In an IS training camp, children told: Behead the doll
And these are some of the 6.2 million 'people' O wants ti bring into the US to live among us.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
However, idiocy, when aided and abetted for other purposes by medias and agendas will extend the life cycles of these inherent idiocies for maximum purpose. And that purpose is not that of the misled idiots.
Hence, the sudden out of nowhere (JV) rise of another western defined boogeyman called ISIS (with Obubblehead insisting on ISIL which has never been asked about or explained). The same occurred 15 years ago with this thing called Al Qaeda.
I read a book on the rise of the Taliban that was published before 9/11. In it they said that all that Al Qaeda meant was "The Database", meaning a list of insurgents throughout the Muslim world that had been recruited to the jihad cause. It had no meaning as a name for such a cause. That was a creation of the western world to give a name to something little understood, with the primary purpose of defining a dubious enemy that has to be fought with global entangling alliances and the burgeoning empowerment it takes to fight a faceless, stateless bogeyman.
The bogeyman would have died a natural death born of its own idiocy except it served a larger purpose.
check your premises.
What have we taught our children? I just can't imagine how a parent could go along with this, but I suppose generation after generation makes anyone believe.
It's like someone made a challenge to you: find some way, no matter how asinine, to relate the story to President Obama.
Today's blatant audacity is beyond that of 15-20 years ago.
Alrighty then.
You make it sound like O has been persecuted? Is that what you really believe? If so, are you calling me a racist because I point out that this man is and has been doing, and he happens to be black? Would I criticize and point out these things any less if he were white? If he were a R?
Latest news: O wants to strip away second amendment rights to some social security recipients with no justifiable cause. You okay with this?
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/se...
Of course if I'm wrong (I'm certain I'm not), then I will be a fool for having dismissing the claims out of hand.
Thats 2 years old. I can post much more things that he's done. Eg. His circumventing Congress by going to the UN to sanction the Iran 'deal'. Hi suse of Executive orders to circumvent Congressional authority in making law.
If you're for people being accountable for their conduct and words then you are shielding O solely because you favor him for some reason and people are reporting his anti-American and unconstitutional conduct. I'm actually kind of surprised.
There were three: There is some thing every day with which to discredit Obama. Whose fault is it that those things exist?
Do you believe that Obama is being persecuted?
Are you okay with Obama wanting to deny 2nd amendment right to a certain group of people; is that acceptable to you?
The opposite of persecuted is praised, rewarded, protected, commended - and so on. Your point is that he is being rewarded? Saying he is not X, he is X. is not an answer to the question.
That makes sense. I will answer your questions.
"There is some thing every day with which to discredit Obama. Whose fault is it that those things exist?"
If you mean the ones I call absurd, I'm saying it's thanks to President Obama being so good that they resort to these absurd accusations.
If you mean real criticisms like the fact that he proposed budgets that increase the deficit, that falls squarely on him. Supporters of the borrowing is to boost aggregate demand and cause expansion. We're seeing only tepid growth. Critics of the borrowing say long-term rates will eventually rise and stifle long-term growth. That hasn't happened yet either, but I believe it will happen and will cause a mini-crisis. In any case, much of the blame/credit for the results of the borrowing falls on President Obama.
"Do you believe that Obama is being persecuted?"
No, not at all. I don't even see how "persecuted" can ever apply to someone who's the POTUS.
"Are you okay with Obama wanting to deny 2nd amendment right to a certain group of people; is that acceptable to you?"
No way. Gov't has an awful tendency to take your money and give it back to you (e.g. highway funding) if you do what they want.
The original question was about President Obama being a foreign operative on a mission to destroy America. I was snarky and laughed at that, but then pointed out if there turns out to be some crazy conspiracy. The rest of the stuff is unrelated. I do think it's a good thing (reward-like) for President Obama's critics to accuse him of being a foreign agent.
Post move around the original point; that doesn't make other elements brought up not worth discussing clearly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOPhr...