Mitt Romney believes that his best line of attack is making the claim that he has not spent a moment as a D.C. politician while his two main opponents, Newt ...
No two ways about it, Rick Santorum had a good night. Not only did he sweep Colorado, Minnesota and Missouri but he also got off the best line of the ...
Few would argue the fact that Citizens United has been a major player in the Republican primary...and many if not most would concede that none of it has been healthy ...
As if you needed another reason to not vote Romney.
Celebrity business magnate Donald Trump endorsed Mitt Romney for president Thursday, telling reporters he will not mount an independent campaign if ...
In a perfect world, the Republican contest to find a nominee to face Barack Obama would go on forever...or at least until August. You cannot attach a number to the ...
I suspect there are a ton of conservatives secretly agreeing with Begala and while it's too early in the game for Dems to get cocky, it's difficult to not smile ...
Quotes don't get much better than this one by Bob Dole.
"Why do people take such an instant dislike to me?" asked a perplexed Gingrich, to whom Dole bluntly ...
After the beating Gingrich took last night, it's hard to imagine under what scenario he can make a comeback. Florida is going to Romney and for Gingrich to regain the ...
There's a lot out there on the President's SOTU, so I'll keep my thoughts short and sweet.
The speech did what it had to do which was target liberals and independents ...
The highlights from last night's debate.
- Newt Gingrich can't wait to become president so he can revisit the early 60s and overthrow Castro in Cuba. War, baby, war.
- Santorum, who ...
It appears that the South Carolina verdict is forcing Romney to start taking Gingrich seriously.
“We’re not choosing a talk show host, we’re choosing a leader,” Romney said, saying that their ...
Mike Huckabee offers advice to Mitt Romney concerning his unreleased tax returns.
Let him [Romney] make this challenge: "I'll release my tax returns when Barack Obama releases his college transcripts and ...
Via Political Humor...
"Mitt Romney is coming under fire because even though he is a multimillionaire, he only paid 15 percent in taxes. That's not a tax, that's barely a tip." ...
Good line.
My guess is that after Romney fails to beat Obama in the general, Huntsman will be back in 2016. The most electable guy in the field and he could ...
I found this pretty funny...and accurate. It comes from a reader over at Balloon Juice.
So, let’s review. The contenders for the GOP nomination are
A vulture capitalist who believes that any ...
Lively little debate going on at one of last week's posts with Libertarianism put under the microscope.
ocLiberal:
I know I am in sketchy territory here, (start the indignant shouting now) but ...
In the contest to determine the winner of the Far-Right Politics gold medal, rack up a few more points for Newt Gingrich.
“I think an intelligent conservative wants the right federal ...
Via Political Humor...
"Congratulations to Mitt Romney. He won the New Hampshire primary last night. See, this is proof that even the multimillionaire son of a multimillionaire can beat the odds ...
Story 1:
North Korea punishing those who 'didn't display enough sadness over Kim Jong Il's death'
North Korean authorities are reportedly punishing citizens who did not display enough sadness over the death ...
sssiiiigggghhhhh……The Right is going to cling to the tiniest spark that SINCE IT HAPPENED ANYWAY, if it can be remotely tied to terrorism, let’s do it and pin it on the President.
If Osama Bin Laden were to deliver a taped speech showing, pictures of the perpetrator training in one of his camps in Afghanistan, then standing alongside him stating he is anxious to get back to the States and carry out his sacred mission, killing as many infidel soldiers as possible, the Left will STILL be on every available venue, downplaying any ties to terrorists or terrorism.
If you cannot understand or admit to that, you are either not very bright or not very honest. Or quite likely, both.
Personally, I think it is going to be a case of a lone, nutcase Arab on some sort of convoluted mission from Allah. And the President will take a hit or two from the most likely sources but will come through it pretty much unscathed.
For my part, if you just simply killed them all, you wouldn’t have to worry about it. (Say what you want. I won’t defend that statement because I already know it’s stupid. But on behalf of the 13 undeserving dead, the 3000 undeserving dead and their families and loved ones grieving, those are my sentiments, comforting, intelligent or not.)
