[wmbondurant]

Originally Posted by rob666 ↗

Government has grown a tremendous amount since 9/11.

How do you increase security even further with a smaller government?

Look you aren't very thorough ,I never said anything of expanded government ... ** I implore you to be more thorough ** and accurate when reading and responding to my post .... Please

[wmbondurant]

Originally Posted by wmbondurant ↗

You say I'm a man of conservative values,,,, please give examples ..
I could care less that the gays have a parade ... Or that they are gay period ... No problems whatsoever,,
i would actually have less of a problem with a gay Muslim then a regular old garden variety nut job Muslim .

A world of gay Muslims would not only solve our problems but would make me feel a lot better about your religion.

[wmbondurant]

I'm gonna have to have an FBI handler after this is all said and done

[a175]

It would be impossible to implement the programs you want without expanding the government. Math and economics, man.

There was no insult intended, however you seem adamant that you know more about Islam than I do, being that you're able to define it in such concrete terms. Just poking you with a stick.

48% of Americans, huh? That's about what Romney got in 2012... and I'd really like to see those numbers, where they came from, and how they were derived.

I can only assume that it's from sources with similar leans towards the other sites you've posted. Sources matter, especially in polls.
Why?
Poll Fox viewers and MSNBC viewers about the same topic and you'll have two different results.

Your earlier response to rob666 speaks volumes. You are more concerned about rhetoric (what Obama says about terrorists) and have no concern about an actual threat (domestic terrorism).
It's funny. People care so much about what Obama says, but are completely silent when George W Bush says that Al-Qaeda's terrorist attack on 9/11 didn't represent Islam and that we aren't at war with Muslims.

Now, here's why I call you out-
Under the Obama administration, more terrorists have been killed (including Osama bin Laden... remember him???) than by any other president (although, to be fair, only the GWB administration was in the same situation). Obama may be capturing less and ratcheted down on torture, but he stepped up targeted killings (including American citizens who have joined terrorist organizations).

So, what I'm seeing is (and correct me if I'm wrong, but do it with substance) that you care less about actions and more about words.
And not just any words...
"Islamic terrorism". That's the one you want to hear.

Because saying "ISIL/ISIS, Al-Qaeda, etc"... you know, actually naming the groups themselves, just isn't good enough. You'd rather rally behind fighting a general idea of something rather than the specific actors who are a threat to our security.

That's certainly what it looks like from my vantage point.

It's all about Obama, anyway. It was about Obama before he was even elected, and it doubled down when he was reelected.

Bin Laden killed, oh but he didn't show the pictures. Even I took issue with that, but I was happy that they killed him.

Leads prayer breakfasts celebrating his Lord Jesus, oh but he had the audacity to actually get biblical and suggest that Christians correct themselves before correcting others. The horror of him quoting Christ!

Followed Bush's withdrawal time line in Iraq (which meant he kept troops in Iraq LONGER than what he had campaigned for), but oh he didn't negotiate keeping thousands or even tens of thousands of troops in country. Perhaps because the Iraqi parliament demanded that US troops be subject to local laws... yeah, I'm sure that would have gone over well.

Look, I'm not a fan of Obama. I don't like him. I didn't vote for him. I oppose a great deal of his platform, and even him on a personal level to a certain extent. I do not, however, see any value in spouting off factually erroneous nonsense or pointing fingers at him for doing the same thing that other presidents have done.
This isn't a Democrat/Republican thing, either. Both sides continually pull the same garbage. That being said, I am more critical against the GOP because they are supposed to be this representation of God and morality, yet are about as far from both as anyone can be. I'm critical of hypocrisy and stupidity (the part, not you). Ignorance is forgivable, but only if there is a willingness to learn. This demagoguery not only tears us apart as a country, but it's laughably incorrect to boot.
These conservatives who pump up Reagan forget that he paved the way for the most stringent gun control measures in decades, raised taxes after lowering them failed, and yes... shame above all shames... negotiated with terrorists. But all I'm hearing about is how Obama wants to take your guns and won't define the enemy.

Yeah, he won't define them. He's too busy sending our hardest warriors (and maybe not-so-hard drone pilots) to kill them in every corner of the globe, even within our own borders. And there's the rub... when it comes to international threats, Salafi jihadists are the number one threat. However, here in the USA, you're 2 to 7 times more likely to be killed by a right-wing extremist or other domestic group than by a jihadist, although the odds of either of those happening are about the same as winning the lottery.


Yeah. I said the Salafi thing again. You keep going on about defining the enemy, well there it is. Let's see if it makes a bit of difference, or if you'll just keep saying Muslims/Islam.

You know, that thing about keeping my insults to the end of the post... you realize how hilarious that sounds when you continually define me as belonging to a dangerous religion incompatible with Western civilization, right?

