Jump to content

The Official Obama Scorecard Thread


Recommended Posts

But these people had nothing to do with the attacks. Do you feel it's a better strategy to reject everybody who is Islamic, or those who are Islamic AND vehemently anti-America. Islam didn't attack us, people who happened to be Islamic attacked us. Taking anger out on these New Yorkers trying to build a place of worship is like taking anger out on a kid playing Moral Kombat after Columbine or taking ager out against an unrelated person who drinks wine after hearing about a drunken driver accident. These people were in no way responsible, have condemned it, and just want to live their lives peacefully.What is "it" in your last sentence. Islam? Fanatical Islam? Or something deeper and more perverse in humanity that causes a very small percentage of people to commit horrible acts?Also, I disagree with your claim that the majority of Muslims support suicide attacks in Israel, and ask that you either provide supporting evidence or take back your remark.
"It" was referring to Islam. I think Islam itself must be rejected. The people who attacked us didn't just "happen to be" Islamic. They attacked us because their religious beliefs compelled them to and promised them reward for doing so. They chanted "allahu akbar!" as the plane went down (it is the last thing heard on Flight 93's cockpit recorder). The mosque is not in any way unrelated to this, as its goal is to cultivate a particular kind of mental poison whose direct result is this kind of attack, and others like it. It is a mind virus - those who are carriers are just as dangerous as those who show the symptoms. I'm not suggesting we beat them down in the street; but erecting a monument to this virus is not something we should want. The first step in the vaccination process is for us to recognize that we are dealing with a disease. Even if those particular people intend to live their lives peacefully, they are participating in an activity which results in the opposite of peace: i.e. the cultivation of Islam. Now to the data you asked for. In pakistan, 68% of muslims support suicide attacks against civilians. Granted, in the US the numbers are lower. A recent poll of muslim youth found that "only" 1 in 4 of them support such an action. The media campaign to paint these relatively common views as "fringe" within the islamic community are totally counter-productive. Why should these views be fringe? This kind of thing is written right into the koran. Qur'an (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." I'm not cherry-picking here, the message throughout the koran is pretty clear on this stuff. And while there are always some people who mix in a small dose of reason with their delusionary religion, the ideal is to follow the words of the koran precisely, and a moderate muslim does not condemn someone who strives to achieve this ideal. This separation between "fanatical islam" and "peaceful islam" is really a false distinction. A recent poll found that 40% of muslims in Britain want sharia law for that country. Why shouldn't they? That is the ideal form of law from their perspective. And we all know what kind human rights come along with that. The fact is that Islam is a competing cultural system which does not guarantee freedom of speech nor of religion, dress, or rights to women. We really don't want it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 6.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

President Obama ordered the cabinet to cut $100,000,000.00 ($100 million) from the $3,500,000,000,000.00 ($3.5 trillion) federal budget.   I'm so impressed by this sacrifice that I have decided to

