Still don't believe he's a muslim?

Question for all you Odumbo worshippers in this thread:

Didn't Secretary of State John Kerry get up on his high horse last year when he lectured Russia about violating the rules of 21st Century behavior in Ukraine? But now we're being told by Odumbo that we shouldn't "get on our high horse" to pass judgment on medieval miscreants who decapitate and burn captives alive and want to drag us back to the 13th century? I'm confused. What should I do with my high horse? Keep it or shoot it? Originally Posted by lustylad

That's the problem with you guys, it's an either/or proposition, regardless of the situation. Every situation is not the same. You can't take one set of circumstances and apply them to every situation. Russia and Ukraine are not muslim extremists, just as muslim extremist are not Russia and Ukraine. They are different issues and should be dealt with accordingly. Or are you telling me I should go bear hunting with a fishing pole.

Or someone who is supremely confident in his abilities... didn't think of that one, did you? Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Supremely confident people let others keep the score.

Only someone who has nothing to contribute and no facts to back it up, comes into a thread and lays down a fucking egg like that. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

I quoted you patting yourself on the back four times. You laid the egg, henbrain.

Supremely confident people let others keep the score.



I quoted you patting yourself on the back four times. You laid the egg, henbrain. Originally Posted by lustylad

Gee Mom, I wish I was a witty as this guy. Your guy I B a dipshit is the one keeping score. Apparently crazy muslims have killed more people than crazy christians and he is supremely butthurt about it. I often pat myself on the back. Not like any of you guys are going to do it. Or even realize why you should be

That's the problem with you guys, it's an either/or proposition, regardless of the situation. Every situation is not the same. You can't take one set of circumstances and apply them to every situation. Russia and Ukraine are not muslim extremists, just as muslim extremist are not Russia and Ukraine. They are different issues and should be dealt with accordingly. Or are you telling me I should go bear hunting with a fishing pole. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Ok, great. That clarifies everything. So under the Obama doctrine, how do I know when it is ok to get on my high horse and when it isn't?

How do I tell which bad guys deserve a stern lecture in 21st century morality - and which ones get a pass and a mea culpa?

Ok, great. That clarifies everything. So under the Obama doctrine, how do I know when it is ok to get on my high horse and when it isn't?

How do I tell which bad guys deserve a stern lecture in 21st century morality - and which ones get a pass and a mea culpa? Originally Posted by lustylad

I would say calling their acts barbaric over and over as well as thousands of sorties flown with over 6K of their fighters killed since August, is a pretty stern lecture. I could be wrong. I'm not, but I could be.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ilot/22801383/


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...t-by-ISIL.html


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/...rdanian-pilot/


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/wo...tion.html?_r=0


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...g-it-hostages/


YEAH, he's never condemned their actions or anything... maybe if you got off this site once in a while you'd know these things. He called them 'Pure Evil'. Does that not qualify as condemnation or am I understanding those two words incorrectly when used in that order. See, you're learning firsthand why I'm supremely confident. When you are armed with the truth and facts to back it up, all you can do is flail. Kind of like you're doing now.

I would say calling their acts barbaric over and over.... is a pretty stern lecture.... maybe if you got off this site once in a while you'd know these things. He called them 'Pure Evil'. Does that not qualify as condemnation or am I understanding those two words incorrectly.... Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Ok, so let me see if I have it straight then.... you're saying it's ok for Odumbo to get on his high horse and call ISIS "barbaric" and "pure evil" - but not for anyone else to do the same? Only our anointed Moralizer-In-Chief is allowed to issue such pronouncements - the rest of us are unanointed and lack all moral authority as a result of the Crusades, slavery, Jim Crow, et cetera???

That's the problem with you guys, it's an either/or proposition, regardless of the situation. Every situation is not the same. You can't take one set of circumstances and apply them to every situation. Russia and Ukraine are not muslim extremists, just as muslim extremist are not Russia and Ukraine. They are different issues and should be dealt with accordingly. Or are you telling me I should go bear hunting with a fishing pole. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

You're such a dumbass you can't see how this post of yours completely undermines every stupid argument you've made to this point.

That's the problem with you lib-retards, it is often an either/or proposition, regardless of the situation. Every situation is not the same, e.g., the 13th Century is not the 21st Century. You can't take one set of circumstances and apply them to every situation, e.g., the social norms of the 13th Century are not social norms of the 21st Century. Christians and Muslims committed similar atrocities in the Middle Ages, and those atrocities were very similar in nature and magnitude to those that Muslim extremists are still committing in the 21st Century. The nature of Christian atrocities and Muslim atrocities were comparable in the 13th Century, but 13th Century Christian atrocities are not being replicated by Christians in the 21st Century; therefore, each era is distinctly unique, and, as such, they are not comparable. Conversely, 21st Century Muslim atrocities are quite comparable to 13th Century Muslim atrocities in magnitude.

So while it's possible to compare 13th Century Christian atrocities with 13th Century Muslim atrocities, it is an invalid notion to assert that 13th Century Christian behavior somehow represents 21st Century Christian behavior and, therefore, can subsequently be compared with the heinous behavior of Muslims in the 21st Century. As such, 13th Century Christianity and 21st Century Islam are distinctly different and not comparable.

Gee Mom, I wish I was a witty as this guy. Your guy I B a dipshit is the one keeping score. Apparently crazy muslims have killed more people than crazy christians and he is supremely butthurt about it. I often pat myself on the back. Not like any of you guys are going to do it. Or even realize why you should be:jawdrop: Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

You're a self-congratulatory prick, because you're the only one who doesn't see how asinine you and your boy Odumbo really are.

I would say calling their acts barbaric over and over as well as thousands of sorties flown with over 6K of their fighters killed since August, is a pretty stern lecture. I could be wrong. I'm not, but I could be.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...ilot/22801383/


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...t-by-ISIL.html


http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/...rdanian-pilot/


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/wo...tion.html?_r=0


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...g-it-hostages/


YEAH, he's never condemned their actions or anything... maybe if you got off this site once in a while you'd know these things. He called them 'Pure Evil'. Does that not qualify as condemnation or am I understanding those two words incorrectly when used in that order. See, you're learning firsthand why I'm supremely confident. When you are armed with the truth and facts to back it up, all you can do is flail. Kind of like you're doing now. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Thousands of sorties??? Better scale that back a little bit. The other day, after Obama got mad, we made 14 attacks in one day. Compare that to a hundred daily under Bush.

His JOB is not to argue history, he has but ONE JOB, and that is to protect these United States of America, which he has proven very well, he cannot or will not do. PERIOD, because IMHO there are but two things that define a border, those of which are being diminished on a precipitous basis. Language and borders, and with no borders and no common language anymore, the USA is nearly gone! What do you think should be the new name for this land once called America. Hint: it most probably would be an Islamic name, if BHO aka Barry Soetoro, maybe even the Trojan Horse has his way.

Ok, so let me see if I have it straight then.... you're saying it's ok for Odumbo to get on his high horse and call ISIS "barbaric" and "pure evil" - but not for anyone else to do the same? Only our anointed Moralizer-In-Chief is allowed to issue such pronouncements - the rest of us are unanointed and lack all moral authority as a result of the Crusades, slavery, Jim Crow, et cetera??? Originally Posted by lustylad

When the fuck did I say that? You've been arguing the whole time that he never condemned them, I provide proof he had condemned them and you turn it around and say he is the only one allowed to make such statements? Where did I say that? He can't win with you Motherfuckers. He doesn't say it, you bitch. He says it, you bitch. I've proven you're full of shit.

Thousands of sorties??? Better scale that back a little bit. The other day, after Obama got mad, we made 14 attacks in one day. Compare that to a hundred daily under Bush. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Wrong. Get off Faux News.

http://exileinportales.blogspot.com/...rties.html?m=1

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News...-ISIS-war.html

You're such a dumbass you can't see how this post of yours completely undermines every stupid argument you've made to this point.





You're a self-congratulatory prick, because you're the only one who doesn't see how asinine you and your boy Odumbo really are. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

What do social norms have to do with anything? Murder is murder. Regardless of which time period it occurred in. Your entire argument is based on shit. He wasn't comparing the two. I know in your simple mind that anytime someone mentions two distinct things, he must be comparing them but as I've said before he was saying that no religion or country has the market cornered on being upstanding all the time. You WANT to hear that he's excusing their present day actions, so that's exactly what you hear. The problem is that when someone says something, what they actually meant is what matters, not your idiotic interpretation of it. As bad as you wish it were true, it's just not. Good morning, dipshit.

You want to see this dildo in full slavering hysteria, UnderConstruction?

Just ask IBIdiot about the Confederacy.

Thousands of sorties??? Better scale that back a little bit. The other day, after Obama got mad, we made 14 attacks in one day. Compare that to a hundred daily under Bush. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

And you dare complain about the economy?

I don't think he is a muslim

but he could be


he claims Christianity

I would leave that up to his conscience

all I do know is he is a confused ambiguous indeterminate who thinks he is so far above the fray and so much smarter he looks down on those who can recognize right from wrong and good from evil

as our superior he deigns to teach us our errors instead of do his duty to us