WilberCuntLicker wrote:

Egoist wrote:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/09/25/obama-the-future-must-not-belong-to-those-who-slander-the-prophet-of-islam/

More of a coward than Carter, drones even more nihilistic than klinton's cronies, worst president evar.

More of a yawn than an all-day youth-politics convention, carpet-bombing right-wing teenaged reactionary, 4chan-dictioned tard-kiddy, dullest postar evar.

Can't attack the issue, attack the person.  This is a sign of a non-thinking person.

So you're saying you have no problem with the best-president-evar cowering before religious thugs?

Egoist wrote:

So you're saying you have no problem with the best-president-evar cowering before religious thugs?

Why that's almost as bad as being the candidate of religious thugs.

Egoist wrote:

fnord wrote:

The frequent explosions of violence from Islamic mobs are best understood as death throes.  Obama was doing nothing more than making polite noises which everybody knows are meaningless.  Islam and Christianity are dying in most of the world.  A few decades from now both will be seen as nasty superstitions imported from the Turd World.

Christianity is thankfully dying but islam is spreading.

Care to back that up?

Egoist wrote:

democrats cower in terror

Before you accuse people of being cowards let's see your DD-214 there kitten.

Methinks you are all bluff and no balls...

Last edited by Emmeran (2012-09-25 21:34:30)

Care to back that up?

http://www.pewforum.org/The-Future-of-t … ation.aspx

"In 1990, 935 million people were Muslims and this figure had risen to around 1.2 billion by the year 2000, meaning that around this time one in five people were followers of Islam. According to the BBC, a comprehensive American study concluded in 2009 the number stood at 1 in 4 with 60% of Muslims spread all over the Asian continent: "A report from an American think-tank has estimated 1.57 billion Muslims populate the world - with 60% in Asia"

Before you accuse people of being cowards let's see your DD-214 there kitten.

Methinks you are all bluff and no balls...

Right, i'll show my DD-214 and you can post your SS#. 

Nice, quoting a hard-core, right-wing think tank.  Care to try an unbiased approach?

The Pew Forum is chaired by DEMOCRAT Madeleine Albright.  So much for hardcore, rightwing.  Feel free to contradict the information.  I know you're joking because there's no way you could be this stupid.

Egoist wrote:

Why that's almost as bad as being the candidate of religious thugs.

What a wonderful false equivalency!  democrats cower in terror at offending the muslims who murder those who insult their pedophile mohammed.  Sure see lots of those crazy mormons/catholics/baptists/lutherans in the republican party doing anything remotely similar.  Ya know, like women's rights, etc.  It's charming to see western homosexuals (who would be summarily executed in the islamic world) defend muslims.  It's not about behing coherent, just hating and obstructing anything by the Republicans.

What's next from you?  People falling from the towers were little eichmanns?

I'd hardly call it an equivalency. 

You certainly covered alot of political ground here... pedophilia and catholics, womens rights "etc." and homosexuals in favor of Islam. Oh, and you mentioned the word "coherent".  You should look that up.

Also when you mention Nazis and 911 in one sentence you make Godwin's head explode.

Egoist wrote:

Let's see, former ET2 on a FFG.  Quad NECs: 1420, 1425, 1428, 1452 .  WestPac 05.  Trident Fury 07.

But I fail too see what any of this has to do with a racist, crony-capitalist who said "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet mohammed."

What a great equivalence: I hate the democrats so I must be a republican.  No wonder you guys are libtards.

Wow, bush didn't win?  You just went full retard.  Saying bush didn't win exposes you to be a complete asshat.  It's kinda like confessing the belief that elvis is still alive and well.

Wow, I think we broke it.