As far as I can tell, Obama's only problem is the 10th amendment whereas the Tea Party seems to struggle with the First and 14th. So, Obama wins 2-1 in Constitutionalness.
1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Obama supports the silencing of campaign ads that criticize politicians, and supports laws that eliminate the rights of people to pool their money to amplify their voices.Obama: 0 for 1.2nd Amendment: Do we need to go over this. 0 for 23rd Amendment: WTF is this even doing here? This one doesn't count4th: Obama supports RICO and asset forfeiture laws. He supports searches without warrants. 0 for 3.5th: Obama supports eminent domain for private businesses, also his position on "war criminals" is pretty weak. 0 for 46th: I think we can give him this one, 1 for 57th: He hasn't had to comment on this, but we'll give it to him, 2 for 68th: Same as 7th, 3 for 79th: Worst president ever on this one, 3 for 810th: See 9th. 3 for 9So he likes about a third of them.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't I even get AmScray on my side?
Well, you are slamming non-whites..so there's that.But you are a hippy, so there's that.Tough call here.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Islam itself must be rejected.
And how do you propose the best way of "rejecting" it would be? To protest every Mosque? To not do business with Islamic people? To segregate them? I don't know what you mean when you say it must be rejected.
I think Islam itself must be rejected. The people who attacked us didn't just "happen to be" Islamic. They attacked us because their religious beliefs compelled them to and promised them reward for doing so. They chanted "allahu akbar!" as the plane went down (it is the last thing heard on Flight 93's cockpit recorder). The mosque is not in any way unrelated to this, as its goal is to cultivate a particular kind of mental poison whose direct result is this kind of attack, and others like it. It is a mind virus - those who are carriers are just as dangerous as those who show the symptoms. I'm not suggesting we beat them down in the street; but erecting a monument to this virus is not something we should want. The first step in the vaccination process is for us to recognize that we are dealing with a disease. Even if those particular people intend to live their lives peacefully, they are participating in an activity which results in the opposite of peace: i.e. the cultivation of Islam. Now to the data you asked for. In pakistan, 68% of muslims support suicide attacks against civilians. Granted, in the US the numbers are lower. A recent poll of muslim youth found that "only" 1 in 4 of them support such an action. The media campaign to paint these relatively common views as "fringe" within the islamic community are totally counter-productive. Why should these views be fringe? This kind of thing is written right into the koran. Qur'an (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." I'm not cherry-picking here, the message throughout the koran is pretty clear on this stuff. And while there are always some people who mix in a small dose of reason with their delusionary religion, the ideal is to follow the words of the koran precisely, and a moderate muslim does not condemn someone who strives to achieve this ideal. This separation between "fanatical islam" and "peaceful islam" is really a false distinction. A recent poll found that 40% of muslims in Britain want sharia law for that country. Why shouldn't they? That is the ideal form of law from their perspective. And we all know what kind human rights come along with that. The fact is that Islam is a competing cultural system which does not guarantee freedom of speech nor of religion, dress, or rights to women. We really don't want it.
I think Islam itself must be rejected. The people who attacked us didn't just "happen to be" Islamic. They attacked us because their religious beliefs compelled them to and promised them reward for doing so. They chanted "allahu akbar!" as the plane went down (it is the last thing heard on Flight 93's cockpit recorder).
I understand this, we all do. They believed Islam compelled them to kill Americans. That's clear. But not all Islamic people believe their religion compels them to kill Americans. A implies B does not mean B implies A.I mean, are you not frightened at all by the fact that you're using the exact same sort of reasoning and thinking that fanatical Muslims use to recruit? You're grouping a people together, blaming the acts of a few on the group as a whole, and then making the logical leap that the entire group is our enemy and must be "rejected."The greatest evils are committed when people are grouped together and dehumanized. The Muslim people, like all people on Earth, are extremely diverse in where they live, what they believe, and who they are. Only 1/5 of all Muslims live in the Middle East.
The mosque is not in any way unrelated to this, as its goal is to cultivate a particular kind of mental poison whose direct result is this kind of attack, and others like it.
It is a mind virus - those who are carriers are just as dangerous as those who show the symptoms. I'm not suggesting we beat them down in the street; but erecting a monument to this virus is not something we should want. The first step in the vaccination process is for us to recognize that we are dealing with a disease. Even if those particular people intend to live their lives peacefully, they are participating in an activity which results in the opposite of peace: i.e. the cultivation of Islam. ...The fact is that Islam is a competing cultural system which does not guarantee freedom of speech nor of religion, dress, or rights to women. We really don't want it.
The enemy is not Islam. The enemy is closed mindedness and ignorance. Then enemy is the part of the humanity that thinks superficial connections, such as relions and countries, are more important than the sanctity and preciousness of the individual. The enemy is grouping together Americans as an evil that must be eradicated, and the things that let that mindset thrive. The stereotype that fundamentalist Islam thrives on is that of Americans wanting to eradicate the Muslim way of life. That's what drives them to hate and murder. Becoming that stereotype isn't the answer.We do not fight that enemy by succumbing to it ourselves. We fight it by treating each person as an individual and judging him based on his own actions, not on actions of those who have the same hair color, or religion, or skin tone, or political party. We win by spreading Liberal thought and education and freedom of ideas and the thoughts of the enlightenment. Because those things are more powerful than a particular brand of religious backwardness. And they will win in the long run. Fundamentalism is losing, and losing quickly. Yes, it's hard to see now based on our limited perspective, by over the last century, it took a major blow, and will continue to die. We will win. Not we as Americans, or Westerners, but we as children of freedom, and the heirs to Rousseau and Locke. And we will win peacefully, as the internet spreads knowledge to places that we completely isolated, and people through television see the American life for what it really is, and as they start to yearn for the freedom that their own culture denies them. That is how we'll win.