From “The Kingdom”:
Harking back to the beginning, one of them asks Fleury what he said to Mayes to make her stop crying. “I told her we’d kill them all,” replies Foxx’s character.
The scene shifts to Saudi Arabia. The grandson of a top terrorist is asked by his mother, “What did your grandfather whisper in your ear before he died?” Replies the boy, “He told me not to worry. We’ll kill them all.”
If the shooter’s name had been something ordinary and very American like Smith we would probably be talking about how PTSD affects members of the armed forces.
If the shooter’s religion had been something acceptable like Christian, we would be talking about the victims and their families.
If I want to be overwhelmed by logical fallacy (ad hominem in particular) I come here to read comments.
H.M., But his name WASN’T “Smith” and his religion is a religion of a thousand years of intolerance, violence and hatred.
Are you suggesting we ignore that?
Other than that, I don’t think his name has been mentioned here. But with that said, while it may be true that not all Muslims are Terrorists. Most Terrorists are indeed Muslims.
Tennessean, what I am saying is that to take a person’s name, with no other facts to support the conclusion, as clear evidence that he must be linked with terrorists or terrorism is the very definition of bigotry.
People frame events and issues within the context of what they feel most comfortable with and understand best. Claiming that Islam “is a religion of a thousand years of intolerance, violence and hatred” blindly ignores the history of Christianity. No religion has been fueled by more intolerance, violence and hatred than Christianity. We can trace it from the Crusades to the present day. The religious right in this country practice intolerance and hatred toward gays on a daily basis. As for violence, what do you think fuels the murder of abortion doctors? It is always too easy to ignore our own errant ways and point the finger at others who are not like “us”.
That is a conclusion not supported by objective facts.
Ku Kux Klan – Christian
Timothy McVey – Christian (Catholic particularly I think but not sure)
Army of God – Christian (bombing abortion clinics & shooting doctors)
Eric Robert Rudolph – Christian (1996 Olympics bombing in Atlanta)
Animal Liberation Front – no singular religious affiliation
Earth Liberation Front – no singular religious affiliation
“Extremists advocating for better treatment of the earth and animals were responsible for twenty-three of the twenty-four terrorist attacks during 2002 to 2005.” SOURCE
Your statement is not supported by facts. Sweeping conclusions based on erroneous or no information perpetuates misinformation and feeds bigotry
H.M., this is the first site I came across. There are many others. I believe my statement is supported by facts. I believe your statement is supported by an unrealistic desire. Certainly, it only speaks to “Domestic Terrorism”.
“The evidence – the only evidence – proves beyond any doubt that Muslims are terrorists because Muhammad, Islam’s lone prophet and Allah’s singular voice, was a ruthless and dedicated terrorist. Islamic militants, called insurgents today, are good Muslims, not bad ones. The jihadists haven’t corrupted Islam, hijacked their religion, nor interpreted it incorrectly, and therefore they aren’t radicals. Islam isn’t a peaceful religion; it is a declaration of war against all mankind. While bad Muslims can be moderate and peaceful, they have no influence because the Qur’an tells good Muslims to kill them.”
I believe your statement is supported by an unrealistic desire.
That statement is an example of the logical fallacy called attacking the straw man. You erroneously assign emotion to my opinions with no rational basis.
The list you provided does not include incidents of domestic terrorism other than Oklahoma City. Domestic terrorism and domestic terrorist groups must be included in any discussion about the broad topic of terrorism.
And further note:
KKK – Irrelevant
Timothy McVeigh – Dead
Eric Rudolph – In Prison For Life
The KKK does not think it is irrelevant. Dead or prison does not remove the status of terrorist from Rudolph or McVeigh. Allegedly the 9/11 bombers are dead, have they ceased to be “terrorists” upon their deaths?
United States – Ku Klux Klan, Army of God, Christan Identity, Christian Patriot, Concerned Christians, National Socialist’s White People’s Party and other neo-Nazi groups….
