizens. Are we going to start treating all Muslim Americans differently? Are we going to start subjecting them to special surveillance? Are we going to start discriminating against them, because of their faith?.

Would someone please explain to our Constitutional Scholar in Chief that no matter how odious Korematsu is now thought to be, it's still on the books for a good reason. Nasty, nasty shit happens in wartime, & the Executive Branch's hands are not to be tied in the middle of the nation's existential struggle.

holdfast said...

But that doesn't mean we go the rhhardinesque next step on immigration. Here's an interesting question: if you REALLY think the number of professing Muslims who would commit or support mass murder of the recent Orlando variety are vanishingly few, then you will agree that banning immigration from majority Muslim countries is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. It would be the same as banning males, since 100% of all these mass shooters--Muslim and not--are male.

But why not? There are hundreds of millions of Hindus, Buddhists and Christians who would love to come to the US? Why not just select from among them? What special skill or talent is possessed only by Pakistanis or Afghans? How is the US really poorer for their absence?

Also, 50% of the San Bernadino shooters were female.

Terry said...

I did it! I've managed to translate Gabby Johnson's speech from Blazing Saddles!

I wash born here, an I wash raished here, and dad gum it, I am gonna die here, an no sidewindin' bushwackin', hornswagglin' cracker croaker is gonna rouin me bishen cutter.

In plain English:

Republicans will gladly defend to the death this guy's alleged gun-bearing rights. Because freedom from tyranny means dying with a bunch of gays in a nightclub that you gunned down. Freedom to keep them from exercising their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Now who can argue with that? I think we’re all indebted to Gabby Johnson for clearly stating what needed to be said. Not only was it authentic frontier gibberish, it expressed a courage little seen in this day and age.

bgates said...

The Orlando killer, one of the San Bernardino killers, the Fort Hood killer -they were all U.S. citizens.

So was Anwar al-Awlaki. Whatever happened to that guy?

Rhythm and Balls said...

I think most gun rights people wish there were twenty gays packing concealed weapons at Pulse.

How unfortunate for you that some people actually go about their lives finding pleasure, instead of indulging your fantasy of making every American a never off-duty one-person police patrol unit.

I guess even the cops shouldn't get vacation time any more. How can you spend some carefree moments with your family when there's a potential criminal we've gratuitously armed lurking around every corner?

As for your beloved assault rifles, read up on how these NAZI weapons came to be in the first place.

Roughcoat said...

What an asshole Obama is. And stupid. A stupid asshole.

Terry said...

Obama: Defense Secretary Carter, Director Comey, ladies and gentlemen of the cabinet -- without a doubt you have learned of the massacre of 49 American citizens in Orlando by a Muslim terrorist this past Saturday evening. I have called this meeting to inform you that from this moment, this White House is on a war footing -- against Donald Trump and the Republican Party. Any questions?
Defense Secretary Aston Carter: Nope.
FBI Director James Comey: Nope.
Cabinet (in unison): Nope.

Roughcoat said...

And yet he has a better than 50 percent approval rating. Appalling.

Terry said...

It strikes me that R&B insults gun owners as stupid, bloodthirsty, wannabe killers, yet, somehow, manages to do so without exhibiting courage. It's a paradox. It is kind of like being in favor of abortion, but only when the mother does not want an abortion.

Rhythm and Balls said...

It strikes me that R&B insults gun owners as stupid, bloodthirsty, wannabe killers,...

I didn't realize that your fellow gun-rights sympathizer/owner Omar Mateen was something other than that. You must have known him better than anyone else did. Ditto for all the others.

Have you thought of using his image as a mascot for your cause?

narciso said...

well the internments were excessive, they could have been limited to the spies and saboteurs, more along the line of gitmo, of course quirin and eisentrager, aren't good enough precedents here,

Michael K said...

"As for your beloved assault rifles, read up on how these NAZI weapons came to be in the first place."

Oh God !

Does ignorance ever get hoarse ? Loud shouting about things that are in the speaker's imagination. We went through this in the 90s.

Terry said...

If R&B ran the world, the headlines Sunday morning would have read MUSLIM TERRORIST USES NAZI WEAPON TO MURDER GAYS!
Hey, I didn't vote for Obama. The proudest moment of my life was casting a vote for McCain/Palin. The memory brings a tear to my eye.

mishu said...

I've always preferred Islamic supremacists. Just as there are white supremacists, there are islamic supremacists.

traditionalguy said...

In all seriousness, the polling places had better double their orders for ballots and other necessary equipment. This election is going to call out every body including the stay at home folks and the never voted before in my life folks. The Muslims, with their RINO Republicans allies, are about to discover what attacking the territory of Jacksonian Americans gets them.





exiledonmainstreet said...


"How unfortunate for you that some people actually go about their lives finding pleasure, instead of indulging your fantasy of making every American a never off-duty one-person police patrol unit"

No, let's all keep our guard down and hope it happens to someone else instead. Have fun, kiddies!

When I was in Manhattan in the '80's and clubbing with girlfriends, it was very unfortunate that we had to be kinda careful when we were out on the streets at 2 am. It would have been much more pleasurable to dance through Chelsea singing "The 59th Street Song" while 3 sheets to the wind, but alas, we had to be on the lookout for creatures called "muggers" and "rapists" who really know how to spoil a girl's fun - especially in those pre-Rudy days.

