***Political Thread*** (Massive merge)
- Thread starter ukfit
- Start date
- Status
jeebus
ED HENRY, FOX NEWS: In your answer to Kristen [Welker]'s question about 21 Christians being killed this weekend you said the president put out a strong statement this week.
The statement on Sunday was from you. It said statement by the press secretary, we should be clear it was not a statement from the president.
JOSH EARNEST, WHITE HOUSE: Yeah, I misspoke.
HENRY: Okay, I just want to be clear.
And in that statement -- that's what I want to ask you because you put it out under your name -- you talked about the murder of 21 citizens and I'm curious why didn't you mention it was 21 Christians killed by Muslims? Is that relevant?
EARNEST: It sure is because the ISIL -- the ISIL extremists who carried out this attack indicated that the reason they were killing them wasn't just because they were Egyptian but also because they were Christian. And I think the president has been very clear that it is -- you know, the president talked about this actually in his prayer breakfast speech that he gave earlier this month. That there's a responsibility of people of all faiths to stand up and speak out when individuals try to use faith and distort faith to try to justify the act of violence.
HENRY: Given that then why were you not clear on Sunday? Why not under your name? Why didn't you say 21 Christians were killed?
EARNEST: Well, Ed, I try to be clear here. I can't account for that specific line in the statement but we have been clear there that we condemn this murder. The president was clear in the op-ed that was published today and on a variety of occasions I think I have been pretty clear here that we condemn the outrageous killing of these Egyptian citizens because of their Christian faith.
HENRY: Two days earlier on the 13th you put out a statement under the president's name about the tragic deaths of the three Muslim students at the University of North Carolina and in there the president said, "no one in the United States of America should ever be targeted because of who they are and what they look like or how they worship."
Why was their Muslim faith relevant in that statement?
EARNEST: Well, Ed, I think that as we've indicated the situation in North Carolina is still under investigation. And local law enforcement authorities there are trying to determine exactly what the motivation of the individual that has been charged with this crime was. And so that's still under investigation.
But what is clear is that there is this principle that exists regardless of the faith of the individual in question that people should not be targeted because of their religion and what they look like or what their last name is or how they worshiped. That is true --
HENRY: Is there any evidence in the North Carolina case that they were targeted because they were Muslims?
EARNEST: This is still something that's under --
HENRY: They said it was over a parking space. We don't know. It's a local investigation right now, as you've said. So why was their faith invoked in the president's statement?
EARNEST: Well, Ed, I think it is important for the president in this case as he has in many others to articulate a pretty clear principle and I think that it's the kind of principle that the vast majority of Americans should be able to support. Which is that people should not regardless of their faith be targeted because of what their last name is, what they look like or how they worship.
HENRY: We don't know that they were targeted because of their last name or their faith.
EARNEST: So I guess, Ed, what you can -- and I think that is acknowledged in the statement as well. And we have also acknowledge this is an issue that's under investigation in North Carolina. But I think as a principle, this is the kind of thing that we should all be able to agree with.
The one that gets me is the thumb point, nothing says "I mean what I'm about to say, but polls suggest actually pointing my finger angers people" like the good ol thumb point.
So Obama and Kerry are suggesting a global jobs and education initiative to combat Islamic terrorism? Did I catch that correctly or nah? (gets out billfold, sounds like I need to do more fair sharing)
This....this is who some of yall voted for. Whole damn world is a £>%£+*$& political ad or bumper sticker to them. Education! Jobs! Seniors! Blacks! The Gays! Green! Climate! Halliburton Bad! Children!
What a terrible president.
This....this is who some of yall voted for. Whole damn world is a £>%£+*$& political ad or bumper sticker to them. Education! Jobs! Seniors! Blacks! The Gays! Green! Climate! Halliburton Bad! Children!
What a terrible president.
Good move. The last few elections GOP candidates get drug down in the mire of irrelevant social issues, like abortion; and it's cost at least 1 of the last 2 presidential elections.
Say scientists and the supreme court have spoken; and move on. No matter his personal beliefs, he can't change the policy driven by either. So why step in that muck?
The next rathole question will be climate change. GOP candidates will fail or succeed based on answering this question, along with gay rights.
Bigblue- and if Walker gets hit with attention that he tried to pass block gays or gay couples (not sure which) from hospitalization visits, then he get a lot of flak over that. Repubs need to quit trying use "smaller govt" to fix social issues. It's 2015 and the Repubs aren't doing themselves any favors. Get rid of the right wing crazies and go against "big govt" trying to hamper personal freedoms. If Repubs were to capitalize on personal freedoms, they would pick a lot more voters. Gonna be weird when Shillary and Dep Bush both agree on NSA and military spending, etc etc etc....
It would hurt but not be fatal. Public opinion on SSM and gay rights have only recently swung in their favor. Even Obama opposed ssm in 08 iirc. Plus I'd say all candidates in the race were at some point opposed to ssm. So he'll have alot of company there.
I agree about the small government. But the GOP really doesn't get much disagreement from their policies in general. They always get mired in irrelevant/already decided social issues. This cost the GOP at least 1 of the last 2 elections; if not both.
we are now for the last 2 weeks pretty much every day Obama or representatives of his administration seemingly taking up for and making excuses for ISIS and other radical muslims. pretty strange tactics, have no idea what the endgame or goal they are trying to achieve. The rest of the world looks on in horror and rage at the ISIS atrocities, or deal with it in their backyard like in Europe, but we want to give them a jobs program, or anything other than defeating them.
^ I'm glad they added that little arrow that said "Obama" otherwise I wouldn't have known who they were mocking.
Sure would like someone like Deeeefense to give us an explanation as to why he thinks the President is moving in the direction he is with ISIS and whether he agrees with the President on this.
Catfan, If I knew what direction it was I would tell you.
Basically I think some of the powers that be in the executive branch's national security team, the DOD and the CIA are finally starting to realize after the last 20 or 30 years that when we try to solve an issue like this militarily, the blow back turns out to be worse than the situation before we tried to help. I mean look at what happened in Iraq. ISIS is the remnants of the former al Quida in Iraq which largely sprung from the Bathist party army of Saddam Hussien, Libya is now a failed state, the Taliban is taking back areas of Afghanistan except for Kabel.
Sure we could send in 100,000 of our finest to kick their ass, take bake Mosel, Kirkuk, chase them back into the desert area of Syria where they would disappear but then what? we can't keep 100,000 troops there for ever so what happens next is what can be referred to as "the cockroach effect" You can kill all the cockroaches in your house, but a month or two later, they come back, and is normally the case with these lunatics, they are worse then they were before.
Besides that, if we spearhead a US ground attack in Iraq against ISIS right now the take away will be "US vs. Muslim" and it will play into ISIS hands. They will use that as a recruiting tool and the cancer metastasizes. All the national security experts say that's what they want.
So what to do? Not what the moron from the state dept recently said, create a job program. But what we need to do is what I at least suspect they are trying to do which is to codify a coalition of neighboring Arab states that will contain and eventually dissolve the threat. But what I think really needs to happen is the demented ideology itself needs to be beaten down, and we can't do that either. The leaders of the Arab states and the Sunni Muslim theocrats need to be more vocal with their masses. In other words the thinking and perceptions that exist in their society need an an overhaul at some levels. The youth seem to be the primary targets as the older Sunnis can see through it all.
The bottom line is changes have to be made and ISIS needs to be attacked on the theological front not just the military front but we need to help that happen without the heavy US footprint. So I do agree with the president and others including some Pubs that this is a regional problem that the moderate Arab states are going to have to solve. We can help but we can't solve it for them.
That's just my $.02 I don't know if that's the plan but I suspect it's probably something close to that, and if anyone has a better idea I would be happy to hear it.
This post was edited on 2/20 2:45 PM by Deeeefense
Have there been any programs in US history that have been as big of a cluster**** from start to finish as Obamacare?
Panetta and several other leaders from those departments under Obama disagree, actually hard to find anyone that thinks they have any strategy at all.
Doesn't matter tho, we got more serious concerns here on the homefront per DHS:
CNN reports:
A new intelligence assessment, circulated by the Department of Homeland Security this month and reviewed by CNN, focuses on the domestic terror threat from right-wing sovereign citizen extremists.Some federal and local law enforcement groups view the domestic terror threat from sovereign citizen groups as equal to - and in some cases greater than - the threat from foreign Islamic terror groups, such as ISIS, that garner more public attention.[/QUOTE]
You don't think sovereign citizen militants are a huge threat to beat cops and sheriffs in the US? When was the last time a Muslim terrorist shot a cop in the head while he was eating lunch? Or started picking off state troopers?
The average citizen has way more to fear from the global terrorist groups, but I can't blame law enforcement at all if they're just as (if not more) scared of homegrown nutcases when it comes to their own personal safety.
The average citizen has way more to fear from the global terrorist groups, but I can't blame law enforcement at all if they're just as (if not more) scared of homegrown nutcases when it comes to their own personal safety.
So have we given up our right to privacy forever?
Or does anyone actually think one day a leader will come along and just be horrified with the extent the US government is spying on it's citizens?
I'm in the camp that basically thinks our privacy if gone for good. Unless someone can get elected like Obama by completely and totally lying about everything you actually believe in and want to accomplish, so when you get in office, you can disband the NSA and FISA courts and all that shit.
Or does anyone actually think one day a leader will come along and just be horrified with the extent the US government is spying on it's citizens?
I'm in the camp that basically thinks our privacy if gone for good. Unless someone can get elected like Obama by completely and totally lying about everything you actually believe in and want to accomplish, so when you get in office, you can disband the NSA and FISA courts and all that shit.
Never coming back. Even if a candidate were to out and out lie to get elected (which is basically all candidates nowadays anyway); whatever agency he/she targets would make sure theyd never be brought down. Blackmail, threats of murder, murder, or coup itself would all be on the table.
Too many agencies have too much to lose at this point. Its never gonna happen.
I don't believe cops are worried about right wing loons. It's not right ringers that are causing problems criminally. And I don't think they are worried about the DOJ. Cops usually get off scott free and if they are convicted. They get paid leave at the expense of the tax payers.
Cops are only scared of one thing. Body cams.
- Status
