Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 11 Dec 2015, 3:28 am

Doctor Fate wrote:In perspective, the anti-Muslim sentiment is minuscule compared to what one might expect. We haven't even managed to pass laws against going to fight for ISIS and then coming back.
Congress is having problems even passing a law to extend care for 9/11 responders. But a good way to yet again downplay murders.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 11 Dec 2015, 6:55 am

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:In perspective, the anti-Muslim sentiment is minuscule compared to what one might expect. We haven't even managed to pass laws against going to fight for ISIS and then coming back.
Congress is having problems even passing a law to extend care for 9/11 responders. But a good way to yet again downplay murders.


I never downplay murder. You're being personal and offensive. I need a safe place.

If you mean the Chapel Hill case, it's tragic, but there's quite a bit of evidence that it's not religiously based--as you acknowledged.

So, do everyone a favor: stop being a petulant child.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 11 Dec 2015, 7:18 am

Doctor Fate wrote:If you mean the Chapel Hill case, it's tragic, but there's quite a bit of evidence that it's not religiously based--as you acknowledged.
Umm, no not just Chapel Hill.

I also linked to an article that was about the murder of a Hindu woman by someone who thought they were pushing a Muslim on to train tracks (or that they are the same thing). And there have been other murders of Muslims (and Sikhs) by people in the USA, explicitly as anti-Islamic (the Sikhs are because, oddly, racist killers can also be ignorant). One of those was also referenced in the same article, along with an attempted murder.

Your response to that was to say it was "miniscule" compared to what we might "expect". Well gee, if that is not downplaying actual murders because we could expect more ignorant reactionary idiots to kill people who look Muslim, what is it? Why only ask about mob lynchings when most killings based on bigotry are not carried out that way?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 11 Dec 2015, 11:15 am

danivon wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:If you mean the Chapel Hill case, it's tragic, but there's quite a bit of evidence that it's not religiously based--as you acknowledged.
Umm, no not just Chapel Hill.

I also linked to an article that was about the murder of a Hindu woman by someone who thought they were pushing a Muslim on to train tracks (or that they are the same thing). And there have been other murders of Muslims (and Sikhs) by people in the USA, explicitly as anti-Islamic (the Sikhs are because, oddly, racist killers can also be ignorant). One of those was also referenced in the same article, along with an attempted murder.

Your response to that was to say it was "miniscule" compared to what we might "expect". Well gee, if that is not downplaying actual murders because we could expect more ignorant reactionary idiots to kill people who look Muslim, what is it? Why only ask about mob lynchings when most killings based on bigotry are not carried out that way?


I'm not minimizing murder. However, I think you are missing the point. In light of 9/11, one might expect anti-Islamic fervor approaching that of the anti-Japanese sentiment that followed Pearl Harbor. We have not seen anything like that.

Now, have there been instances of bigotry? Yes. Have there been instances of hatred and even violence? Yes.

So, stop determining for me that I don't take murder seriously. All I'm saying is it's small in comparison to what might be expected. We have more anti-Jewish incidents than we do anti-Muslim. That does not minimize the anti-Muslim attacks. It just points to a truth.

No bigotry is acceptable. However, again, I'll go out on a limb: anti-Western bigotry in Islamic countries is far more prevalent than anti-Islamic bigotry is here in the US. They even send people here to commit murder. There aren't so many Americans lining up to go to Islamic countries and commit acts of terror that will cost them their own lives.

If you want to continue your crusade here because Americans aren't perfect, well, okay. Go ahead. But, I think we know that already.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 18 Dec 2015, 9:03 am

I don't know if the President is being dishonest or if he is really this out of touch with, oh, maybe 80% of the population of the country he's in charge of.

Image

The single best thing he can do is resign.

Look, I won't like Biden's policies either. However, we should have a President who has some sense of what is going on in the country. Obama has lost it. Maybe it's his advisers, but this is ridiculous.

However, it does explain his response--talking about "gun violence" and "common sense gun legislation" instead of "terrorism" and "Islamic extremism." He is detached from reality and too insulated by his inner circle from the rest of the country.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 18 Dec 2015, 1:31 pm

fate
I don't know if the President is being dishonest or if he is really this out of touch with, oh, maybe 80% of the population of the country he's in charge of


Its cable news that beats the drum for the latest anxiety causing crisis.
Only 38% of Americans watch cable news.
lmost three out of four U.S. adults (71%) watch local television news and 65% view network newscasts over the course of a month, according to Nielsen data from February 2013. While 38% of adults watch some cable news during the month, cable viewers—particularly the most engaged viewers—spend far more time with that platform than broadcast viewers do with local or network news.1

http://www.journalism.org/2013/10/11/ho ... s-at-home/

That would mean that the President, who certainly wouldn't want to invest a lot of time in the inanity that is cable news, would actually represent the majority of Americans. Who, after going through a few weeks without they or a family member being killed by a Muslim, will start to realize the risk that terror represents is small.
Those that watch Fox and CNN will live in constant fear whipped up by the networks hyperbole and nonsense.
The only thing worse would be the web sites you frequent Fate. Or republican presidential candidates rhetoric.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 18 Dec 2015, 2:01 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
I don't know if the President is being dishonest or if he is really this out of touch with, oh, maybe 80% of the population of the country he's in charge of


Its cable news that beats the drum for the latest anxiety causing crisis.
Only 38% of Americans watch cable news.
lmost three out of four U.S. adults (71%) watch local television news and 65% view network newscasts over the course of a month, according to Nielsen data from February 2013. While 38% of adults watch some cable news during the month, cable viewers—particularly the most engaged viewers—spend far more time with that platform than broadcast viewers do with local or network news.1

http://www.journalism.org/2013/10/11/ho ... s-at-home/

That would mean that the President, who certainly wouldn't want to invest a lot of time in the inanity that is cable news, would actually represent the majority of Americans. Who, after going through a few weeks without they or a family member being killed by a Muslim, will start to realize the risk that terror represents is small.
Those that watch Fox and CNN will live in constant fear whipped up by the networks hyperbole and nonsense.
The only thing worse would be the web sites you frequent Fate. Or republican presidential candidates rhetoric.


Oh brother. Only you would take my post and try to make it about watching cable news. It's about the President's indifferent response to the terror attacks.

But, I was wrong. It's only 71%. I was ballparking and missed:

And 71 percent say the shootings and random acts of violence that have taken place this year -- from Charleston, S.C., Oregon and Colorado, to the terrorist shootings in San Bernardino, Calif. -- are now are now a permanent part of American life.

"For most of 2015, the country's mood, and thus the presidential election, was defined by anger and the unevenness of the economic recovery," says Democratic pollster Fred Yang of Hart Research Associates, which conducted this survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff of Public Opinion Strategies. "Now that has abruptly changed to fear."


The President is the one who, in the aftermath of San Bernardino, was talking about some nebulous "gun violence" instead of "terrorism."

He has held a few press events this week with a seemingly endless backdrop of generals and intel officials. Why? Because he is trying to assure people after his idiotic initial responses.

Simply put: he's out of touch.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 20 Dec 2015, 9:53 am

Fate
The President is the one who, in the aftermath of San Bernardino, was talking about some nebulous "gun violence" instead of "terrorism."


Nebulous? He's putting gun violence into one category. Which the American populace does too, according to the source you quoted...

And 71 percent say the shootings and random acts of violence that have taken place this year -- from Charleston, S.C., Oregon and Colorado, to the terrorist shootings in San Bernardino, Calif. -- are now are now a permanent part of American life

You; note that one of the three events is Islamic inspired terror, one was a white racist and [erhaps two. (Oregons shooter was ...
According to the Los Angeles Times, unnamed law enforcement sources said he was a "hate-filled" man with antireligious and white supremacist leanings, and with long-term mental health issues.[61] His mother had previously written anonymously in an online forum that both she and her son had Asperger syndrome.[62][63
]

You can't seem to even read your own sources and discern their meaning.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 20 Dec 2015, 3:17 pm

rickyp wrote:Fate
The President is the one who, in the aftermath of San Bernardino, was talking about some nebulous "gun violence" instead of "terrorism."


Nebulous? He's putting gun violence into one category. Which the American populace does too, according to the source you quoted..


Right, and here's a couple of things that might help you remove your head from your Canada: he's the president of the US, that means he's supposed to lead. Leaders understand they need to empathize with people. He's about as tone deaf as he can be. Even Axelrod said that concerning Obama's lame response to the shootings in San Bernardino.

You can't seem to even read your own sources and discern their meaning.


Actually, the only persons in North America more inept than you at understanding this are Barack Obama and Valerie Jarrett. Hey, why don't you post polls about Obama's great handling of ISIS? Oh, it's because they're about as low as your truthfulness rating?

That says a lot because that's sub-zero.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 21 Dec 2015, 7:02 am

Fate
Leaders understand they need to empathize with people.


You really think he doesn't? The victims of all the shootings seem to feel he does...
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/san-bernard ... th-obamas/
"
My brother will never get his daughter back," said George Velasco, whose niece, Yvette Velasco, 27, was killed. "But at least we know they are taking it very seriously."
When Mr. Obama approached the Velasco's family table, he told the family he knew nothing he could say would ever truly comfort them, but that he was sincerely sorry for their loss, Velasco said. The family showed the president a picture of Yvette Velasco on a cellphone and her father told Mr. Obama how proud he had been of her work as an inspector with the county Department of Environmental Health.
The president told them he and his wife were parents too and that, "they cannot imagine a loss like ours."
"I couldn't believe that he was spending that much time with us," Velasco said. "It was heartfelt. I could feel it. It was something he really felt and believed."
The mood in the room was somber, though each family seemed to perk up when Mr. Obama arrived at their table. When Mr. Obama reached the family of Isaac Amanios, he asked the 60-year-old health inspector's wife about how long they had been married and about his three children about their lives.
He told Amanios' children that they were his father's legacy.
The family showed the president the invitation Amanios had received to attend the 2009 inauguration. Amanios had raised money for Mr. Obama's 2008 campaign, even though the immigrant from Eritrea was still not eligible to vote, his brother-in-law, Robel Tekleab, said.
"I know it helped tonight," Tekleab said. "I can't speak about the future. But it certainly did a great thing tonight


I guess one of the reasons why he's able to see how much one mass shooting is alike another - whatever the motivation of the criminal - is that he's done this with the families of the Sandy Hook and Oregon and many others...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/2 ... 58485.html
http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-oreg ... 1444388403

Fate
he's supposed to lead
.
Pretty tough to lead Congress to make gun control laws that might have some leavening effect on gun violence and especially mass shootings. Especially when they won't pass laws that have 92% support in polling...
Is he to be blamed because congress ignore the will of the people?
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... und-checks

Now, Obama might have an approval / disapproval rating that is narrowly negative. But Congress has an approval rating of about 10%. And you can't make Congressmen vote the way you want if you are President can you Fate?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 21 Dec 2015, 8:19 am

rickyp wrote:Fate
Leaders understand they need to empathize with people.


You really think he doesn't? The victims of all the shootings seem to feel he does...


The American people generally do not. I appreciate you found a (likely) Democratic family that does. So what? Look at the polls, pally.

Fate
he's supposed to lead
.
Pretty tough to lead Congress to make gun control laws that might have some leavening effect on gun violence and especially mass shootings. Especially when they won't pass laws that have 92% support in polling...
Is he to be blamed because congress ignore the will of the people?
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... und-checks

Now, Obama might have an approval / disapproval rating that is narrowly negative. But Congress has an approval rating of about 10%. And you can't make Congressmen vote the way you want if you are President can you Fate?


He's a crappy leader. His ratings are buoyed by the fact that there are many people who will not report a negative feeling about him because he is Barack Obama. If he was "Fred Berfel" and acting like this, his approval rating would be in the 20's.

If you think he's a good leader, encourage him to try and repeal the second amendment. Meanwhile, stay north of the border. You're not safe in the US.

You are tiresome. The only thing you've yet to repeat ad nauseum in this thread is a call for socialized medicine.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 21 Dec 2015, 10:32 am

fate
The American people generally do not.

You're probably right about the 43% of republicans who still think he is a Muslim...
Evidence be damned.

Fate
His ratings are buoyed by the fact that there are many people who will not report a negative feeling about him because he is Barack Obama.


What does this actually mean? Is this some kind of code?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 21 Dec 2015, 4:15 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
The American people generally do not.

You're probably right about the 43% of republicans who still think he is a Muslim...
Evidence be damned.


No, I'd say the evidence is not so bad. If we look at what he does instead of what he says . . .

Fate
His ratings are buoyed by the fact that there are many people who will not report a negative feeling about him because he is Barack Obama.


What does this actually mean? Is this some kind of code?


Yes, people like you cannot see he is the biggest fraud to be elected President.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 21 Dec 2015, 4:17 pm

rickyp wrote:fate
The American people generally do not.

You're probably right about the 43% of republicans who still think he is a Muslim...
Evidence be damned.

Fate
His ratings are buoyed by the fact that there are many people who will not report a negative feeling about him because he is Barack Obama.


What does this actually mean? Is this some kind of code?


And, I'm no longer responding to your idiocy. If you should happen to stumble onto an actual insight, I'll have a look. Otherwise, "rickyp" = "justoneidiot'sopinion"
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 21 Dec 2015, 4:32 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
rickyp wrote:fate
The American people generally do not.

You're probably right about the 43% of republicans who still think he is a Muslim...
Evidence be damned.


No, I'd say the evidence is not so bad. If we look at what he does instead of what he says . . .
You seriously believe that?