Reality just bites sometimes. That doesn't make it less real.

tomaig said...

So Professor Obama deems them "Not Islamic", huh? THEY seem awful confident that this has EVERYTHING to do with Islam, though, don't they?

But America's own Imam Jackass Jug-Ears, the sage Barack, has decreed that they're basically "doing it all wrong"...and why in the world should anyone listen to him?

Seems to me that when the President of the United States repeatedly asserts that all these atrocities, all these bodies, all the blood and blown-apart limbs, all the deaths which ISIS proudly claims in the name of Allah....well, the POTUS calling them liars, asserting that HIS (Obama's) view of Islam is the holy and Koranic and CORRECT one, and that these ISIS folks don't know what the Hell they're talking about...wouldn't that be a "potent recruiting tool" for ISIS? Obama's constant mockery of the authenticity of their Islamic beliefs wouldn't tend to enrage these true-believers?

"By the beard of the Prophet, How many must we slay, how loud do we have to shout, "Allahu Akbar!" before this INFIDEL believes us!!"

Really tired of Obama, tired of his evasions, his arrogance, his making excuses for the murderous terrorists.

As @iowahawkblog aptly put it:
"The head of ISIS has a PhD in Islamic Theology from the Islamic University of Baghdad. What are your credentials?"

Rt1 Rebel said...

R&B, you're barking up the wrong tree here. The perp in this instance had more credential to buy and carry a gun than probably 90% of all other upstanding citizens. The failure occurred as a result of ineptitude and PC. Red flag investigations were closed, and multiple complaints to his employer were ignored. So your gun control solution to this must be to prevent anyone at all from possessing a firearm, including police and military?

Amadeus 48 said...

R and B--

How many times does one have to say it:
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
In this case, it took them three hours to get into the club.

Counterfactuals are always fantasy (although the White House loves them when talking about the economy after 2009). A guy can dream. One of mine is that Mateen faced twenty armed opponents in the club. Instead he met 200 law-abiding victims and killed 49 of them. Those law abiding folks never had a chance.


Rhythm and Balls said...

Michael K apparently chimes in to lament that the firepower and volume carried by Omar Mateen wasn't great enough.

Stephen said...

"(H)e wants to convey the message that the form of Islam used by the terrorists is an incorrect interpretation of Islam."

Close. I think it closer to say that he wants to believe, and he wants you to believe too, that this is an incorrect interpretation of Islam.

As an outsider, as he claims to be, he has no moral or interpretive authority in the Islamic world. Is there any evidence that what Obama says matters the slightest in the Islamic world? No, seems to be the rather obvious answer: obvious even to Obama. So, his intended audience can not be the Umma, rather he is speaking to himself and trying to convince you.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Blogger Roughcoat said...
And yet he has a better than 50 percent approval rating. Appalling.

6/14/16, 6:28 PM

Give it a few days. It always goes higher when he's out of the public eye for a bit and tends to drop when he starts opening his piehole in front of the cameras.

This isn't a winning issue for him - hence his peevishness.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Who opposed preventing purchases for those listed on the terrorism watch list, as apparently this guy was, Rt1 Rebel? THE NRA. Even among gun owners the NRA's favorability is about as low as Hillary Clinton's and Donald Trump's. Totally in the gutter. And yet, they've got carte blanche to make all the pro-terrorist gun laws that you sheeple will predictably show up here to bleat and re-bleat and re-bleat like the loudmouthed ungulates that you are.

Arm the sheeple! Arm the sheeple! Guns don't kill people, sheeple arming other sheeple kill people.

mishu said...

>How unfortunate for you that some people actually go about their lives finding pleasure, instead of indulging your fantasy of making every American a never off-duty one-person police patrol unit.

No, douchebag. The club needs better security procedures with a controlled entrance to the club. Seriously, how does a night club allow someone with a rifle to waltz in like that? There must be many underage drinkers there as well. What happened to bouncers and a velvet rope?

Michael K said...

"Michael K apparently chimes in to lament that the firepower and volume carried by Omar Mateen wasn't great enough."

Are you really that stupid ?

You obviously don't know anything about guns, the shooter or the law.

There is an option to keep your mouth (and keyboard) shut and have people think you may be stupid or to open it and prove that you are.

Nice job.

AprilApple said...

NBC pro-democrat hack press just reported how much money the NRA gives those horrible terrorist supporting Rethuglicans.

No mention of Hillary's huge cash haul from radical Muslim nations.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Just say what you really mean Amadeus 48: Unarmed people deserve to die.

That's pretty much the point you're getting at. We get it. You'll be held accountable for it, too.

Terry said...

Gotta get your facts straight:
Omar Mateen was placed on a terrorist watch list maintained by the FBI when its agents questioned him in 2013 and 2014 about potential ties to terrorism, according to U.S. law enforcement officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the case.

He was subsequently removed from that database after the FBI closed its two investigations, one official said.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-orlando-nightclub-shooting-live-omar-mateen-was-taken-off-a-terrorist-1465772737-htmlstory.html

Not being allowed to possess a firearm would have ended Mateen's career in security. Not good to do that with a secret list. Progressives were against that kind of thing when a secret black list was used to keep commies from working.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Are you really that stupid ?

You obviously don't know anything about guns, the shooter or the law.

There is an option to keep your mouth (and keyboard) shut and have people think you may be stupid or to open it and prove that you are.

Nice job.