Egoist, these libs will never allow you to make a point, let alone win an argument. Notwithstanding the source of your information, your previous military experience, your religious and political affiliations, the fact remains;  Obama is an apologist for radical Islam.   No matter how he spins it, he is pandering to the bully in the hopes he won't get another international wedgie.  Anyone who knows anything about bullies knows that begging shows weakness and fear and bullies feed on fear.

phreddy wrote:

Egoist, these libs will never allow you to make a point, let alone win an argument. Notwithstanding the source of your information, your previous military experience, your religious and political affiliations, the fact remains;  Obama is an apologist for radical Islam.   No matter how he spins it, he is pandering to the bully in the hopes he won't get another international wedgie.  Anyone who knows anything about bullies knows that begging shows weakness and fear and bullies feed on fear.

Aw, poor Phreddy - bullied mercilessly by a bunch of poor people on the other side of the world. You sad old fart. You should get yourself a really important gun, and find yourself a big strong daddy to protect you, one who can whup those nasty sand niggers. Bad old sand niggers - leave poor Phreddy alone! Best of luck with the anxieties, Phreddy - here's a little hug for you and your new crib-mate.

Egoist wrote:

But I fail too see what any of this has to do with a racist, crony-capitalist who said "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet mohammed."

Interestingly, there was actually a bit more to that quote. 

The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see and the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated or churches that are destroyed. Or the Holocaust that is denied.

Even more interesting is Mediaite's criticism:

This is not a clear and definitive defense of the principles enshrined in the First Amendment of the American Constitution. This is an equivalency between what Obama views as equally condemnable religious slanders committed by malefactors on all sides.

That moment did not call for equivocation. When throngs of frustrated Muslims crowd Arab streets calling for America to rethink its commitment to free speech, when foreign governments demand Washington act to imprison individuals who exercise their constitutional rights – however distasteful they may subjectively appear to some – and when American diplomatic officials are in fear for their life, the President of the United States was obliged to defend this country’s guiding principles. As if he was unaware, those principles are under immediate threat.

President Obama chose instead to offer an excuse for his fellow citizens’ behavior in this statement. He suggested that the future will be one where religious critiques must be curtailed, lest one fear for their personal safety. Indeed, that has been the experience of the filmmaker who made an anti-Islamic trailer. He has proven to be a useful punching bag for his government, sundry members of which were all too willing to pin violent unrest across the globe on his unrestrained and immodest exercise of his First Amendment rights.

Following protests across the Muslim world, Americans were treated to a debate about the future of the First Amendment at home in the press (the inherent irony of that condition was unfortunately lost amid the clamor of the self-righteous). “Should Anti-Islam Filmmaker Be Thrown in Jail ,” asked a recent TIME Magazine column. That the body of that article consisted of more than the word “no” represents a devastating tragedy for those who revere, or at least are somewhat acquainted with, America’s founding principles.

Obama’s speech to the United Nations was a dereliction of duty. The president swore to protect and defend the Constitution, but the Obama’s address contained only the occasional, perfunctory gesture towards the importance of uninhibited political speech. The president failed Americans in that moment.

“Let us heed the words of Gandhi,” Obama continued. “Intolerance is itself a form of violence.”

The nation’s founders would be mortified by this defining down of violence and the legitimization of stifled speech contained within this supposedly enlightened statement. The American people should be deeply concerned about a future governed by the principles voiced in Obama’s address.

In your blather, you seemed to have missed the real problem with Obama's statement. Given what I've seen of your presence here so far, I probably shouldn't have expected more.

Tall Paul wrote:

Perhaps, phreddy, just perhaps, if some politicians didn't run around screaming about Sharia law taking over Rimjob, Oklahoma or The Threat Of Radical Islam and how All Muslims Are Terrorists then the president wouldn't have to make such blindingly obvious statements publicly.

Congrats to TP, who surpassed Lurker's post total with the quote above.

And what the hell, since I've hijacked this thread for a walk through my old images folder, here's a tip of the hat to pENIx, MIA:

And a lascivious leer in the general direction of Emmeran, whose protean appetites never cease to amaze.


Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs