It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Storms The World Stage And Rips Republicans For Being Afraid Of The Media and Orphans

page: 7
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Both sides don’t respect each others well founded and justified fears.


In the gun issue the conservatives don’t respect the well founded fears that the liberals have of guns


And here the liberals don’t respect the well founded fears of the conservatives over letting potential terrorists in the country


The conservative rely on the 2nd amendment and the liberals are relying on our tradition of letting political immigrants in the country in times of strife

You see both sides have legitimate points and therefore compromise has to be accomplished or well never get anywhere

edit on 19-11-2015 by Willtell because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
Is that what this is about? Your feelings got hurt?




No, my level of disgust got hurt by always being on the crap end of the stick in the two-party pissing contest.



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
During which time frame? And by which parameters? I mean, do we disregard "workplace violence" and attempts that are thwarted?


Read it and find out. Then I expect your proper mental gymnastics to dismiss it so you can continue to paint Muslims as big bad numero uno.

Are All Terrorists Muslims? It’s Not Even Close

Non-Muslims Carried Out More than 90% of All Terrorist Attacks in America


I'm generally one of the first to use the cliché that I'd rather deal with the inconveniences of too much liberty than the inconveniences of too little, but our conversation has nothing to do with liberty or freedom, it has to do with our federal government acting intelligently and on behalf of the American People instead of in an effort to look good on the national stage.


So freedom is ok to sacrifice when you feel threatened?


Actually, I did care about them last month, as I've been following this for a while. Just because I didn't discuss it with you or on ATS doesn't mean that I didn't care. There is life that happens for me outside of the ATS microsphere...


You didn't care enough to go out and protest them being here did you?



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye



I was defending the idea of having a thoughtful, productive national discussion on how to deal with the refugee crisis. One free of partisan fingerpointing and exploitation to score political points.

Really?

From an earlier post:

Do I believe for one second that he or any other partisans that just want to feel superior to 'the other party' give two sh**s about the refugees? No way. It's all about a feeling of partisan superiority.


It doesn't answer my other question at all, which is: So - do we just screw the refugees?

You're an Independent - you claim the moral high ground here apparently. So - if you're not supporting the republicans, and you are clearly against Obama - what is your independent solution?

Your initial post to me was to criticize me for feeling proud about the things Obama said as presented in the OP. I am proud of him. Very


edit on 11/19/2015 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   
the idea of islam is beaten into muslim children just like christian or jewish kids. The difference is that one religion gives you a free pass to kill unbelievers. given enough time can a muslim culture produce terrorism in the US? i don't know, but there's too much at stake to give it a chance. that said i feel pretty safe with NSA up my ass, that you can thank Obama for.

I'd trust Islam if it was moderate, and i have met moderate muslims but how long before i meet one that isn't? and what will he do to us?
edit on 19-11-2015 by vjr1113 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye


No, my level of disgust got hurt by always being on the crap end of the stick in the two-party pissing contest.

You and me both sister. I mentioned earlier - I used to call myself an Independent. But that all got rearranged in my head a while back. You should consider that maybe you assume too much

Still - what we're talking about here is the refugees - and specifically the fact that Obama called out the republican leaders that were calling for the withdrawal of support for those refugees

How can this not be partisan? You say you're not defending the republicans - but it doesn't actually matter because you're calling Obama a liar. It's an easy thing to do, and it will win you a lot of points these days - from both parties - and the independents

Doesn't make him a liar

:-)



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: MotherMayEye



I was defending the idea of having a thoughtful, productive national discussion on how to deal with the refugee crisis. One free of partisan fingerpointing and exploitation to score political points.

Really?

From an earlier post:

Do I believe for one second that he or any other partisans that just want to feel superior to 'the other party' give two sh**s about the refugees? No way. It's all about a feeling of partisan superiority.


It doesn't answer my other question at all, which is: So - do we just screw the refugees?

You're an Independent - you claim the moral high ground here apparently. So - if you're not supporting the republicans, and you are clearly against Obama - what is your independent solution?

Your initial post to me was to criticize me for feeling proud about the things Obama said as presented in the OP. I am proud of him. Very



Great. I think his words were exceptionally divisive, dangerous, and counterproductive. They left you with the impression that either we do it all Obama's way and quiet the dissenters by calling them all rightwing bigots, or screw the refugees.

I think the solution has to be a compromise -- one that will likely cause everyone to have to give up something they want rather than cater exclusively to one party/group.

We all consented to make national security the priority by being a part of this society -- those with concerns about national security should be considered in the compromise. I don't have the solution because I am still waiting to discuss what everyone should give up in order to compromise.



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 01:25 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 01:28 PM
link   
What Obama said doesn't bother me as much as he chose to criticize the US (some Americans) on foreign soil. If a conservative went abroad and criticized Americans, the liberal press would excoriate him (or her).