Why don't you just shoot me? I'm unarmed and that's how people like you prefer to settle things, anyway. Plus, we've got a nice little thread on here to show law enforcement once you're done, so it wouldn't be a total loss - at least when it comes to your arrest and trial.

But in the meantime, if you can't defend the NAZI technology that you love so much known as the assault rifle, then go take your bitching to those encyclopedia editors.

David said...

Omar the supposed religious pervert attacked a bar full of homosexuals, who used to be categorized legally and socially as perverts until our law and society (part of it) decided that homosexuality is not perversion. Now, we have a faction that strongly argues that persons who argue on Christian religious grounds that homosexuality is perverted are actually perverting Christian religion. A different faction argues that Christianity itself is a perversion and it's views on homosexuality (especially those "fundamentalists") are evidence of the innate perversion of the religion. This group overlaps with the group that believes that negative attitudes towards to Muslim religion are perverted, which opposes the group that believes that the Muslim religion is by its nature a perversion.

It seems our effort to rid society of the concept of perversion is confusing us. Or perhaps it's perverting us.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Not being allowed to possess a firearm would have ended Mateen's career in security. Not good to do that with a secret list. Progressives were against that kind of thing when a secret black list was used to keep commies from working.

So keep Muslims out of the country but defend their rights to purchase arms when placed on the same list that keeps them from flying. I see your concerns about totalitarianism are very well-prioritized.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

Somewhere during the long process of picking apart BHO's talk of Perverted Muslims rather than Radical Muslims you'd think a light bulb would go off in Althouse's head.

After all her blather, she still walks away w/o having demonstrating that calling terrorists Radical Muslims instead of Perverted Muslims will help to fight terrorists. She can't even tell us why it's bad for an outsider to label believers as perverted believers, but it's cool to label them as radical believers.

Maybe Scott Adams thinks that in the battle for hearts and minds of Muslims it's more persuasive for us as outsiders to call Muslim terrorists Radicals rather than Perversions. Althouse's attempts missed the mark, but maybe Adams, as a self professed persuasion expert, could try to salvation her effort.

Roughcoat said...

As for constructing legitimate classes for scrutiny, that can only be legitimately done based on commonly-held principles or uniform expression of an orientation (i.e. bias.)

Why didn't you just say "bias"?

Or are you operating on the principle of never using one word when ten are available?

Amadeus 48 said...

R and B--

Man, you are taking too many bad drugs.

My point is that law-abiding people deserve that chance to protect themselves and others.

exiledonmainstreet said...

The perp in this instance had more credential to buy and carry a gun than probably 90% of all other upstanding citizens. The failure occurred as a result of ineptitude and PC. Red flag investigations were closed, and multiple complaints to his employer were ignored. So your gun control solution to this must be to prevent anyone at all from possessing a firearm, including police and military?

6/14/16, 6:44 PM

Excellent point. What say you, R & B, to that? This guy wasn't investigated because people were afraid of looking Islamophobic, just as the the neighbors didn't complain about suspicious activity on the part of the San Bern terrorists and nobody reported Maj. Hasan because goodness, we can't be bigots. Because the politicians and media on your side of the political aisle have everyone so terrified of being un-PC that red flags are ignored and people end up dying. Why don't you turn some of your fucking outrage on those people, the true enablers?

Terry said...

It's sorta cute when R&B tries to talk about religion. Kind of like when a toddler puts on grownup clothes and guzzles a bottle of dad's liquor.

Drago said...

It's very important that we continue to import as many radical muslims as possible. That way all of America can be as "gay free" as East London and in record time!

Just think, it might even be possible to create a nation without gays like Iran!

We have much to learn from our non-western, non-Christian, non-white betters.

CWJ said...

Steve Uhr wrote -

"The Constitution doesn't prevent Obama or any other elected official from pontificating on what they think constitutes true Islam. They are not dictating what others are permitted to think or believe.

I agree with Obama that we are talking about semantics. We all know who the enemy is. They are the ones who are killing innocent Americans in the name of Islam. They self-label as Muslims. Whether you say ISIS or ISIL or radical Islamists or jihadists doesn't much matter."

Point taken. Fine. So other than that, what is anyone in authority (I looking at you Obama) doing about it. Wake me up when you (and the president) want to discuss substance rather than dormitory sophistry.

"We all know who the enemy is." Really? Because what comes out of the mouths of this administration over the years seems to suggest that it is their political opposition rather than anyone else.

Drago said...

I am surprised that R&B's has the time to post here.

There must be a anti-Western Civ protest by the lefties going on somewhere.

Roughcoat said...

khesanh0802 @ 4:53 pm:

Good post. Well said.

Rhythm and Balls said...

My point is that law-abiding people deserve that chance to protect themselves and others.

A chance to be a paranoid lunatic who can't walk about without being impelled to randomly fear any number of their fellow citizens. What an opportunity! Very enjoyable way to go through life, not being able to allow the police to do their jobs and having to do it for them.

Hagar said...

Obama's thing about "not making this the West against Islam" is also a strawman B.S.
It is "radical Islam," or "the Islamic State," against the rest of the world, including Moslem states that do not toe their line.
Remember the hoopla about Russia and Chechnya? It has not gone away, and it is in all the 'stans, not just Chechnya.
China is experiencing unrest in their western provinces again, and is taking it seriously. China fought several wars there against "Mohammedanism" in the 19th century, and there have been "troubles" in the 20th too.
India and Indonesia have got problems.
All of North Africa is in flames, not just Libya.

So Obama's premises are all wrong, just wrong.

narciso said...

the difference is his statements are a signal to the bureaucracy, do they actually start doing their job, or look away,

mockturtle said...

An idiot psychiatrist on CNN [Wolf Blitzer] called the killer 'tormented' and said he had been 'overweight as a child'. If that's not a reason to massacre people, I don't know what is!

Terry said...

I can't let R&B's homophobic remarks go uncontested.
I will have you know that ranks of the Sturmabteilung were filled with homosexuals. It's leader, Ernst Rohm, was openly homosexual. The Sturmabteilung were heroes of the early gay rights movement. They liked guns.

Drago said...

R&B: "A chance to be a paranoid lunatic who can't walk about without being impelled to randomly fear any number of their fellow citizens."

Yes.

Absolutely.

Let's put a bunch of R&B's in Lois Lerner-type authority over secret lists that can result in American's being denied their 2nd Amendment rights!

Who could possibly be against such a "common sense" solution like that? After all, it's not as if there is any evidence the obama admin would abuse political opponents thru the actions of it's federal agencies.

If only republicans were Mexican drug cartel members. Then obama and his minions would simply hand them fully automatic weapons which were untraceable!

Alas.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Excellent point. What say you, R & B, to that? This guy wasn't investigated because people were afraid of looking Islamophobic, just as the the neighbors didn't complain about suspicious activity on the part of the San Bern terrorists and nobody reported Maj. Hasan because goodness, we can't be bigots. Because the politicians and media on your side of the political aisle have everyone so terrified of being un-PC that red flags are ignored and people end up dying. Why don't you turn some of your fucking outrage on those people, the true enablers?

I never said I was pro-P.C. But there are constitutional rights that get in the way of that. I just think you wackos are out of your gourds to prioritize rights for terrorism watch list suspects over rights for people who just get some stupid religious label. It's more easier to take away rights from gun owners, let alone those who've been prevented from boarding (and eventually blowing up) planes. But if there's anything to be said for your kooky tribe, it's that you like your totalitarianism with a broad and more sloppy brush: Go after all Muslims and stop fixating on those who simply are under investigation for terrorism!

Way to take a bazooka to your target.

Roughcoat said...

Are we going to start discriminating against them, because of their faith?

Gee, I dunno. Why dontcha ask the baker in Colorado who refused to bake a cake for the gay couple because of his religious beliefs?

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

"It is "radical Islam," or "the Islamic State," against the rest of the world, including Moslem states that do not toe their line."

Do you folks not feel stupid when you claim it really matters if you call the terrorists Perverted Muslims instead of Radical Muslims?

Your con leaders who get you riled up w/ this distinction are either really good at manipulation, or y'all are more than a bit slow.

mockturtle said...

You're right, Terry. The Reich leadership was rife with homosexuals, the SA chief being perhaps the most notorious.

Rhythm and Balls said...

It's like when Trump said to kill terrorists' family members. All you dummies care about is vengeance, not the actual problem.

I suggest you put a picture of Omar Mateen on the gun that you masturbate into. He's obviously your hero. He got the government off HIS back, that's for sure! No terrorism watch list impediment to HIS rights. He sure thanks you for defending them.

Char Char Binks said...

You go into these small towns in Whateverthefuckistan and, like a lot of small towns in the Mideast, the infidels have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Caliphate regime, and the Ba'ath regime, and each successive regime has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-gay sentiment or pro-goat-fucking sentiment as a way to explain their ALLAHU AKBAR!

Seeing Red said...

Freedom of religion unless it involves paying for birth control or performing it. Or certain instances in adoption. Or baking cakes.

Drago said...

Rhythm and Balls: "It's like when Trump said to kill terrorists' family members. All you dummies care about is vengeance, not the actual problem."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-exempts-syria-airstrikes-from-tight-standards-on-civilian-deaths-183724795.html?ref=gs

Well, I guess we are done with that line of nonsense.

buwaya said...

"The pluralism and the openness, our rule of law, our civil liberties, the very things that make this country great."

These are the greatest lies this administration has ever mouthed, and they repeat it regularly. They say this and do the opposite. They and the cultural milieu they come from are committed to suppression of everything from anyone that isn't them. Speech, thought, enterprise, initiative, competence, anything at all.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

Char,

That's impressive. You even used "or" to separate what these folks cling to. Cons who like to paraphrase the original prefer "and." And, you got the full list of things that are clung to. Well, you may have lost it a little at the end by excluding "anti-trade sentiment."

exiledonmainstreet said...

Uh, balls, this is admittedly old news but maybe you should get out of Manhattan every now and then:

"A day before President Barack Obama is scheduled to release Vice President Joe Biden's recommendations to curb gun violence in the United States, the National Rifle Association told U.S. News and World Report that they have seen membership grow by 250,000 in the month since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut."

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/01/15/nra-membership-has-grown-by-250000-in-one-month

"Even among gun owners the NRA's favorability is about as low as Hillary Clinton's and Donald Trump's. Totally in the gutter"

Yep, Ritmo totally has his finger on the pulse of America's gun owners.

A friend of mine complained just last week that after 6 months, she is still waiting for an opening to take a gun safety class so she can get her CC permit. She's a suburban soccer mom, a Bernie voter for Chrissake.

"Why don't you just shoot me? I'm unarmed and that's how people like you prefer to settle things, anyway"

Jesus. A 16 year old girl on the rag is calm and reasonable compared to you.

TA said...

The paragraph that begins with "again with the 'who' is an insight that deserves exploration.

It's funny, I pretty much agree with Obama's approach to this threat. But his approach to the presidency always has leaned toward "the man in the pulpit." That moral didacticism just has to be a piss-poor way of connecting with the people (excepting perhaps the Left elite), especially at times of stress.

Terry said...

It's more easier to take away rights from gun owners, let alone those who've been prevented from boarding (and eventually blowing up) planes.
The US can limit immigration in any way it pleases without running up against the bill of rights.
You are getting dumber as the day grows older, R&B.
Guilt by association will get you on the terrorist watch list. Sounds un-American to me. At least, I think that being associated with terrorists or terrorist organizations will get you on the watch list. The people who maintain it (the TSC), won't confirm any names on the list, or how they get on the list.
Given the heavy membership of gays in organizations like the Sturmabteilung and the Palestinian Liberation Organization, maybe simply being queer will get you on the list.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Well, I guess we are done with that line of nonsense.

Your nonsense is definitely something you're never done with. Obama has not decided to target families. You don't even understand the difference between minimizing or relaxing the scope on how much collateral damage to minimize and actually going for Arabian-style vengeance by seeking out additional family to target.

You were obviously born in the wrong country and into the wrong culture.

Rhythm and Balls said...

You are getting dumber as the day grows older, R&B.

Not too many libraries in Hawaii, eh?

dreams said...

Obama knows who the enemy is, it is us. He hates America.

Michael K said...

"But in the meantime, if you can't defend the NAZI technology that you love so much known as the assault rifle, then go take your bitching to those encyclopedia editors."

"Stupid is as stupid does."

The original assault rifle was the the STG 44.

It was a submachine gun and the AK 47 was similar.

The AR 15 was designed by Eugene Stoner and Armalite Company offered it as a successor to the M 14 which was a rifle that had automatic fire and used a 7.62 round. The recoil was too strong in auto fire mode and ammo was heavy. The AR 15 was smaller, lighter and the ammo was much lighter and less powerful, NOT MORE powerful like you stupid people allege. The M 16 has two auto modes, a 3 round burst and I:m not even sure full auto is sill an option.

The civilian AR 15 is very popular as a hunting rifle, partly because so many people got used to it in the service where it is ubiquitous. People who have never served the country know nothing about it and nothing about guns in general, for the most part.

I just wish they would shut up when they have nothing intelligent to say.

Like you, for example.

buwaya said...

"It seems our effort to rid society of the concept of perversion is confusing us. Or perhaps it's perverting us."

Yes. This is the process of decadence. You dwindle, faster even than the Habsburg empire.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Ritmo,

Have you ever actually, you know, held a gun? Or fired one?

As a woman who lives in a city and has become pretty comfortable with owning and carrying a pistol (something that did not come naturally, but took practice and training), I have to say, you sound like somebody whose knowledge of firearms comes solely from the NY Times and Tarantino films.

Roughcoat said...

"Naming is the mother of 10,000 things." -- The Vedas

Drago said...

R&B: "Obama has not decided to target families."

LOL

He has not said that he would target families. It's just quite a few women and children "non-family" members that get swept up in his loosened ROE.

Thanks for playing.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Have you ever actually, you know, held a gun? Or fired one?

Do you sleep with it, too? Does it come with a "vibrate" mode?

I can go just as ad hominem as you can.

Glad you find your personal feelings to be more important than you do the lives of Americans who are under no obligation - constitutional, moral, or psychological - to become their own personal police force.

Unless you want to pay them all a policeman's wage differential on top of what they already earn as compensation.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

"NOT MORE powerful like you stupid people allege."

Okay, but what does that mean in practice? Is it true that the AR and cartridge derive from a gun designed for the military to use in battle? Is it true that they liked that the high velocity, light rounds could penetrate flesh and then start rotating and creating all sorts of damage to who ever was hit?

I think the better argument against bans is that there are plenty of other guns that can to the same damage, but don't look like a so-called assault weapon. OTOH, this is also why I don't think gun folks must have these guns, they can get the same result w/o them.

Drago said...

R&B: "You don't even understand the difference between minimizing or relaxing the scope on how much collateral damage to minimize and actually going for Arabian-style vengeance by seeking out additional family to target."

Some of us actually do have direct experience in mission planning within precise, and then less precise, parameters.

And some of us, for instance-you, do not.

But do go on with your lecturing. It's amusing.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Thanks for playing.

You are a total dumbass. Anyone who by 2016 doesn't know the difference between collateral damage and deliberate vengeance against noncombatants as advocated by Trump is not worth addressing.

Drago said...

PB&J: "Okay, but what does that mean in practice? ...."

LOL

Who cares what it means? You have a narrative to build. Build on!

Char Char Binks said...

@PBandJ_LeDouanier

I know nothing about cons who like to paraphrase that. I said exactly what I meant to say, but thanks for the tip.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Screw this. You lefties don't mind blaming whole communities, you blame me all the time and I haven't done anything. You are falling all over yourselves to blame me for this, already!

I have to say, Professor, that you might want to be careful about throwing "no one gets to define what's orthodoxy for America" stones. Is that not precisely what you have done repeatedly--in a self-proclaimed loving manner--in response to people who express reservations about, say, some pro-homosexual topic? You know, "that is old thinking and people won't tolerate it any more, that is now out of the mainstream and you lost that fight and anyone who disagrees is a hater....so you should all embrace love."
How is that different from the President's position?

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

M.K.

Are you sure that's a gun for hunting? Presumably a gun designed for killing in war is not the best option for killing game.

Drago said...

R&B: "You are a total dumbass. Anyone who by 2016 doesn't know the difference between collateral damage and deliberate vengeance against noncombatants as advocated by Trump is not worth addressing."

LOL

By loosening the ROE, obama knew it was a certainty he would be whacking family members and other civilians.

That's why it was such a big deal to loosen those standards and worth reporting on by the press.

I'm sorry if this upsets you.

Do you require a safe space in which to retreat now?

Rhythm and Balls said...

The civilian AR 15 is very popular as a hunting rifle, partly because so many people got used to it in the service where it is ubiquitous.

Did these returning service members want to nuke and lob MOABs on the deer, also? Or just use the functional equivalent of other banned firearms on them?

WAR ON THE DEER! THE ROE ARE NOT PRO-HUMAN ENOUGH!

Rhythm and Balls said...

Nothing Drago says upsets me, or anyone else for that matter. Nothing he says is even worth listening to.

Drago said...

R&B's: "Nothing Drago says upsets me, or anyone else for that matter. Nothing he says is even worth listening to."

I'm sorry, you were saying?

jimbino said...

Are we going to start treating all Muslim Americans differently? Are we going to start subjecting them to special surveillance? Are we going to start discriminating against them, because of their faith?

Why not? We treat atheists and agnostics differently in our laws--in the ubiquitous god insults on our coins and bills, in our public monuments and graveyard symbols, in our public prayers and moments of silence.

In the past, Amerikans have solved similar problems by Trails of Tears, internment camps, genocide, Congressional inquisitions and the like. Recognizing that the Constitution is "not a suicide pact," I recommend barring all persons who profess religion, which poisons everything, from entering the country or occupying political office.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Anybody else remember that #YesAllWomen campaign? Like, pushing back against the assertion that "not all men are rapists" by arguing that all women are at risk and all women have, in some way, been made to feel fear (or actually been harmed)?

I remember it. What would the Left say to an analogous answer to the "not all Muslims" assertion people like the President keep making?

Rhythm and Balls said...

Are you sure that's a gun for hunting?

Apparently it's a great gun for hunting.... other human beings. Including a bunch of gay kids at a discotheque.

But that's Dr. K for you. Always worrying that we don't have efficient enough ways of killing other people. Good think Omar Mateen had Dr. K to defend his rights.

Right now, at this very second, there are at least a few if not dozens of Muslim terrorists who are counting on Michael K's and other NRA shills on this very thread to defend their deadly weapons rights, and more successfully implement their terrorism because of it.

Everyone knows that's how it works in Israel. So of course it should work over here.

Michael K and Drago rejoice with every unarmed American gunned down. I'm telling you they literally do. They think the unarmed deserve to die and that the only rights that matter are those Americans (whether Trump would have let them in or not) in the process of purchasing firepower.

That's literally all that matters to them.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Glad you find your personal feelings to be more important than you do the lives of Americans who are under no obligation - constitutional, moral, or psychological - to become their own personal police force. "

Fuck feelings. I consider my personal right not to be attacked, raped, robbed and murdered by a male who is heavier and stronger than me to be more important than your piddly hysteria. (Christ, with men like you around, is it any wonder more women want to be armed? What fucking good would you be in the event of an attack? I know! You'll sneer them to death! Corner them with your deadly snark!)

You're the one who's having a hissy boo fit in this thread over scary guns. And I do have a constitutional right to defend myself, fool. I'm not talking about going out to patrol the streets like Wonder Woman.

My, you have a lot of interesting little gun-toting characters running around in your head, jes' watching for the chance to shoot someone up! Except for the fact that the communities where people really are shooting each other all the time aren't Republican ones.

Drago said...

jimbino: "Why not? We treat atheists and agnostics differently in our laws--in the ubiquitous god insults on our coins and bills, in our public monuments and graveyard symbols, in our public prayers and moments of silence"

49 gunned down in Orlando.

But if you think that is bad, sometimes an atheist has to look at "God" written on money!

Those club goers in Orlando had it easy compared to Jimbino.

Nobody knows the troubles he's seen.

Matthew Sablan said...

"For a while now, the main contribution of some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have made in the fight against ISIL is to criticize this administration and me for not using the phrase 'radical Islam.'"

... What's the point of me reading the rest of his speech when he starts with lies so blatant?

Barry Dauphin said...

Sounds like he's criticizing President Trump

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

"... What's the point of me reading the rest of his speech when he starts with lies so blatant?"

If you stand by this, you're the one who can be proven a liar. Any R who gets worked up about the Radical Muslim v Perverted Muslim issue but was against giving BHO Congressional approval to fight in Syria is falls precisely into BHO's description.

They blather about Radical v. Perversion, but they don't show up when it matters.

Drago said...

R&B's: "Right now, at this very second, there are at least a few if not dozens of Muslim terrorists who are counting on Michael K's and other NRA shills on this very thread to defend their deadly weapons rights, and more successfully implement their terrorism because of it."

Right now there are muslim terrorists counting on the PC language police to keep the US population cowed sufficiently to not report on strange activities for fear of being prosecuted.

And where would the muslims get the crazy idea that any American reporting on strange activities by muslims might feel pressured not to do so?

We already know the answer to that.

Drago said...

PBJ: "...but was against giving BHO Congressional approval to fight in Syria..."

Syria? LOL

Which Obama?

The one who called for Assads ouster, but then changed his (and Kerry's) mind?

The one who set the Red Line and then said -Red Line? What Red Line? I didn't set any red lines. You set the red lines.-

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/09/obamas-blurry-red-line/

I'm afraid you will have to be a bit more precise about which BHO you are speaking about.

Terry said...

"but was against giving BHO Congressional approval to fight in Syria"
Obama doesn't need congressional approval for anything!

Drago said...

It's not like we have much to worry about in terms of "visitors" over-staying their welcome in the US.

What is it now? About half a mil a year?

Well, certainly no bad elements who intended us harm would purposely overstay their visa! Why, that would be against the law or something.

Drago said...

Terry: "Obama doesn't need congressional approval for anything!"

Would this be the action in Syria that obama required Republican support for immediately after not requiring Republican support for "Hillary's Libya Adventure"?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/world/africa/22powers.html?_r=0

Rhythm and Balls said...

Fuck feelings.

Except your own. FUck those Orlando mothers' feelings.

I consider my personal right not to be attacked, raped, robbed and murdered by a male who is heavier and stronger than me to be more important than...

...the personal right of unarmed Floridians to be attacked, raped, robbed and murdered? Yes, I get that.

...your piddly hysteria.

Lol. I can hear the puddles forming underneath your own hysteria.

(Christ, with men like you around, is it any wonder more women want to be armed?

I'm not even going to touch this one, Hillary. You sound about one step away from saying that the Floridians deserved to die for not being "manly" enough. Kill the homos, saith the wacky "exiled" bitch. Geez, is it any wonder men have better things to do than to waste their time with you, ballistic Helga?

You don't impress me. You're the American equivalent of an East European 'roided out gymnast with hairy underarms and biceps bigger than barrels. Totally psycho and not worth the trouble.

What fucking good would you be in the event of an attack? I know! You'll sneer them to death! Corner them with your deadly snark!)

It earns me more and improves my status relative to that of whatever sociopathic trailer trash you're shacking up with while he fulfills your fantasies of not living in an actual society, despite being obviously incapable of actually escaping it and living on your own and away from the society you hate so much.

You're the one who's having a hissy boo fit in this thread over scary guns.

Like I said, Hillary. You need to stop reading into things. Simply believing that other peoples' lives matter - how ever many dozens of them - is not dishonorable, disreputable, immature. It just shows that your disdain for it makes you the moral equivalent of a sewer rat. (If you're even female. That sounds doubtful though, Hillary).

And I do have a constitutional right to defend myself, fool.

No one took it away from you, Mr. T.

I'm not talking about going out to patrol the streets like Wonder Woman.

Everyone knows you resent not having a dick. But acting like one sort of gives away your game.

Except for the fact that the communities where people really are shooting each other all the time aren't Republican ones.

I'm glad you approve of your fantasy man Omar Mateen's "morals" and ethics even as you cheer on the fact that he demonstrated them in a place so far, far away from wherever it is that anyone would willingly choose to have you as a neighbor.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

Drago,

I know it's inconvenient when cons get all worked up about nothing happening after the red line, but it is a fact that Rs in Congress refused to authorize force when BHO asked for after the red line crossing.

Of course, it is true that Assad ended up giving up the chemical weapons w/o the forces BHO asked for from Congress. But, it's probably a little too late for cons to take credit for this effective diplomacy. Especially since that didn't make any dough for the defense contractors, aka lobbyists.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Just wondering: If conservative men despise women as much as liberals like to say they do, why did every conservative man I know encourage me to buy a pistol, advise me on the best one to get for personal protection and in the case of one, take me to the range and show me how to shoot?

Conservative men want me to be able to protect myself, while leftist men like R & B would rather have women (and gays) left defenseless.

But hey, when unarmed people are murdered, leftists are very good at holding memorial services and marching, holding candles and singing "Imagine." They send out selfies to show how sad they are that someone else got killed.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

Drago,

He always maintained that he could go unilaterally in Syria. But, that doesn't take away from the fact that the Rs were against fighting in Syria when the would have actually been accountable. You know what accountable means, right? That's what people are supposed to do when they control Congress.

Night Owl said...

Obama asks, "What exactly would using this label [radical Islam] accomplish?"

For starters it defines the enemy. He needs to say "radical Islam" to distinguish the enemy from non-radicalized Muslim-Americans. Then he needs to explain what he is doing to prevent the spread of radical Islam among young Muslims in this country.

If "Mr Smartest Man in the Room" won't use the phrase "radical Islam", if he won't clearly define those who have openly declared themselves to be an enemy of the US, how does this genius expect the maybe not so nuanced thinkers to make a distinction between peaceful Muslim-Americans and the radicalized ones? If he thinks not using the word "Islam" is going to fool anyone into thinking these are just random crazy people committing acts of terror and not Muslims, he is the fool in the room; he and others who are under the delusion that not naming something means it does not exist.