H.M., not going to bother too much with this as I think you are just wrong and I refuse to waste time.
You quote a statement that would make it appear all but 1 terrorist act between 2002 and 2005 were committed by climate or animal rights extremists. I found that a dishonest assertion in that it did not address the many acts of Terrorism around the world. Had you clarified it to apply to Acts of Domestic Terrorism, it would have been accurate. You seem a logical and intelligent individual. Therefore, I “assumed” you could have no reason for making such a misleading assertion unless you simply had an overwhelming “desire” for it to be true. I was being nice. The alternative is that you were being purposefully misleading.
I had no reason to qualify the list I quoted other than to state there were more acts of Terrorism, perpetrated by Muslim factions than what you had stated. I didn’t look to it’s “inclusiveness” only to a statement of acts committed above and beyond the scope of the “source” you quoted.
And subsequently, I think I have submitted sourcing to further substantiate my earlier statements. And by your own criteria, acts of Terrorism by Muslims GREATLY outnumber all other acts of terrorism.
Is that an indictment of ALL Muslims? Of course not. Is it cause for caution? I would think yes.
The KKK’s self perceived importance notwithstanding, (self evaluations tend to always be positive) I think they are irrelevant. I think most Americans feel they are irrelevant. And while McVeigh and Rudolph have been neutralized, there are a few million potential Muslim Jihadists still alive and well.
You misconstrue my post and again assign emotions without foundation.
I merely seek to add balance to a discussion that began with the assertion that most terrorists are Muslim. That is simply not true. You confuse the inflated value of your own opinion with objective facts.
If you will examine the quoted source objectively you will discover that the article addresses Militant Extremists in the United States, e.g., domestic terrorism. Inside the United States, those groups were in fact responsible for all but one incident of domestic terrorism during the stated time period.
The Council on Foreign Relations is a reliable source, while Info Please cited by you is less reliable. That is not a personal attack, but an observation of fact.
You claim that most terrorists are Muslim, yet I have demonstrated that this is not the case. If you wish demonstrate that the data regarding domestic terrorism is inaccurate, please supply evidence of domestic incidents committed by Muslims – other than the two attacks on the World Trade Center.
Sigh. That’s it for me folks. The complete hatred, violence, ignorance, and lack of respect for anyone or anything that is not WASP is more offense that I can take in one day.
Mr. (or Ms.) Bascom, Don’t give in so quickly. Look at what I endure on a daily basis. :-(
In your last post, you have said a lot of things that just aren’t relevant to your initial post. At least not in the way I read it.
I understand you differ with my assertion that “most terrorists are Muslim.” Nonetheless, I would stand by that assertion unless one could provide me with proof it is inaccurate.
Honestly, I looked at your quote first, then went to the article and read enough of the body to understand it was addressing Domestic Terrorism. And that is what I pointed out. I don’t feel you qualified your quote and left most of those who would not check any further with the impression that this was an all inclusive figure. At least, that is what I took from it which is exactly why I viewed it with a high degree of skepticism.
So, I did some cursory research (I really have other things to do and can’t commit the time and effort to do a fully vetted, fully researched, 3 day dissertation) and came up with sources that, at least on the surface, seemed to support what I stated, or better still, what I THOUGHT I knew.
As for the source, due to time constraints I really don’t have much more time to devote, and I said as much, but I know there are quite a few more sources that will support my statement.
When you make the case that most acts of “Domestic Terrorism” are not the result of Muslims or Jihad, I would not bother to contest. I would think, without even looking into it any further, that statement would be correct. Particularly given the time constraints you quoted as the previous administration did an excellent job protecting us from further attack on our soil!! ;-)
However, if you contend that the majority of Terrorist attacks in the world are not the result of Muslim or Jihad effort, I would take issue and look into that more carefully as I believe that statement to be in error.
Closing, I would like to point out that I have not promoted or endorsed violence, ignorance (other than my own) or lack of respect for any person or group of persons. I have however made statements, and I have supported those statements, that I feel to be accurate.