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye




We all consented to make national security the priority by being a part of this society


I could not disagree more

People need to feel safe - and be safe as possible. It's not something anyone can ever guarantee however

I did not consent to a war that was supposed to happen in order to make us safer. I will never give my consent to that excuse no matter what

I also am not inclined to turn my back on people on the outside chance that they might not all be friendly. That ship has clearly sailed

We are not any safer because of any of it - and refusing to aid a majority of innocents to supposedly protect us from the few that would harm us makes us - what?

The terrorists will find a way. I'm not at all in favor of supporting any plan that makes human rights a bargaining chip for my supposed safety

edit on 11/19/2015 by Spiramirabilis because: I have a problem with manys and fews



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis

I could not disagree more

People need to feel safe - and be safe as possible. It's not something anyone can ever guarantee however


It's not an opinion. In the U.S., the source of governmental power lies with the people. That power represents a social contract and the idea that government exists for the benefit of its citizens. If the federal government is not protecting the people, it should be dissolved and a new government founded.


originally posted by: Spiramirabilis

I did not consent to a war that was supposed to happen in order to make us safer. I will never give my consent to that excuse no matter what

I also am not inclined to turn my back on people on the outside chance that they might not all be friendly. That ship has clearly sailed

We are not any safer because of any of it - and refusing to aid a majority of innocents to supposedly protect us from the few that would harm us makes us - what?

The terrorists will find a way. I'm not at all in favor of supporting any plan that makes human rights a bargaining chip for my supposed safety



I didn't support the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan or the War on Terror either. And I believe, to this day, that the only reason for them is profit. And I can see how the refugee crisis can/will be exploited by war profiteers, too, so I have had enough.

In my opinion, part of a compromised solution should be a thorough investigation into every person profiting from the War on Terror and a full accounting of the money 'lost' because of it. That's what Obama and the federal government should have to 'give up' to reach a compromise. But you won't hear him giving in to that. He would rather ask everything of anyone who disagrees with him...AND DEMAND THEIR TRUST, too.

No thanks. I don't see how innocent Syrian refugees benefit from growing the War on Terror to put money in the pockets of those who profit. Rule out their role in terrorism first, because they have the motive. They are the ones gaining from it.



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Read it and find out. Then I expect your proper mental gymnastics to dismiss it so you can continue to paint Muslims as big bad numero uno.



First, quit projecting your stereotypes on to me--I have never said, nor would I because I don't believe, that all Muslims are terrorists, or even that they're the best at it or most affluent.

But, when you cite a study that only looks at 1980-2005, that's what I assumed it would be...something not current. That leaves a decade unaccounted for...a decade where we have seen a dramatic rise in hatred against the US from Muslim extremists. It would be nice to include those years, or just take them alone and see how that changes.

Plus, this link appears to be talking about "Muslim Americans," not foreign Muslim terrorists. Maybe I'm reading it wrong.

Then in your other link, it dismisses Sept. 11, 2001 altogether and then rambles on about toddler shootings resulting in deaths.

Not exactly the best things to cite when discussing contemporary issues of Muslim extremism. So, you can call that mental gymnastics all that you like, but I call it constructive criticism concerning links that are either outdated with their information or purposefully disregard the 9/11 attack to downplay Muslim extremists' roll in the current concerns some have.


So freedom is ok to sacrifice when you feel threatened?


Not even close. Freedom should never be sacrificed for our citizens just to secure a false sense of security--like forcing refugees on communities and states that would otherwise prefer not to take them because we can't trust the vetting process because it's a thinly veiled sense of security that will fail us at some point.


You didn't care enough to go out and protest them being here did you?


LOL...if that's your measure of caring about an issue, you need to expand your thinking. Oh, a big bad protest...oooooohh...



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Yeah, if only Obama were as great at being a president as he is at spewing Internet troll caliber rhetoric.



posted on Nov, 19 2015 @ 02:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Not exactly the best things to cite when discussing contemporary issues of Muslim extremism. So, you can call that mental gymnastics all that you like, but I call it constructive criticism concerning links that are either outdated with their information or purposefully disregard the 9/11 attack to downplay Muslim extremists' roll in the current concerns some have.


My sources certainly are more credible than YOUR sources. Where are your sources saying the opposite of what I'm saying exactly?


Not even close. Freedom should never be sacrificed for our citizens just to secure a false sense of security--like forcing refugees on communities and states that would otherwise prefer not to take them because we can't trust the vetting process because it's a thinly veiled sense of security that will fail us at some point.


Fine let's talk American values. It's always been American tradition to accept refugees. What's the quote written on the Statue of Liberty?

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
edit on 19-11-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
19
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join