Amazing 'how hostile the press is to everything the president does'
No, the 47% lie is different from what Obama said. Obama was political in what he said about that shooting. He happens to believe (because it is true) that the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists and dumping that label on them unnecessarily is counter productive. You may not agree with the term he used but that does not make it a lie. It makes it a difference of opinion and by the way, I dare say he has a better grasp of the world dangers of Islam than you.
Lying about the 47% is like telling your children that 2+2=5. It is cut and dried. Numbers are numbers. Yes, there may be a few bodies missing from the murder count but the numbers are very accurate.
Really, Greg, the only way you get to “workplace violence” instead of “terrorism” in the Fort Hood case is to ignore everything Nidal Hasan said about his motivations, which was 100% Islamic and 100% jihad. He even sent emails to a terrorist implicated in the 9/11 attacks. Now granted, the government somehow did conclude that it was just “workplace violence”—hard to say no to the Commander in Chief, I’d imagine—but it’s still a lie.
Again, with this, Benghazi, the ACA, and much more, if you’re going to argue that Trump’s lies are completely new, you’re fooling yourself.
Regarding Obama’s understanding of Islam….with half of Syria’s population as refugees, Libya under rival Islamist rule, the Turks forming strong Islamist tendencies and undermining their secular state, and the Iranians having just launched a ballistic missile while over 100,000 Iranian soldiers and auxiliary forces spread terror through the region, that point might be debated, don’t you think? At the very least, giving Teheran billions of dollars that they promised to use for terrorism was something of an error, don’t you think?
Really, the softpedaling of radical Islamic atrocities reminds me a lot of the way all the “smart people” thought it was wise to do the same for the atrocities of the USSR. It all seemed so smart until somebody finally said the truth—that it was an evil empire—and a few years later, it was gone. Sometimes it’s a good idea to ignore the diplomats and call it what it is.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I would like to ask Cuomo, “Do you believe in absolute truth? What is truth, to you? How do you define it? How do you determine it? Why does it seem that so many in the media were not nearly so interested in pursuing truth for truth’s sake under the previous administration?”
Honestly? With the press and media we have, it seems like ‘truth’ really means ‘whatever I want it to be’ or ‘whatever advances my preferred narrative as a journalist’. Which, incidentially, may be why Trump is beating on the media so much. He knows that they pick and choose sides and stories to promote or bury whatever they feel like is important. It’s the old “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” (Who watches the watchmen?’) conundrum.
I’d recommend everyone here listen to Al Mohler’s “Thinking In Public” podcast from Monday on the Benedict Option. He spent quite a bit of time discussing how postmodernism has utterly hollowed out the existence of truth in American culture with Rod Dreher, and why the Benedict Option may be Christianity’s best response to it. It was fascinating listening, although it was very troubling.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
[Bert Perry]Really, Greg, the only way you get to “workplace violence” instead of “terrorism” in the Fort Hood case is to ignore everything Nidal Hasan said about his motivations, which was 100% Islamic and 100% jihad. He even sent emails to a terrorist implicated in the 9/11 attacks. Now granted, the government somehow did conclude that it was just “workplace violence”—hard to say no to the Commander in Chief, I’d imagine—but it’s still a lie.
Again, with this, Benghazi, the ACA, and much more, if you’re going to argue that Trump’s lies are completely new, you’re fooling yourself.
Regarding Obama’s understanding of Islam….with half of Syria’s population as refugees, Libya under rival Islamist rule, the Turks forming strong Islamist tendencies and undermining their secular state, and the Iranians having just launched a ballistic missile while over 100,000 Iranian soldiers and auxiliary forces spread terror through the region, that point might be debated, don’t you think? At the very least, giving Teheran billions of dollars that they promised to use for terrorism was something of an error, don’t you think?
Really, the softpedaling of radical Islamic atrocities reminds me a lot of the way all the “smart people” thought it was wise to do the same for the atrocities of the USSR. It all seemed so smart until somebody finally said the truth—that it was an evil empire—and a few years later, it was gone. Sometimes it’s a good idea to ignore the diplomats and call it what it is.
And you demonstrate the problem Bert. You are so right in your own mind and so dug in on your political ideology that someone who disagrees with you is a liar if they state a different viewpoint. Obama did not describe an attack like you think he should. Therefore he is a liar. All right then…
It is not a popular thing to say here and the other Greg will attack for this probably but it is absurd that armchair quarterbacks are so dogmatic about issues that more informed men and women debate from both sides. Reminds me of a quote: those that know all the answers do not even know the questions.
[GregH]Bert Perry wrote:
And you demonstrate the problem Bert. You are so right in your own mind and so dug in on your political ideology that someone who disagrees with you is a liar if they state a different viewpoint. Obama did not describe an attack like you think he should. Therefore he is a liar. All right then…
It is not a popular thing to say here and the other Greg will attack for this probably but it is absurd that armchair quarterbacks are so dogmatic about issues that more informed men and women debate from both sides. Reminds me of a quote: those that know all the answers do not even know the questions.
Yup, I’m a knee-jerk supporter of Trump, which explains a lot of my comments calling him a liar, pointing out his bankruptcies and adulteries, saying his brand is tacky, and more. In fact, I’m so stuck on my own ideology, and such an armchair quarterback sitting on the sidelines, that I wavered between caucusing for Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. Nothing says “armchair ideologue” like spending hours in a high school gym and choosing the man I admit was weaker on immigration over the man whose tendencies might land him in trouble. Nuance and compromise simply have no place in my life, obviously.
Or it could be because “terrorism” has a definition, and Nidal Hasan’s religiously motivated actions fit that definition, where Obama’s claim did not. This matters because victims were deprived of benefits, and politically, Obama used the decision (and others) to claim that terrorism hadn’t occurred on our shores—despite a fair number of religiously motivated incidents not designated as “terrorism” by Mr. Obama..
And let’s apply a test here; if, say, “Aryan Nations” types or pro-lifers were to commit a string of atrocities like this, and President Trump called it “workplace violence”, you’d call him a pathetic liar. And you know what? You’d be right.
(there’s that knee-jerk ideologue in me speaking again…)
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Discussion