Nothing personal. I just have a different opinion and whether successfully or not, I have tried to state it intelligently as I could and substantiate my words.
And now there’s the Orlando shootings at a high rise office building and Fox isn’t saying that’s terrorism or questioning the religion of the shooter. Hypocrites
I SEEN A REMARK TODAY ON ANOTHER BLOG ABOUT THIS AND THE PERSON WHO POSTED THE COMMENT MENTIONED THAT HE &OBAMA WERE BOTH MUSLUM.AND SAID SOMETHING ABOUT OBAMAS COMMENTS YESTERDAY OF HOW HE DIDNT MENTION THE SHOOTING FIRST.INSTEAD OF TALKING ABOUT HE AMERICAN INDIANS,HE ALSO SAID OBAMA AS SCUM FOR NOT GOING TO FORT HOOD.WELL FIRST OF ALL I HAD TO POINT OUT OBAMA WAS CHRISTIAN NOT MUSULM AND THE WAY HE IMPLIED THAT OBAMA WAS TO BLAME BECAUSE HE WAS ALSO A MUSULM AND THEY WERE CONNECTED,THEN I HAD TO POINT OUT NONE OF US KNOW WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS GOING TO DO,HE DOESNT HAVE TO TELL US EVERY DETAIL OF HIS DAILY ACTIVITIES,AND HE COULD ALSO HAVE THEM AT THE WHITE HOUSE,AND FOR OBAMA NOT MENTIONING IT FIRST WAS WRONG BUT HE SHOULD NOT HAVE IMPLIED THAT OBAMA DOESNT CARE OR THIS MATTER DIDNT UPSET HIM,BECAUSE IM SURE IT DID,BUT THIS PERSONS IGNORANCE WAS GUIDING HIM. AND I ALSO TOLD HIM,THAT IF THE PRESIDENT GOES DOWN THERE YOU KNOW IT I KNOWIT AND THE REST OF THE WORLD KNOWS IT THAT ALL OF YOU WILL SAY OH THIS IS JUST A PHOTO OP FOR HIM HOW DARE HE USE THIS SAD OCCASION TO MAKE HIMSELF LOOK BETTER.SO IF HE DOES OR DOESNT GO YOUR GOING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT IT EITHER WAY YOU”LL FIND SOMETHING TO SAY. THE BEST THING TO DO IS LIKE HE DID THE OTHER NIGHT A SURPRISE AT NIGHT,BUT RUSH SAID IT WAS A PHOTO OP.HEY RUSH YOU IGNORANT JERK IF ITWAS A PHOTO OP HE WOULD OF GOTTEN ALL THE PRESS PUT THEM ON AIR FORCE ONE GIVEN THEM LUNCH LET THEM TAKE PICTURES ON THE PLANE THEN ON THE GROUND. FOLLOW HIM AROUND TAKING PICTURES ASKING QUESTIONS,THATS A PHOTO OP FOOL!
Impossible to blame him for anything in this instance. Pray tell me how he can be implicated in any way other than bigoted and calamitous thoughts ?
“We believe that to err is human. To blame it on someone else is politics.” Hubert H Humphrey
3 – 2 – 1….
sssiiiigggghhhhh……The Right is going to cling to the tiniest spark that SINCE IT HAPPENED ANYWAY, if it can be remotely tied to terrorism, let’s do it and pin it on the President.
If Osama Bin Laden were to deliver a taped speech showing, pictures of the perpetrator training in one of his camps in Afghanistan, then standing alongside him stating he is anxious to get back to the States and carry out his sacred mission, killing as many infidel soldiers as possible, the Left will STILL be on every available venue, downplaying any ties to terrorists or terrorism.
If you cannot understand or admit to that, you are either not very bright or not very honest. Or quite likely, both.
Personally, I think it is going to be a case of a lone, nutcase Arab on some sort of convoluted mission from Allah. And the President will take a hit or two from the most likely sources but will come through it pretty much unscathed.
For my part, if you just simply killed them all, you wouldn’t have to worry about it. (Say what you want. I won’t defend that statement because I already know it’s stupid. But on behalf of the 13 undeserving dead, the 3000 undeserving dead and their families and loved ones grieving, those are my sentiments, comforting, intelligent or not.)
From “The Kingdom”:
Harking back to the beginning, one of them asks Fleury what he said to Mayes to make her stop crying. “I told her we’d kill them all,” replies Foxx’s character.
The scene shifts to Saudi Arabia. The grandson of a top terrorist is asked by his mother, “What did your grandfather whisper in your ear before he died?” Replies the boy, “He told me not to worry. We’ll kill them all.”
Not a “race” in which you want to place second.
If the shooter’s name had been something ordinary and very American like Smith we would probably be talking about how PTSD affects members of the armed forces.
If the shooter’s religion had been something acceptable like Christian, we would be talking about the victims and their families.
If I want to be overwhelmed by logical fallacy (ad hominem in particular) I come here to read comments.
H.M., But his name WASN’T “Smith” and his religion is a religion of a thousand years of intolerance, violence and hatred.
Are you suggesting we ignore that?
Other than that, I don’t think his name has been mentioned here. But with that said, while it may be true that not all Muslims are Terrorists. Most Terrorists are indeed Muslims.
….and his religion is a religion of a thousand years of intolerance, violence and hatred.
You mean like Christianity?
Most terrorists are Muslim? Do tell.
Tennessean, what I am saying is that to take a person’s name, with no other facts to support the conclusion, as clear evidence that he must be linked with terrorists or terrorism is the very definition of bigotry.
People frame events and issues within the context of what they feel most comfortable with and understand best. Claiming that Islam “is a religion of a thousand years of intolerance, violence and hatred” blindly ignores the history of Christianity. No religion has been fueled by more intolerance, violence and hatred than Christianity. We can trace it from the Crusades to the present day. The religious right in this country practice intolerance and hatred toward gays on a daily basis. As for violence, what do you think fuels the murder of abortion doctors? It is always too easy to ignore our own errant ways and point the finger at others who are not like “us”.
Most Terrorists are indeed Muslims.
That is a conclusion not supported by objective facts.
Ku Kux Klan – Christian
Timothy McVey – Christian (Catholic particularly I think but not sure)
Army of God – Christian (bombing abortion clinics & shooting doctors)
Eric Robert Rudolph – Christian (1996 Olympics bombing in Atlanta)
Animal Liberation Front – no singular religious affiliation
Earth Liberation Front – no singular religious affiliation
“Extremists advocating for better treatment of the earth and animals were responsible for twenty-three of the twenty-four terrorist attacks during 2002 to 2005.” SOURCE
Your statement is not supported by facts. Sweeping conclusions based on erroneous or no information perpetuates misinformation and feeds bigotry
H.M., this is the first site I came across. There are many others. I believe my statement is supported by facts. I believe your statement is supported by an unrealistic desire. Certainly, it only speaks to “Domestic Terrorism”.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0001454.html
And further note:
KKK – Irrelevant
Timothy McVeigh – Dead
Eric Rudolph – In Prison For Life
Craig, yes. At times, Christianity has been a religion of Violence and Intolerance. I’m not sure that is the case over the last few hundred years.
And yes, most Terrorists do seem to be Muslims.
http://prophetofdoom.net/Islamic_Terrorism_Timeline.Islam
“The evidence – the only evidence – proves beyond any doubt that Muslims are terrorists because Muhammad, Islam’s lone prophet and Allah’s singular voice, was a ruthless and dedicated terrorist. Islamic militants, called insurgents today, are good Muslims, not bad ones. The jihadists haven’t corrupted Islam, hijacked their religion, nor interpreted it incorrectly, and therefore they aren’t radicals. Islam isn’t a peaceful religion; it is a declaration of war against all mankind. While bad Muslims can be moderate and peaceful, they have no influence because the Qur’an tells good Muslims to kill them.”
Craig, and this:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/TheList.htm
I believe your statement is supported by an unrealistic desire.
