Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

In a jealous fit, said that we should have hailed Conk Richard Nixon when we landed on the moon, comparing it to Obama taking out bin Laden!











Discuss.

Everybody knows that junkies are notorious liars.

As you know since you listen to him pretty much, one of his things is "illustrating absurdity by being absurd."

And it's absurd to act as though we got Ben Laden "because" Obama was President at the time. Well, it's possible that they could've decided to blow up the compound with a big bomb and either missed or created a situation where we didn't know whether we got him or not. But they didn't get Ben Laden "because" Obama was President any more than we landed on the moon "because" Nixon was President at the time.

The idea that it says anything negative or positive about how good Obama is at foreign policy or national security issues is ridiculous. I said similar things when they got Saddam Hussein. Long ago on a message board far away, when they got him and Bush's approval ratings spiked up some, I commented on how ridiculous that was. How people thought the fact that the military got Saddam Hussein said anything about Bush's performance one way or another totally baffles me.

In this case Obama made a decision. I think he made the right one in that instance except maybe I'd have liked it if he wouldn't have dumped the body out of respect for Islam. But he could've made the same exact decision and if things had gone wrong...like say a helicopter would've crashed and everyone on board had been killed then the mission would've been scrubbed...and it became public his approval rating would havve plummetted. It might've ruined his whole Presidency. Yet his own performance would've been exactly the same.

It's kind of like with Carter. There's no reason to believe Carter's decision to send Delta (I think) to try to rescue the hostages in Iran was not just as good as a decision as Obama's was this time. But, unfortunately for him, they hit a sandstorm and there was a crash, etc. So it was perceived as a huge bungle on his part. I never did think he deserved the criticism he got for that.

JohnStOnge wrote:As you know since you listen to him pretty much, one of his things is "illustrating absurdity by being absurd."

And it's absurd to act as though we got Ben Laden "because" Obama was President at the time. Well, it's possible that they could've decided to blow up the compound with a big bomb and either missed or created a situation where we didn't know whether we got him or not. But they didn't get Ben Laden "because" Obama was President any more than we landed on the moon "because" Nixon was President at the time.

The idea that it says anything negative or positive about how good Obama is at foreign policy or national security issues is ridiculous. I said similar things when they got Saddam Hussein. Long ago on a message board far away, when they got him and Bush's approval ratings spiked up some, I commented on how ridiculous that was. How people thought the fact that the military got Saddam Hussein said anything about Bush's performance one way or another totally baffles me.

In this case Obama made a decision. I think he made the right one in that instance except maybe I'd have liked it if he wouldn't have dumped the body out of respect for Islam. But he could've made the same exact decision and if things had gone wrong...like say a helicopter would've crashed and everyone on board had been killed then the mission would've been scrubbed...and it became public his approval rating would havve plummetted. It might've ruined his whole Presidency. Yet his own performance would've been exactly the same.

It's kind of like with Carter. There's no reason to believe Carter's decision to send Delta (I think) to try to rescue the hostages in Iran was not just as good as a decision as Obama's was this time. But, unfortunately for him, they hit a sandstorm and there was a crash, etc. So it was perceived as a huge bungle on his part. I never did think he deserved the criticism he got for that.

Actually that was the smartest move of the whole operation. Apparently you don't get the the enemy is some Muslims, not Islam. It is the terrorists dream to make our little misunderstanding into "Islam vs. the Crusaders". The vast majority of the world's billion-plus muslims want nothing to do with that crap.

houndawg wrote:Everybody knows that junkies are notorious liars.

I totally agree



Prior to running for President of the United States, Barack Obama admitted to drug use in his 1995 autobiography called, Dreams from My Father:

Looking at the Barack claim, he smoked cigarettes that made smoke rings, smoked pot or marijuana, drank some booze, and did a little "blow" cocaine when he had extra money, but he never tried "smack" heroine.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... g_use.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Guarantee bush did more blow than Obama, and used his rich daddy's money to buy it.

Grizalltheway wrote:Guarantee bush did more blow than Obama, and used his rich daddy's money to buy it.

So, it's better if it's NOT paid for with rich daddy's money?

bulldog10jw wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:Guarantee bush did more blow than Obama, and used his rich daddy's money to buy it.

So, it's better if it's NOT paid for with rich daddy's money?

