America is the most tolerant country in the world

*
Posted by Dug on Fri, Sep 14, 2012, at 11:51 AM:

You can build your churches and mosques and temples all you want. You can wear your burqas (not in France) or your turbans. The KKK can get a permit to post a sign and clean up trash on the highways. We aren't perfect but we are the most tolerant I believe.

That's why it's important to realize what is going on in the middle east right now. A *serious* foreign policy miscalculation by president Obama has placed the lives of many brave Americans in danger - some are dead. This is *terrorism*, not the muslim faith. Remember this:

President Obama and his administration have removed the word "terror" from their lexicon - intentionally.

President Obama supported the "Arab Spring" with money, words and deeds (troops). He embraced this and talked about the arab protestors and "our shared values" even when acknowledging that the Muslim Brotherhood was in charge.

President Obama invited (twice) the Muslim Brotherhood to the White House. A group that has long been known for it's terrorist activities and violence against peaceable people. Even other muslims.

Obama made a huge miscalculation - he pushed a very very weak message to *terrorists* who only understand one thing - power. Al Qaeda has a great understanding of this president and his lack of experience and weakness.

This Middle East / North Africa debacle is a direct result of Obama's foray into things he knows nothing about. He is a terrible judge of character and inexperienced at developing long term policy. I believe he honestly thinks that his "coolness" and "color" that has kept him afloat in the US somehow translates around the world. He's way out of his league and we are paying the price.

Replies

  • "Al Qaeda has a great understanding of this president and his lack of experience and weakness."

    Why hasn't bin Laden spoken up to confirm this foolishness?

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Sep 14, 2012, at 4:55 PM
  • *

    "Why hasn't bin Laden spoken up to confirm this foolishness?"

    -- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Sep 14, 2012, at 4:55 PM

    Probably because he's kicking back sipping martinis with GW in Paraguay or somewhere.

    Speaking of foolishness, CSM....

    Why don't we have a body? Hmmm? How convenient. Who knows who they buried at sea. It could have been the gardener. Or the butler....

    Whatever, dude.

    Rɨck,

    Man, why jerk the cougar's tail? I can think of plenty of bad things that could happen. I just don't want to speak it!

    BCStoned,

    Bush knew. The Bush family and the bin Laden family have ties. Check it out. Follow the money trail...

    -- Posted by dchannes on Fri, Sep 14, 2012, at 6:53 PM
  • *

    Dug,

    Good post. :)

    -- Posted by dchannes on Fri, Sep 14, 2012, at 6:54 PM
  • *

    What one generation tolerates, the next accepts. And so begins the swirl around the toilet bowl...

    -- Posted by fxpwt on Fri, Sep 14, 2012, at 7:02 PM
  • *

    I saw a man, round about 65 years old, at Wally World this evening. He had a Navy Veteran cap on his head, so I asked him what he thought about the attack on the American Embassy in Libya.

    He said he hadn't heard anything about it.

    Turns out he was an 18 year Navy SEAL.

    For what it's worth...

    -- Posted by dchannes on Fri, Sep 14, 2012, at 7:22 PM
  • The only thing that can top the current situation , would be if something bad happened to the President .

    For one , America would explode with social un-rest , maybe worse then Martin Luther King Jr.

    Plus , Joe Binden would have to take over...wow , can you just imagine what kind of cluster **** this could be ?

    -- Posted by Rɨck on Fri, Sep 14, 2012, at 5:52 PM

    rick, are you saying that you would support your little comment about something happening to the president. Maybe your little statement needs to be emailed on to the attorney general's office. You know they put people away who publicly write about doing something to the president. that was not a smart statement. you know uncle sam could be notified very quickly.

    In your other statement, you don't even want to be around if something were to happen to the current president. America would not be a safe place to be in. There are no farms, houses, woods that would not be affected or some could hide.

    Civil unrest is not the words to describe what would happen in this country. Even those at the top now know not to let nothing happen to Obama. They ain't stupid......i think.

    -- Posted by kcknown on Mon, Sep 17, 2012, at 11:36 AM
  • *

    Yes Joe Biden is worse than Obama. Now that is going some. Wouldn't you be proud to have someone say you would be a worse President than Obama?

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Sep 17, 2012, at 3:24 PM
  • *

    "rick, are you saying that you would support your little comment about something happening to the president. Maybe your little statement needs to be emailed on to the attorney general's office. You know they put people away who publicly write about doing something to the president."

    Like Ted Nugent? Now you are grasping straws like ther and mel.

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Sep 17, 2012, at 6:35 PM
  • All you senior voters be sure to vote R/R in Nov and apply for your $35.00 voucher to buy health insurance. Bye, bye medicare and medicaid is dead.

    -- Posted by Dexterite1 on Mon, Sep 17, 2012, at 7:16 PM
  • *

    -- Posted by Dexterite1 on Mon, Sep 17, 2012, at 7:16 PM

    In a word Dexter..... BS!

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Sep 17, 2012, at 7:24 PM
  • *

    Dexter

    Have a link or is this another Democrat lie?

    -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Sep 17, 2012, at 7:26 PM
  • *

    Bye, bye medicare and medicaid is dead. -- Posted by Dexterite1 on Mon, Sep 17, 2012, at 7:16 PM

    Is that because of the $700+ BILLION in cuts to those programs Obama pushed through?

    -- Posted by Dug on Mon, Sep 17, 2012, at 7:28 PM
  • Experience in community organizing has merrit.

    Organize a large car company into a union run for the union entity. Organize the Arab world into a Muslim Brotherhood with Sharia law for all. Organize the government entitlements into a one fits all federal operation combining welfare, medical insurance, social security, health services, unemployment benefits and whatever else comes to mind.

    Organize law enforcement and censorship into a more defined, streamlined authority. And finally organize all private enterprise under the banner of fairness for the people.

    Did I miss anything?

    -- Posted by Old John on Mon, Sep 17, 2012, at 7:37 PM
  • *

    -- Posted by dchannes on Fri, Sep 14, 2012, at 6:54 PM

    Thanks!

    -- Posted by Dug on Mon, Sep 17, 2012, at 8:40 PM
  • -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Sep 17, 2012, at 9:02 PM
  • -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Sep 17, 2012, at 9:03 PM
  • *

    From the news today: "JAILED FOR BELIEFS:

    Egypt Family Gets 15 Years For Christian Conversion".

    Another one of Obama's "great" decisions - supporting the so-called "Arab Spring". His judgement is the worst of any leader I've ever seen. He supports the takeover of a country by radical Islamists bent on destroying women's rights and imprisoning Christians.

    Most of what we knew and now know about this radical has come true. He is anti-women, anti-christian and anti-capitalist.

    -- Posted by Dug on Wed, Jan 16, 2013, at 4:59 PM
  • *

    Wheels, I don't pay any attention to Spaniard. A total waste of time to explain anything to him, even in the most simple and basic terms.

    -- Posted by voyager on Thu, Jan 17, 2013, at 2:41 PM
  • *

    Kinda in the spirit of "America is the most tolerant country in the world"... except for liberal democrats?

    You've got to read this article about a conservative, republican man running for office in San Diego. His dad left the family 2 weeks before his mom died when he was young. The kids were orphaned. He worked his way up and sold 2 successful business. He is openly gay and running for office. You wouldn't believe the hate and bias toward him for one reason - he's not a democrat. Here's a taste of so-called "tolerant" left:

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/04/2...

    And of course we know the racist NBA owner is a democrat donor. Kinda fits with some of those playing the race card lately.

    -- Posted by Dug on Mon, Apr 28, 2014, at 7:15 PM
  • *

    Did you even read the article? At all?

    -- Posted by Dug on Mon, Apr 28, 2014, at 8:24 PM
  • Dug,I wonder if the DNC and the NAACP will return all that money.

    -- Posted by rocknroll on Mon, Apr 28, 2014, at 8:44 PM
  • *

    If you read the article, it appears that the Left's tolerance only goes as far as it will serve them. If you are gay and a Democrat, it's all good. But if you're gay and Republican, that's terrible. So his opponents use his sexual preference against him. So why do the liberals "protect" the gay people on one hand and then on the other hand, condemn them if they don't follow the liberal way? It makes the Left appear to be two-faced, which,IMO,they are. Is that what you get from the article, Dug?

    -- Posted by G. H. on Mon, Apr 28, 2014, at 8:49 PM
  • *

    blender - yep. That's what I get. Not only does the LGBT community not support him, they outright attack him.

    -- Posted by Dug on Mon, Apr 28, 2014, at 8:53 PM
  • *

    -- Posted by rocknroll on Mon, Apr 28, 2014, at 8:44 PM

    Not likely!!! :-)

    Of course we know the NBA democrat that made the racist comments was up for an award from the NAACP this year. I think it was a lifetime achievement award from them.

    Those racist, intolerant democrats!

    -- Posted by Dug on Mon, Apr 28, 2014, at 8:54 PM
  • *

    Let me try to sum up this thread, if you are a Christian you are an easy target for violence in the Arab world and to some point here in the USA. If you are a gay democrat that's ok but being a gay republican is not ok. If you are a NBA team owner and a big democratic donor you can say whatever you want to no matter if it's PC or not. If you are Dexterite1 you can repeat the democratic lying talking points and actually believe them. If you are miccheck you can be confused because like the scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz mic doesn't have a brain. If you are a community organizer and have no foreign affairs experience you can be Pres of the USA. If your VP is Joe Biden than we all say a nightly pray for the health of the Pres. to stay good. If you are Dug you know Jack. If you are Dugtard you don't know Jack. Lastly, if you are a USA citizen you live in America which is the most tolerant country in the world.

    -- Posted by semo471 on Mon, Apr 28, 2014, at 10:10 PM
  • *

    http://www.theatlantic.com/education/arc...

    "It used to be that if you went to a college-level debate tournament, the students you'd see would be bookish future lawyers from elite universities, most of them white. In matching navy blazers, they'd recite academic arguments for and against various government policies. It was tame, predictable, and, frankly, boring.

    "No more.

    "These days, an increasingly diverse group of participants has transformed debate competitions, mounting challenges to traditional form and content by incorporating personal experience, performance, and radical politics. These "alternative-style" debaters have achieved success, too, taking top honors at national collegiate tournaments over the past few years.

    "But this transformation has also sparked a difficult, often painful controversy for a community that prides itself on handling volatile topics.

    "On March 24, 2014 at the Cross Examination Debate Association (CEDA) Championships at Indiana University, two Towson University students, Ameena Ruffin and Korey Johnson, became the first African-American women to win a national college debate tournament, for which the resolution asked whether the U.S. president's war powers should be restricted. Rather than address the resolution straight on, Ruffin and Johnson, along with other teams of African-Americans, attacked its premise. The more pressing issue, they argued, is how the U.S. government is at war with poor black communities.

    "In the final round, Ruffin and Johnson squared off against Rashid Campbell and George Lee from the University of Oklahoma, two highly accomplished African-American debaters with distinctive dreadlocks and dashikis. Over four hours, the two teams engaged in a heated discussion of concepts like "***** authenticity" and performed hip-hop and spoken-word poetry in the traditional timed format. At one point during Lee's rebuttal, the clock ran out but he refused to yield the floor. "**** the time!" he yelled. His partner Campbell, who won the top speaker award at the National Debate Tournament two weeks later, had been unfairly targeted by the police at the debate venue just days before, and cited this experience as evidence for his case against the government's treatment of poor African-Americans."

    "This year wasn't the first time this had happened. In the 2013 championship, two men from Emporia State University, Ryan Walsh and Elijah Smith, employed a similar style and became the first African-Americans to win two national debate tournaments. Many of their arguments, based on personal memoir and rap music, completely ignored the stated resolution, and instead asserted that the framework of collegiate debate has historically privileged straight, white, middle-class students.