That statement is an example of the logical fallacy called attacking the straw man. You erroneously assign emotion to my opinions with no rational basis.
The list you provided does not include incidents of domestic terrorism other than Oklahoma City. Domestic terrorism and domestic terrorist groups must be included in any discussion about the broad topic of terrorism.
And further note:
KKK – Irrelevant
Timothy McVeigh – Dead
Eric Rudolph – In Prison For Life
The KKK does not think it is irrelevant. Dead or prison does not remove the status of terrorist from Rudolph or McVeigh. Allegedly the 9/11 bombers are dead, have they ceased to be “terrorists” upon their deaths?
Christian Terrorist Groups:
Canada – Sons of Freedom
India – National Liberation Front of Tripura
Ireland – Irish Republican Army
Russia – Russian National Unity
Uganda – Lord’s Resistance Army
United States – Ku Klux Klan, Army of God, Christan Identity, Christian Patriot, Concerned Christians, National Socialist’s White People’s Party and other neo-Nazi groups….
H.M., not going to bother too much with this as I think you are just wrong and I refuse to waste time.
You quote a statement that would make it appear all but 1 terrorist act between 2002 and 2005 were committed by climate or animal rights extremists. I found that a dishonest assertion in that it did not address the many acts of Terrorism around the world. Had you clarified it to apply to Acts of Domestic Terrorism, it would have been accurate. You seem a logical and intelligent individual. Therefore, I “assumed” you could have no reason for making such a misleading assertion unless you simply had an overwhelming “desire” for it to be true. I was being nice. The alternative is that you were being purposefully misleading.
I had no reason to qualify the list I quoted other than to state there were more acts of Terrorism, perpetrated by Muslim factions than what you had stated. I didn’t look to it’s “inclusiveness” only to a statement of acts committed above and beyond the scope of the “source” you quoted.
And subsequently, I think I have submitted sourcing to further substantiate my earlier statements. And by your own criteria, acts of Terrorism by Muslims GREATLY outnumber all other acts of terrorism.
Is that an indictment of ALL Muslims? Of course not. Is it cause for caution? I would think yes.
The KKK’s self perceived importance notwithstanding, (self evaluations tend to always be positive) I think they are irrelevant. I think most Americans feel they are irrelevant. And while McVeigh and Rudolph have been neutralized, there are a few million potential Muslim Jihadists still alive and well.
You misconstrue my post and again assign emotions without foundation.
I merely seek to add balance to a discussion that began with the assertion that most terrorists are Muslim. That is simply not true. You confuse the inflated value of your own opinion with objective facts.
If you will examine the quoted source objectively you will discover that the article addresses Militant Extremists in the United States, e.g., domestic terrorism. Inside the United States, those groups were in fact responsible for all but one incident of domestic terrorism during the stated time period.
The Council on Foreign Relations is a reliable source, while Info Please cited by you is less reliable. That is not a personal attack, but an observation of fact.
You claim that most terrorists are Muslim, yet I have demonstrated that this is not the case. If you wish demonstrate that the data regarding domestic terrorism is inaccurate, please supply evidence of domestic incidents committed by Muslims – other than the two attacks on the World Trade Center.
And, it didn’t take long at all
http://bit.ly/4jK2lD Surprise: Right-winger ties Fort Hood shooter to Obama
Sigh. That’s it for me folks. The complete hatred, violence, ignorance, and lack of respect for anyone or anything that is not WASP is more offense that I can take in one day.
Mr. (or Ms.) Bascom, Don’t give in so quickly. Look at what I endure on a daily basis. :-(
In your last post, you have said a lot of things that just aren’t relevant to your initial post. At least not in the way I read it.
I understand you differ with my assertion that “most terrorists are Muslim.” Nonetheless, I would stand by that assertion unless one could provide me with proof it is inaccurate.
Honestly, I looked at your quote first, then went to the article and read enough of the body to understand it was addressing Domestic Terrorism. And that is what I pointed out. I don’t feel you qualified your quote and left most of those who would not check any further with the impression that this was an all inclusive figure. At least, that is what I took from it which is exactly why I viewed it with a high degree of skepticism.
So, I did some cursory research (I really have other things to do and can’t commit the time and effort to do a fully vetted, fully researched, 3 day dissertation) and came up with sources that, at least on the surface, seemed to support what I stated, or better still, what I THOUGHT I knew.
As for the source, due to time constraints I really don’t have much more time to devote, and I said as much, but I know there are quite a few more sources that will support my statement.
When you make the case that most acts of “Domestic Terrorism” are not the result of Muslims or Jihad, I would not bother to contest. I would think, without even looking into it any further, that statement would be correct. Particularly given the time constraints you quoted as the previous administration did an excellent job protecting us from further attack on our soil!! ;-)
However, if you contend that the majority of Terrorist attacks in the world are not the result of Muslim or Jihad effort, I would take issue and look into that more carefully as I believe that statement to be in error.
Closing, I would like to point out that I have not promoted or endorsed violence, ignorance (other than my own) or lack of respect for any person or group of persons. I have however made statements, and I have supported those statements, that I feel to be accurate.
Nothing personal. I just have a different opinion and whether successfully or not, I have tried to state it intelligently as I could and substantiate my words.
And now there’s the Orlando shootings at a high rise office building and Fox isn’t saying that’s terrorism or questioning the religion of the shooter. Hypocrites
janine, why would they? An entirely different circumstance.
I SEEN A REMARK TODAY ON ANOTHER BLOG ABOUT THIS AND THE PERSON WHO POSTED THE COMMENT MENTIONED THAT HE &OBAMA WERE BOTH MUSLUM.AND SAID SOMETHING ABOUT OBAMAS COMMENTS YESTERDAY OF HOW HE DIDNT MENTION THE SHOOTING FIRST.INSTEAD OF TALKING ABOUT HE AMERICAN INDIANS,HE ALSO SAID OBAMA AS SCUM FOR NOT GOING TO FORT HOOD.WELL FIRST OF ALL I HAD TO POINT OUT OBAMA WAS CHRISTIAN NOT MUSULM AND THE WAY HE IMPLIED THAT OBAMA WAS TO BLAME BECAUSE HE WAS ALSO A MUSULM AND THEY WERE CONNECTED,THEN I HAD TO POINT OUT NONE OF US KNOW WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS GOING TO DO,HE DOESNT HAVE TO TELL US EVERY DETAIL OF HIS DAILY ACTIVITIES,AND HE COULD ALSO HAVE THEM AT THE WHITE HOUSE,AND FOR OBAMA NOT MENTIONING IT FIRST WAS WRONG BUT HE SHOULD NOT HAVE IMPLIED THAT OBAMA DOESNT CARE OR THIS MATTER DIDNT UPSET HIM,BECAUSE IM SURE IT DID,BUT THIS PERSONS IGNORANCE WAS GUIDING HIM. AND I ALSO TOLD HIM,THAT IF THE PRESIDENT GOES DOWN THERE YOU KNOW IT I KNOWIT AND THE REST OF THE WORLD KNOWS IT THAT ALL OF YOU WILL SAY OH THIS IS JUST A PHOTO OP FOR HIM HOW DARE HE USE THIS SAD OCCASION TO MAKE HIMSELF LOOK BETTER.SO IF HE DOES OR DOESNT GO YOUR GOING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT IT EITHER WAY YOU”LL FIND SOMETHING TO SAY. THE BEST THING TO DO IS LIKE HE DID THE OTHER NIGHT A SURPRISE AT NIGHT,BUT RUSH SAID IT WAS A PHOTO OP.HEY RUSH YOU IGNORANT JERK IF ITWAS A PHOTO OP HE WOULD OF GOTTEN ALL THE PRESS PUT THEM ON AIR FORCE ONE GIVEN THEM LUNCH LET THEM TAKE PICTURES ON THE PLANE THEN ON THE GROUND. FOLLOW HIM AROUND TAKING PICTURES ASKING QUESTIONS,THATS A PHOTO OP FOOL!