Link to post
Share on other sites
And how do you propose the best way of "rejecting" it would be? To protest every Mosque? To not do business with Islamic people? To segregate them? I don't know what you mean when you say it must be rejected.
I can clarify. We already have a model for this, as there are several cultural ideals that were once acceptable but have now been rejected. Take racism, for example. This is an idea that we reject as a culture, even though we once owned black slaves. We teach our children that it is wrong, we speak out against it, we take measures to prevent it from harming people. That doesn't mean its illegal to be racist. The Klan can still have its parades. But we acknowledge publicly that this an idea we do not want to cultivate. We need to get to a point where bindly accepting the word of the koran is treated similarly.
I understand this, we all do. They believed Islam compelled them to kill Americans. That's clear. But not all Islamic people believe their religion compels them to kill Americans. A implies B does not mean B implies A.
They were correct to believe that Islam compelled them to kill Americans.Note that not all Klan members have participated in lynchings. The vast majority of them have not. But their ideology stands for something. Is Islam trying to achieve peace with non-muslims? If so, its failing miserably. Here's a list of 15,289 terrorist muslim attacks since 9/11.
I mean, are you not frightened at all by the fact that you're using the exact same sort of reasoning and thinking that fanatical Muslims use to recruit? You're grouping a people together, blaming the acts of a few on the group as a whole, and then making the logical leap that the entire group is our enemy and must be "rejected."
I don't see where I blamed the acts of a few on the group. There is an ideology which is the root of some pretty bad things. I do not advocate trying all muslims for the crimes of a few. But if you follow Islam, you are certainly part of the problem. Why do you think "muslims" is a group that I created? They are a group by virtue of associating themselves with the religion. The enemy is the ideology, yes, not the specific people who espouse it, but they are accomplices. More importantly, the enemy is our cultural refusal to acknowledge that dogma and religion are detrimental to us -- that instead, we have the stance that every idea must have equal respect and merely by having the status of being a religion an idea is good and wholesome. Rather, Islam belongs with racism and geocentrism in the trash bin of bad ideas. I am always respectful of the individual people I engage on these subjects. I may have even made some friends arguing with religious people (I consider Balloon Guy one of these). I have been deeply intertwined with many muslim people largely due to my study of indian classical music ( from a muslim teacher ). You are trying to paint me as if I am acting with hatred or violence, but that's very far from the truth. I realize that for many people its easier to pigeonhole what I am saying as some form of xenophobia rather than to confront the facts of what Islam actually is.
The greatest evils are committed when people are grouped together and dehumanized. The Muslim people, like all people on Earth, are extremely diverse in where they live, what they believe, and who they are. Only 1/5 of all Muslims live in the Middle East.
Of course. That doesn't mean they are not all harboring a dangerous idea.
The enemy is not Islam. The enemy is closed mindedness and ignorance.
I mostly agree with this. I am singling out Islam because it is an excellent example of close-mindedness and ignorance, and it is a low-hanging fruit because its consequences have been made clear to us.
the enemy is the part of the humanity that thinks superficial connections, such as relions and countries, are more important than the sanctity and preciousness of the individual. The enemy is grouping together Americans as an evil that must be eradicated, and the things that let that mindset thrive. The stereotype that fundamentalist Islam thrives on is that of Americans wanting to eradicate the Muslim way of life. That's what drives them to hate and murder. Becoming that stereotype isn't the answer.
I think the actual glitch at the root of all this is dogma: having fixed beliefs that are resistant to evidence. What drives them to hate and murder is not specifically related to America at all, it is the meme that non-Islamic people are inferior and must be converted or killed. That's what mohammed taught unambiguously. There's nothing specific to America, except that we have come to represent the moral decline they fear so much because of our affluence and freedom. If someone draws a picture of mohammed in Finland they will receive equal punishment from the islamists as if an American draws it. I don't see why you would think this is a stereotype. We are talking about a group of people defined by their self-expressed devotion to the holy koran and the teachings of mohammed. Is it a stereotype to say that Catholics believe in jesus?
Fundamentalism is losing, and losing quickly.
By what measure? Do you have any evidence the support this claim? Islam is growing like wildfire. In the UK for example, the muslim population is growing 10 times faster than the rest of society.
Yes, it's hard to see now based on our limited perspective, by over the last century, it took a major blow, and will continue to die. We will win.
How will we win? By what method? By continuing to treat dogmatic thought as if it were benign or by working against it?
Not we as Americans, or Westerners, but we as children of freedom, and the heirs to Rousseau and Locke. And we will win peacefully, as the internet spreads knowledge to places that we completely isolated, and people through television see the American life for what it really is, and as they start to yearn for the freedom that their own culture denies them. That is how we'll win.
You seem to have misunderstood me to be advocating some kind of war against muslims? My point is that we have to change the minds of people, of course through peaceful means if at all possible. But we will absolutely not win unless it becomes acceptable and commonplace to criticize religion and dogma rather than to apologize for it. This is a necessary part of our psychological evolution; the Enlightenment was not the end of our development, it was one point along the way.
Link to post
Share on other sites

All that multi-quoting, the answer is now no. You just lost me. You're officially on your own here. Because of that one instance of being unable to stream a cogent, singular structure of thought, I'm now Pro Ground Zero Mosque, and Pro Islam in general.

Link to post
Share on other sites
President Obama on Saturday sought to clarify his comments supporting the building of a mosque near ground zero that have ignited a political firestorm ahead of a difficult election season for Democrats.During a trip to Florida for a family vacation, Obama said his comments on Friday night were only directed at the constitutional right of the mosque to be there.“I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there,” he said in response to a reporter’s question after he spoke about efforts to aid the Gulf Coast region. “I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That’s what our country is about.”
Link to post
Share on other sites

^ AH' SEZ' ALL ALONG HE'Z A MOOSLIM AN THIS HERE PROVES WHAT I'Z BEEN SAYIN' ALL ALONG! ^GIT HIZ BIRTH CERTIFICATE!GIT IT!YA KNOW WHY YA AIN'T SEEN IT?CUZ'N HE AIN'T GOT NO BIRTH CERTIFICATE, CEPT'N FER' THE ONE FROM ARABIA THAT SHOWS HIS PA WAS OSAMA BIN LADEN!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sometimes I'm actually proud to be an American
**Slow sad head shake**
Link to post
Share on other sites
**Slow sad head shake**
I am always proud to be an American but I am also constantly embarrassed, too.I think Obama handled this perfectly.....it is not his job to comment on the public relations of putting a mosque there....his job is to uphold the Constitution and that is what he is doing (along with Mayor Bloomberg). Also, and this is not directed at anyone in particular, if I hear one more conservative say 'do you think you could build a temple or church in Mecca?', I might lose my ****ing mind. Really? Is the goal to be like Saudi Arabia or Iran or is the goal to be better than that?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Obama handled this perfectly.....it is not his job to comment on the public relations of putting a mosque there....his job is to uphold the Constitution and that is what he is doing (along with Mayor Bloomberg).
So, now that he has said what many of us have been saying (and simply felt he should have said in the first place) and you've apparently been arguing against...
President Obama on Saturday sought to clarify his comments supporting the building of a mosque near ground zero that have ignited a political firestorm ahead of a difficult election season for Democrats.During a trip to Florida for a family vacation, Obama said his comments on Friday night were only directed at the constitutional right of the mosque to be there.“I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there,” he said in response to a reporter’s question after he spoke about efforts to aid the Gulf Coast region. “I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding. That’s what our country is about.”
...has he now not handled it perfectly? Or you that much of an Obama apologist that you now feel that this is now all of a sudden the right stance to take?
Link to post
Share on other sites
So, now that he has said what many of us have been saying (and simply felt he should have said in the first place) and you've apparently been arguing against......has he now not handled it perfectly? Or you that much of an Obama apologist that you now feel that this is now all of a sudden the right stance to take?
nope, he has shown a disturbing tendency to give into American public opinion. On this one, I would say AT LEAST he supported the first amendment above all else which is good enough. It's really not for the President to weigh in on whether or not they should do it.The right thing to do was say that the United States will uphold the first amendment without caveats according to established law and not comment further. Then again, go read any message board talking about his decision to say they have the right to do it and see what is being said about him. Secret Muslim, terrorist sympathizer, etc all for upholding one of our most basic rights. It would be enough to drive me to be a weenie. Remember what Sarah Palin says, when the comments and scrutiny get too personal and distracting, quit and make lots of money on tv.
Link to post
Share on other sites
nope, he has shown a disturbing tendency to give into American public opinion. On this one, I would say AT LEAST he supported the first amendment above all else which is good enough. It's really not for the President to weigh in on whether or not they should do it.The right thing to do was say that the United States will uphold the first amendment without caveats according to established law and not comment further. Then again, go read any message board talking about his decision to say they have the right to do it and see what is being said about him. Secret Muslim, terrorist sympathizer, etc all for upholding one of our most basic rights. It would be enough to drive me to be a weenie. Remember what Sarah Palin says, when the comments and scrutiny get too personal and distracting, quit and make lots of money on tv.
Are you seriously worried about what random people are writing on message boards? You should see what they have said or are saying about Bush,Cheney,Rumsfeld,Palin,Rush etc etc
Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you seriously worried about what random people are writing on message boards? You should see what they have said or are saying about Bush,Cheney,Rumsfeld,Palin,Rush etc etc
This.Just as there are those who secretly want to believe that Obama is not a Constitutional President or he is a Muslim or Hillary killed Vince Foster or whatever, more of us are much more concerned about how he is actively currently screwing up this country and performing as a weak leader.And props to Cane for not knee-jerking in his support of Obama's flipping like a flag on a pole.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you seriously worried about what random people are writing on message boards? You should see what they have said or are saying about Bush,Cheney,Rumsfeld,Palin,Rush etc etc
I mean I normally would not be if I also was not seeing it from people I know on Facebook and hearing it on talk radio and seeing it on Fox News. Pot odds,I don't think Obama realized how ugly the country had gotten regarding politics and he is still wasting time trying to make everyone like him. Not that he is the first politician with a need to be liked but sometimes it makes him flip-flop like a fish. I don't really consider myself much of an Obama apologist. I am on record as saying going after health care first was the dumbest thing ever. I just take exception to the idea that Bush sucked for 8 years and screwed up a war and what not which only made him a bad president but Obama passed a crappy health care bill and has the same immigration policy as Bush did and he is DESTROYING AMERICA. The hyperbole about how damaging Obama has been so far would be funny if so many people weren't buying it.I mean Dan Quayle's son (of all people) just got on TV and announced Obama is the worst president ever and the conservative reaction was "preach on, baby!" In the context of 2000-2008, that is just so hilarious.....and considering some of the presidencies from the 1800s it shows a STUNNING lack of historical awareness (you will never hear me say GWB was the worst president ever....we elected some guys before and after Lincoln who were just miserable in a way Obama and Bush could never touch).
Link to post
Share on other sites
I mean I normally would not be if I also was not seeing it from people I know on Facebook and hearing it on talk radio and seeing it on Fox News. Pot odds,I don't think Obama realized how ugly the country had gotten regarding politics and he is still wasting time trying to make everyone like him. Not that he is the first politician with a need to be liked but sometimes it makes him flip-flop like a fish. I don't really consider myself much of an Obama apologist. I am on record as saying going after health care first was the dumbest thing ever. I just take exception to the idea that Bush sucked for 8 years and screwed up a war and what not which only made him a bad president but Obama passed a crappy health care bill and has the same immigration policy as Bush did and he is DESTROYING AMERICA. The hyperbole about how damaging Obama has been so far would be funny if so many people weren't buying it.I mean Dan Quayle's son (of all people) just got on TV and announced Obama is the worst president ever and the conservative reaction was "preach on, baby!" In the context of 2000-2008, that is just so hilarious.....and considering some of the presidencies from the 1800s it shows a STUNNING lack of historical awareness (you will never hear me say GWB was the worst president ever....we elected some guys before and after Lincoln who were just miserable in a way Obama and Bush could never touch).
He was speaking as an arizonan - and maybe for people who live in AZ - he is the worst president ever
Link to post
Share on other sites
He was speaking as an arizonan - and maybe for people who live in AZ - he is the worst president ever
Only if all Arizonans hate history and logic. Seriously, look up Franklin Pierce sometime. The only President to not win his own party's nomination for a 2nd term. He is not the only candidate either.Side note: Franklin Pierce is an ancestor of George W. Bush (Barbara Bush was Barbara Pierce before she married). Coincidence?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sure his worst president ever comments have nothing to do with the Obama Administrations handling of the illegal aliens in his state

Link to post
Share on other sites
Im sure his worst president ever comments have nothing to do with the Obama Administrations handling of the illegal aliens in his state
I'm sure they do.....and yet I don't see how that adds any validity or evidence to the statement. You know since eight years passed by where the previous president did nothing about immigration except that one time he suggested giving illegals amnesty and the Fox News actually criticized him for a week.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sure they do.....and yet I don't see how that adds any validity or evidence to the statement. You know since eight years passed by where the previous president did nothing about immigration except that one time he suggested giving illegals amnesty and the Fox News actually criticized him for a week.
He did nothing?Really? the requirements to get into this country didn't change under Bush?
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...