People experiment with drugs when they're young. Doesn't make them junkies.

Conks like to harp on Obama for supposedly never accomplishing anything, but at least he got to where he's at now without a golden spoon in his mouth.

Grizalltheway wrote:
Conks like to harp on Obama for supposedly never accomplishing anything, but at least he got to where he's at now without a golden spoon in his mouth.

I'm with you. Those fvcking Kennedy's and their damn golden spoon.

Grizalltheway wrote:Guarantee bush did more blow than Obama, and used his rich daddy's money to buy it.

Link?

Grizalltheway wrote:

bulldog10jw wrote:
So, it's better if it's NOT paid for with rich daddy's money?

People experiment with drugs when they're young. Doesn't make them junkies.

Conks like to harp on Obama for supposedly never accomplishing anything, but at least he got to where he's at now without a golden spoon in his mouth.

Some say OBummer received lots of financial help in school from people of questionable character...but of course all those things in his past are hidden.

Grizalltheway wrote:

bulldog10jw wrote:
So, it's better if it's NOT paid for with rich daddy's money?

People experiment with drugs when they're young. Doesn't make them junkies.

Conks like to harp on Obama for supposedly never accomplishing anything, but at least he got to where he's at now without a golden spoon in his mouth.

Bush wasn't born with a golden spoon in his mouth.





It was a silver foot.

Bronco wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote: People experiment with drugs when they're young. Doesn't make them junkies.

Conks like to harp on Obama for supposedly never accomplishing anything, but at least he got to where he's at now without a golden spoon in his mouth.

Some say OBummer received lots of financial help in school from people of questionable character...but of course all those things in his past are hidden.

Prove it??????

Kinda regarding the drug thing, my friend wrote a fascinating essay for his senior thesis about politics in the future. In about 20 years when most of the current 20-30 year olds begin to gain access to high political positions, there's going to be information on the internet on nearly every one of them when they were younger, and he thinks a lot of it will be used against them during campaigns and during their tenures as whatever position they're in. Right now politicians have decent control about what pieces of information they want to tell about their past, but in the future, it's going to be extremely tough because of things like social media. He did a survey of about 1000 students at ODU and of all the ones that checked that they'd be interested in a political career, something like 85% had posted at least once on some sort of forum or message board, and about 90% were involved with a social media site. So even if they didn't have a FB or Myspace, about 85% have said something on the internet that will be there for a long time. He also argued that people who have the most to say often do become active in community, state, or national issues. So he thinks that most politicians in the future won't be ones who have said something here and there on the internet, but ones that have made hundreds to thousands of statements somewhere on the internet in their past...things that can be easily traced and used against them.

So basically, if you think that pic of a smoking Obama is bad for him, just wait about two decades when there will be shit on nearly everyone who enters politics.

The vast majority of the world's billion-plus muslims want nothing to do with that crap.

What do you base that statement on? Seriously. I see that statement or variations of it all the time just stated as though it's self evidently true. It's not.

Besides, if it WERE true, they wouldn't have to worry about people making a big deal about them keeping his body instead of trying to dispose of it within 24 hours. Because if it WERE true the "vast majority" of the billion plus Muslins wouldn't give a flying copulation about whether they "buried" the guy within 24 hours or not.

JohnStOnge wrote:
What do you base that statement on? Seriously. I see that statement or variations of it all the time just stated as though it's self evidently true. It's not.

According to a Pew survey encompassing 43 countries.

Muslims around the world increasingly reject suicide bombings and other violence against civilians in defense of Islam, according to a new international poll dealing with how the world’s population judges their lives, countries and national institutions.

A wide ranging survey of international attitudes in 47 countries by the Pew Research Center also reported that in many of the countries where support for suicide attacks has declined, there has also has been decreasing support for al-Qaida leader Osama bin-Laden.

The 95-page survey found that surging economic growth in many developing countries has encouraged people in these countries to express satisfaction with their personal lives, family income and national conditions, said Andrew Kohut, the center’s director.

“It’s a pro-globalization set of findings,” Kohut said.

Most notably, the survey finds large and growing number of Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere rejecting Islamic extremism. Ten mainly Muslim countries were surveyed along with the Palestinian territories, as well as five African nations with large Muslim populations.

For example, the percentage of Jordanian Muslims who have confidence in bin Laden as a world leader fell 36 percentage points to 20 percent since 2003 while the proportion who say suicide bombing is sometimes or always justified dropped 20 percent points to 23 percent. Other countries where support for bin Laden declined are Lebanon, Indonesia, Turkey, Pakistan and Kuwait.

The report said support for such bombings and terror tactics has dropped since 2002 in seven of the eight countries where data were available. In Lebanon, the proportion of Muslims who say suicide attacks are often or sometimes justified fell to 34 percent from 79 percent while just 9 percent of Pakistanis believe suicide bombings can be justified often or sometimes, down from 33 percent in 2002 and a high of 41 percent in 2004.

http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

BTW, I mentioned the thing about keeping the body because that was my initial thought when I heard they'd fed it to the crabs. It's looking like it doesn't matter. It's looking like, for the most part, those who sympathize with Ben Laden's point of view believe he was killed. It's looking to me like it's more a matter of them being hacked off that he was killed instead of saying they don't believe he was.

According to a Pew survey encompassing 43 countries.

In the document you linked at the bottom of your post, there is a table on page 53 indicating that in three of the six Muslim countries reported on the majority of respondents thought there were at least some cases in which suicide bombing against civilian targets is justified to defend Islam. Actually I have had the poll those estimates came from bookmarked for a while now.

In any case nobody has a poll of the population of Muslims worldwide. And even if someone had such a poll there would be a tremendous concern about whether or not people answered honestly. It's kind of like when David Duke was a factor in Louisiana politics. He always did a lot better than polling indicated he would; presumably because people knew it wouldn't be popular to say they would vote for him. Similarly, there would be a concern about trying to poll Muslims about their attitudes towards things like killing innocent civilians to defend Islam.

To me the idea that we know that the "vast majority" of Muslims do not symphatize with people like Bin Laden is extremely questionable. Part of that depends, I guess, on what one defines as a "vast majority." For instance, one poll indicated that almost a third of Bristih Muslim college students believe it's OK to kill in the name of Islam (http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news ... 41904.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). So does that mean the "vast majority" want nothing to do with what Bin Laden represented?

I don't think so; especially when you're talking about people in England. If almost a third of Muslim college students in Britian are like that, what should we expect if we polled college students in Saudi Arabia? Iran? So on and so forth.

Everybody who hasn't seen it needs to watch "Mars Attacks." Everytime I see/hear that "Islam is a great religion of Peace" or "Vast Majority of Muslims" stuff it makes me think of that movie.

A comedy. But there's some truth behind the way it shows people insisting on believing the best even when the worst is right in their face.

JohnStOnge wrote:

According to a Pew survey encompassing 43 countries.

In the document you linked at the bottom of your post, there is a table on page 53 indicating that in three of the six Muslim countries reported on the majority of respondents thought there were at least some cases in which suicide bombing against civilian targets is justified to defend Islam. Actually I have had the poll those estimates came from bookmarked for a while now.

In any case nobody has a poll of the population of Muslims worldwide. And even if someone had such a poll there would be a tremendous concern about whether or not people answered honestly. It's kind of like when David Duke was a factor in Louisiana politics. He always did a lot better than polling indicated he would; presumably because people knew it wouldn't be popular to say they would vote for him. Similarly, there would be a concern about trying to poll Muslims about their attitudes towards things like killing innocent civilians to defend Islam.

To me the idea that we know that the "vast majority" of Muslims do not symphatize with people like Bin Laden is extremely questionable. Part of that depends, I guess, on what one defines as a "vast majority." For instance, one poll indicated that almost a third of Bristih Muslim college students believe it's OK to kill in the name of Islam (http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news ... 41904.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). So does that mean the "vast majority" want nothing to do with what Bin Laden represented?

I don't think so; especially when you're talking about people in England. If almost a third of Muslim college students in Britian are like that, what should we expect if we polled college students in Saudi Arabia? Iran? So on and so forth.

"It's OK to kill in the name of Islam" isn't very specific, John, and a "third of British muslim college students" is not a very representative sample of over a billion people, but thanks for sharing. I guess there is a whole lot more support for Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church than polls indicate.

houndawg wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:
In the document you linked at the bottom of your post, there is a table on page 53 indicating that in three of the six Muslim countries reported on the majority of respondents thought there were at least some cases in which suicide bombing against civilian targets is justified to defend Islam. Actually I have had the poll those estimates came from bookmarked for a while now.

In any case nobody has a poll of the population of Muslims worldwide. And even if someone had such a poll there would be a tremendous concern about whether or not people answered honestly. It's kind of like when David Duke was a factor in Louisiana politics. He always did a lot better than polling indicated he would; presumably because people knew it wouldn't be popular to say they would vote for him. Similarly, there would be a concern about trying to poll Muslims about their attitudes towards things like killing innocent civilians to defend Islam.

To me the idea that we know that the "vast majority" of Muslims do not symphatize with people like Bin Laden is extremely questionable. Part of that depends, I guess, on what one defines as a "vast majority." For instance, one poll indicated that almost a third of Bristih Muslim college students believe it's OK to kill in the name of Islam (http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news ... 41904.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). So does that mean the "vast majority" want nothing to do with what Bin Laden represented?

I don't think so; especially when you're talking about people in England. If almost a third of Muslim college students in Britian are like that, what should we expect if we polled college students in Saudi Arabia? Iran? So on and so forth.

"It's OK to kill in the name of Islam" isn't very specific, John, and a "third of British muslim college students" is not a very representative sample of over a billion people, but thanks for sharing. I guess there is a whole lot more support for Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church than polls indicate.

Actually, I have seen the poll JSO refers to, and I think the language is "suicide bombing in defense of Isalm is acceptable."

That's pretty specific, unless you are talking about what constitutes defense of Islam.

I actually had a discussion with a Jordanian doctor in Amman back in 2005. He was educated at Duke, and then went to med school at Johns Hopkins. He was fully in favor of the strategy of suicide bombing in order to drive Western nations out of the Middle East. I'd say he was not exactly a sheep farmer on the outskirts of Sana'a.

CID1990 wrote:

houndawg wrote:
"It's OK to kill in the name of Islam" isn't very specific, John, and a "third of British muslim college students" is not a very representative sample of over a billion people, but thanks for sharing. I guess there is a whole lot more support for Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church than polls indicate.

Actually, I have seen the poll JSO refers to, and I think the language is "suicide bombing in defense of Isalm is acceptable."

That's pretty specific, unless you are talking about what constitutes defense of Islam.

I actually had a discussion with a Jordanian doctor in Amman back in 2005. He was educated at Duke, and then went to med school at Johns Hopkins. He was fully in favor of the strategy of suicide bombing in order to drive Western nations out of the Middle East. I'd say he was not exactly a sheep farmer on the outskirts of Sana'a.

Obviously that is question. To some extremists a cartoon of the prophet needs defending.

Edit - Many American doctors might share the opinion of your Jordanian friend if the US were occupied.

JohnStOnge wrote:

The vast majority of the world's billion-plus muslims want nothing to do with that crap.

What do you base that statement on? Seriously. I see that statement or variations of it all the time just stated as though it's self evidently true. It's not.

Besides, if it WERE true, they wouldn't have to worry about people making a big deal about them keeping his body instead of trying to dispose of it within 24 hours. Because if it WERE true the "vast majority" of the billion plus Muslins wouldn't give a flying copulation about whether they "buried" the guy within 24 hours or not.

Don't end sentences with prepositions, dumbfvck.

houndawg wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
Actually, I have seen the poll JSO refers to, and I think the language is "suicide bombing in defense of Isalm is acceptable."

That's pretty specific, unless you are talking about what constitutes defense of Islam.

I actually had a discussion with a Jordanian doctor in Amman back in 2005. He was educated at Duke, and then went to med school at Johns Hopkins. He was fully in favor of the strategy of suicide bombing in order to drive Western nations out of the Middle East. I'd say he was not exactly a sheep farmer on the outskirts of Sana'a.

Obviously that is question. To some extremists a cartoon of the prophet needs defending.

Edit - Many American doctors might share the opinion of your Jordanian friend if the US were occupied.

They would certainly support the killing of occupation forces, that's for sure as would I, except for one thing-

Jordan is not occupied.

This doctor was Ottoman by lineage. The only thing he had in common with Palestinians or Saudis was that he was Muslim.

bulldog10jw wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:Guarantee bush did more blow than Obama, and used his rich daddy's money to buy it.

So, it's better if it's NOT paid for with rich daddy's money?

Of course, it just makes the obvious class envy that much sweeter.