    "Tournament participants from all backgrounds say they have found some of these debate strategies offensive. Even so, the new style has received mainstream acceptance, sympathy, and awards.

    "Joe Leeson Schatz, Director of Speech and Debate at Binghamton University, is encouraged by the changes in debate style and community. "Finally, there's a recognition in the academic space that the way argument has taken place in the past privileges certain types of people over others," he said. "Arguments don't necessarily have to be backed up by professors or written papers. They can come from lived experience."

    ___________

    And this is what we see here, on this forum, as well. If the discussion on the topic isn't going well, start talking leveling charges of racism and diverting the discussion from the topic at hand. The article continues:

    "But other teams who have prepared for a traditional policy debate are frustrated when they encounter a meta-debate, or an alternative stylistic approach in competition. These teams say that the pedagogical goals of policy debate are not being met--and are even being undermined. Aaron Hardy, who coaches debate at Northwestern University, is concerned about where the field is headed. "We end up ... with a large percentage of debates being devoted to arguing about the rules, rather than anything substantive," he wrote on a CEDA message board last fall.

    "Indeed, to prevail using the new approach, students don't necessarily have to develop high-level research skills or marshal evidence from published scholarship. They also might not need to have the intellectual acuity required for arguing both sides of a resolution. These skills--together with a non-confrontational presentation style--are considered crucial for success in fields like law and business."

    "Hardy and others are also disappointed with what they perceive as a lack of civility and decorum at recent competitions, and believe that the alternative-style debaters have contributed to this environment. "Judges have been very angry, coaches have screamed and yelled. People have given profanity-laced tirades, thrown furniture, and both sides of the ideological divide have used racial slurs," he said."

    "To counter this trend, Hardy and his allies want to create a "policy only" space in which traditional standards for debate will be enforced. However, this is nearly impossible to do within the two major debate associations, CEDA and the National Debate Tournament (NDT), as they are governed by participants and have few conduct enforcement mechanisms. For instance, while CEDA and NDT's institutional anti-harassment policy would normally prohibit the term "*****" as it was used at the recent Indiana University tournament finals, none of the judges penalized the competitors that used it. In fact, those debaters took home prizes.

    "14 schools expressed interest in sending debaters to Hardy's proposed alternative tournament, scheduled to occur last month. But after word got out that a group of mostly white teams from elite universities were trying to form their own league, Hardy and his supporters were widely attacked on Facebook and other online forums. Ultimately the competition didn't happen, purportedly because of logistical issues with the hotel venue. Nonetheless, Hardy wrote in an email that a "toxic climate" has precluded even "strong supporters of 'policy debate' from "publicly attach[ing] their name to anything that might get them called racist or worse."

    -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Apr 29, 2014, at 8:10 AM
  • *

    "I'd say NOT supporting a candidate simply because he's gay is a step towards equality." - miccheck

    Not for the LGBT community. Are they an arm of the democrat party? Or do they support the LGBT people?

    -- Posted by Dug on Tue, Apr 29, 2014, at 9:37 AM
  • *

    Maybe you don't know what LGBT stands for? Google it. It's one thing to not support someone. Quite another to attack a gay man. You know, the "G" in LGBT?

    -- Posted by Dug on Tue, Apr 29, 2014, at 9:53 AM
  • *

    -- Posted by miccheck on Tue, Apr 29, 2014, at 9:39 AM

    Mic: You said it, the Democratic party is made up of the LGBT community and I'll add to it the party of the blood sucking freeloaders who in exchange of the free give a ways always will cast their votes for the Democratic party.

    -- Posted by semo471 on Tue, Apr 29, 2014, at 9:57 AM
  • *

    Mic: Reread your 9:39am post, sad that one can not delete prior posts so as not to get caught.