The progressive left might feel comfortable absorbing Islamic terrorist attacks as the new norm in the quest for a multi-cultural utopia, but at some point the Americans "clinging bitterly to their guns and religion" will not. Petulant word-games played by Obama and the PC crowd do not inspire confidence that our leadership takes the threat of radical Islam seriously. Our leaders need to be real clear who the enemy is, and real clear about what they are doing to protect all Americans from the danger of radical Islam. If instead, they insist on appearing out of touch with reality, people will lose faith in their leadership and if history is any guide, will take action into their own hands.

Additionally, I agree with "Bay Area Guy" @5:13

Rhythm and Balls said...

Right now there are muslim terrorists counting on the PC language police to keep the US population cowed sufficiently to not report on strange activities for fear of being prosecuted.

I don't feel "cowed", whatever that means. Do you feel horsed and calved, too?

And where would the muslims get the crazy idea that any American reporting on strange activities by muslims might feel pressured not to do so?

Strange position for someone who defends terrorist gun rights to take. Obviously you are arguing with yourself here. You feel afraid of them, you are too scared to deny their obviously flimsy excuse for a right to purchase more arms...

I think you need "exiledonmainstreet" to defend you. She sounds masculine enough anyway. Very much your type. Your paranoia will complement her hypergonadal testosterone/PCOS very well.

The only question I have is... will the two of you take turns shaving each other's mustache hair? It's important to divide labor equally in a relationship between a womanly man and a manly woman.

I sure hope you two lesbians have a blast. (Ballistic terminology unintended). She is butch, you are the femme.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

"They send out selfies to show how sad they are that someone else got killed."

I'd say it's worse when Congress, which could actually do something (like authorize the fight in Syria) can only manage to take a ten second break from their useless jabbering.

Drago said...

PBandJ_LeDouanier: "Drago, I know it's inconvenient when cons get all worked up about nothing happening after the red line,...."

LOL: "...the red line...". I'm sorry. Perhaps you didn't hear obama clearly enough. It was HIS red line. Not "the" red line.

PBJ: ".. but it is a fact that Rs in Congress refused to authorize force when BHO asked for after the red line crossing..."

It is a fact that obama did not have congressional authorization when he attacked in Libya. So that dog won't hunt.

PBJ: "Of course, it is true that Assad ended up giving up the chemical weapons w/o the forces BHO asked for from Congress. But, it's probably a little too late for cons to take credit for this effective diplomacy. Especially since that didn't make any dough for the defense contractors, aka lobbyists."

LOL

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-gives-syrias-assad-another-pass-on-chemical-weapons/2014/10/23/1fe92762-5a05-11e4-bd61-346aee66ba29_story.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/world/middleeast/syria-chemical-weapons.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/16/syria-assad-regime-is-weaponising-chlorine-us-congress-to-hear

http://www.weeklystandard.com/assad-has-used-chemical-weapons-even-after-the-ceasefire-has-begun/article/2001348

Does your extraordinary gullibility ever manifest itself in such a way that you are unable to avoid it?

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

"He needs to say "radical Islam" to distinguish the enemy from non-radicalized Muslim-Americans."

He already says that these are Perverted Muslims, what exactly is better by calling them Radical Muslims?

Comanche Voter said...

President Four Putt has a distracting question before him: Is he the Second Coming Of Jesus, or is he the Fourth Imam? Decisions, decisions, this twerp is a legend in his own mind.

Rhythm and Balls said...

Conservative men want me to be able to protect myself, while leftist men like R & B would rather have women (and gays) left defenseless.

Hillary, like I said. No one gives a fuck about you, or what you do. Literally.

Until you get yourself on the terrorism watch list.

At that point, it's possible that your girlfriend Huma might get nervous. But as I said, I think this should be law enforcement's concern. It's the NRA shills who are trying to constrain their ROE, because they have violent "white knight" fantasies that you apparently share.

Did Harlequin sell out of romance novels for you to read with buff heroes on the cover this month or something?

Drago said...

R&B: "Did Harlequin sell out of romance novels for you to read with buff heroes on the cover this month or something?"

You know, all these projection issues you have could have been mitigated significantly if you had ever placed yourself in a single situation where you had to demonstrate something along the lines of physical and/or mental courage.

There is a lot of self-loathing in your postings. We've seen it before.

PBandJ_LeDouanier said...

Drago,

I was throwing you a bone there. Without some silver lining, what excuse is there for the Rs in Congress refusing to provide BHO w/ authorization to fight in Syria?

Also, you and I both need to learn the html for href clickable weblinks.

Birkel said...

Remember, Althouse, you voted for this president.

Wear it well.

You were warned, repeatedly, about the obvious outcome.

buwaya said...

"Is it true that the AR and cartridge derive from a gun designed for the military to use in battle?"

Pretty much all modern civilian hunting rifles and their cartridges derive from military weapons, though the lineage may go back to the 19th century. All bolt-action rifles certainly do, as do their rimless cartridges (nearly all derived from Mauser designs); smokeless powder, boat-tailed, jacketed, pointed bullets, etc. and etc. My great-grandpa carried an 1893 Mauser (Spanish variant) in 7mm while suppressing the Philippine insurrection of 1896 - you can, today, buy a new hunting rifle with a near-identical action and chambered for the exact same 7mm cartridge (though with a more modern bullet, also derived from a military innovation).

The same goes for much else in any gun store, to some degree, including most revolvers and pistols. Partial exceptions are shotguns.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 408   Newer› Newest»