[wmbondurant]

http://toprightnews.com/china-just-m...-to-ban-islam/

[wmbondurant]

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/12/t...s-celebrations

[Pink.]

Pulled pork for dinner AGAIN?????

[wmbondurant]

Served by homosexuals

[wmbondurant]

Originally Posted by wmbondurant ↗

I Apologize it's only 48% of American that say it okay to ban Muslims ... I'm not one of them but they need to get it together and we should totally restrict their numbers ... They are a danger to our free way of life ,, *******in the long term .. *******

It's a Forbes article and it's more like 40% ... So ,, solly

[wmbondurant]

Originally Posted by a175 ↗

It would be impossible to implement the programs you want without expanding the government. Math and economics, man.

There was no insult intended, however you seem adamant that you know more about Islam than I do, being that you're able to define it in such concrete terms. Just poking you with a stick.

48% of Americans, huh? That's about what Romney got in 2012... and I'd really like to see those numbers, where they came from, and how they were derived.

I can only assume that it's from sources with similar leans towards the other sites you've posted. Sources matter, especially in polls.
Why?
Poll Fox viewers and MSNBC viewers about the same topic and you'll have two different results.

Your earlier response to rob666 speaks volumes. You are more concerned about rhetoric (what Obama says about terrorists) and have no concern about an actual threat (domestic terrorism).
It's funny. People care so much about what Obama says, but are completely silent when George W Bush says that Al-Qaeda's terrorist attack on 9/11 didn't represent Islam and that we aren't at war with Muslims.

Now, here's why I call you out-
Under the Obama administration, more terrorists have been killed (including Osama bin Laden... remember him???) than by any other president (although, to be fair, only the GWB administration was in the same situation). Obama may be capturing less and ratcheted down on torture, but he stepped up targeted killings (including American citizens who have joined terrorist organizations).

So, what I'm seeing is (and correct me if I'm wrong, but do it with substance) that you care less about actions and more about words.
And not just any words...
"Islamic terrorism". That's the one you want to hear.

Because saying "ISIL/ISIS, Al-Qaeda, etc"... you know, actually naming the groups themselves, just isn't good enough. You'd rather rally behind fighting a general idea of something rather than the specific actors who are a threat to our security.

That's certainly what it looks like from my vantage point.

It's all about Obama, anyway. It was about Obama before he was even elected, and it doubled down when he was reelected.

Bin Laden killed, oh but he didn't show the pictures. Even I took issue with that, but I was happy that they killed him.

Leads prayer breakfasts celebrating his Lord Jesus, oh but he had the audacity to actually get biblical and suggest that Christians correct themselves before correcting others. The horror of him quoting Christ!

Followed Bush's withdrawal time line in Iraq (which meant he kept troops in Iraq LONGER than what he had campaigned for), but oh he didn't negotiate keeping thousands or even tens of thousands of troops in country. Perhaps because the Iraqi parliament demanded that US troops be subject to local laws... yeah, I'm sure that would have gone over well.

Look, I'm not a fan of Obama. I don't like him. I didn't vote for him. I oppose a great deal of his platform, and even him on a personal level to a certain extent. I do not, however, see any value in spouting off factually erroneous nonsense or pointing fingers at him for doing the same thing that other presidents have done.
This isn't a Democrat/Republican thing, either. Both sides continually pull the same garbage. That being said, I am more critical against the GOP because they are supposed to be this representation of God and morality, yet are about as far from both as anyone can be. I'm critical of hypocrisy and stupidity (the part, not you). Ignorance is forgivable, but only if there is a willingness to learn. This demagoguery not only tears us apart as a country, but it's laughably incorrect to boot.
These conservatives who pump up Reagan forget that he paved the way for the most stringent gun control measures in decades, raised taxes after lowering them failed, and yes... shame above all shames... negotiated with terrorists. But all I'm hearing about is how Obama wants to take your guns and won't define the enemy.

Yeah, he won't define them. He's too busy sending our hardest warriors (and maybe not-so-hard drone pilots) to kill them in every corner of the globe, even within our own borders. And there's the rub... when it comes to international threats, Salafi jihadists are the number one threat. However, here in the USA, you're 2 to 7 times more likely to be killed by a right-wing extremist or other domestic group than by a jihadist, although the odds of either of those happening are about the same as winning the lottery.


Yeah. I said the Salafi thing again. You keep going on about defining the enemy, well there it is. Let's see if it makes a bit of difference, or if you'll just keep saying Muslims/Islam.

You know, that thing about keeping my insults to the end of the post... you realize how hilarious that sounds when you continually define me as belonging to a dangerous religion incompatible with Western civilization, right?

We both love our country , right ?

Well ,, if we can agree on that then we can continue to work this out ..

Ohh this coffee ice cream I never eat ice cream ...