    -- Posted by semo471 on Tue, Apr 29, 2014, at 10:02 AM
  • *

    Mic: I owe you nothing read your statement - large groups of LGBT are openly Liberal, believe that's the Democratic party. Go cry to someone who cares.

    -- Posted by semo471 on Tue, Apr 29, 2014, at 10:12 AM
  • stinky471. if LGBT groups are openly liberal it's because the democrats don't discriminate against them like you and the republican party do. Your party does, however, have the Log Cabin Republicans who have been shunned at CPAC and other right wing conventions.

    -- Posted by left turn on Tue, Apr 29, 2014, at 10:49 AM
  • *

    -- Posted by left turn on Tue, Apr 29, 2014, at 10:49 AM

    Lefty: Your party can have all the LGBT that you want, also keep all the blood sucking freeloaders in your party.

    -- Posted by semo471 on Tue, Apr 29, 2014, at 11:04 AM
  • The only people who consider all Democrats to be "liberals", are people who don't know any better.

    Can't you come up with a better argument for your political stances than to just call everyone a name? A name that you don't even know the real meaning of....

    That's like calling every Republican a conservative, right-wing christian...

    Just because it's the FOX way, doesn't mean it's the TRUTH.

    -- Posted by the_eye on Tue, Apr 29, 2014, at 11:05 AM
  • *

    -- Posted by the_eye on Tue, Apr 29, 2014, at 11:05 AM

    eye: Just calling it as I see it without rose color glasses on.

    Would like to chat with you, lefty, and mic but I have a lunch date with my girlfriend so have fun, I know that I will....

    -- Posted by semo471 on Tue, Apr 29, 2014, at 11:10 AM
  • *

    stinky471. if LGBT groups are openly liberal it's because the democrats don't discriminate against them like you and the republican party do.-- Posted by left turn on Tue, Apr 29, 2014, at 10:49 AM

    Apparently you didn't read the article either. And even more apparent is you don't know what "discriminate" means. Look it up. The republicans in San Diego have welcome this man and he is doing well. But the gays hate this gay man for political reasons.

    -- Posted by Dug on Tue, Apr 29, 2014, at 11:14 AM
  • *

    What makes you say they hate him? Because they don't want him to be elected?

    -- Posted by miccheck on Tue, Apr 29, 2014, at 11:15 AM

    I'm using the miccheck definition of hate, discrimination and racism.

    miccheck HATE - /h8t/ - anyone who disagrees with someone politically because of their skin color, sexual orientation, gender, etc. is a hater, discriminator, racist and homophobe.

    -- Posted by Dug on Tue, Apr 29, 2014, at 11:38 AM
  • *

    How about you give me a break? -- Posted by miccheck on Tue, Apr 29, 2014, at 11:41 AM

    Do you want the words that came out of your mouth re: Obama and racism? If I would cut and paste your false charges of racism on threads it would be the longest one in the history of SO. Own up to your own words miccheck.

    -- Posted by Dug on Tue, Apr 29, 2014, at 11:50 AM
  • *

    My mouth is getting awfully full from all the words -- Posted by miccheck on Tue, Apr 29, 2014, at 11:41 AM

    It's full of something but I wouldn't call it words.

    -- Posted by Dug on Tue, Apr 29, 2014, at 12:12 PM
  • *

    That's not what you claimed I said earlier. No apology for your lie? I'm shocked! /s-- Posted by miccheck on Tue, Apr 29, 2014, at 11:14 AM

    Mic: Still crying, poor baby. Why don't you, Reasoning, Left turn all get together and have a cry party. Maybe you can watch videos of Pres Pinky and his greatest accomplishments....don't bother making popcorn cause the video won't be that long.

    -- Posted by semo471 on Tue, Apr 29, 2014, at 6:05 PM
  • *

    Semo471,

    Maybe a 'Pity Party' would be more appropriate...... their Leftist thinking is pitiful.

    -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Apr 29, 2014, at 7:11 PM

Respond to this thread

Posting a comment requires free registration: