Back in the early months of he P-BO administration, I asked (I'm not sure it was an entire post, but it might have been) for anyone to come up with the point in P-BO's administration where he stopped blaming Bush, and started accepting responsibility for conditions in the US. I don't recall ever getting a direct, specific answer. Therefore I concluded that there would never be a time when P-BO and his partisans ever accepted that P-BO was actually responsible for the conditions under his administration.
In much the same way, I keep seeing all sorts of folx on line and on social media who's go to response for everything happening in the US and the world is "It's all Trump's fault", or "It's all the GOP's fault".
I guess I'd ask the same question now. At what point does Biden and his DFL majority in both houses of congress become responsible for their actions or for their failure to act?
Two final thoughts.
1. I'm not sure that "It's all Trump's fault" is going to be particularly successful as a rallying cry for a second Biden term.
2. If Biden and the DFL majorities in congress were elected to govern, and they fail to do so (blaming the GOP for their failures) doesn't that raise questions about their ability to do what they were elected to do?
PS- If it was the GOP currently behaving like this, I would hold them to the same standard. I fully support GOP candidates running against ineffective GOP legislators, governors, or presidents. I am convinced that this culture of blaming others for our own failures (which goes way beyond governance) is an unhealthy attitude for our country to maintain.
37 comments:
Craig... "P-BO was actually responsible for the conditions under his administration."
This is an odd question. Things improved dramatically under Obama in many/ most ways of thinking. And I and people like me give Obama credit for the good (the economy, unemployment, environmental stances, LGBTQ progress, bringinghonor and integrityback to the Whitehouse, etc..) and blame for the bad (immigration problems - but not the ones conservatives think of), Unending "War on Terror," drone attacks... etc)
I think - tell me if I'm correct - you're probably seeing the Obama years as awful and the reality is that most historians, scholars and regular folk see it differently. Obama gets middling to good reviews. Hell, the Obama family was such a Gold Star experience that Michelle could almost certainly easily win the presidency if she ever chose to run.
Hell, the economy and nation were so strong when he left office that it took all of three years and a global pandemic before a completely corrupt moron trashed it all.
In short, Obama was an honest, inspiring president of class, intelligence and integrity, but not as effective as we'd like in that he couldn't win over the GOP which stated openly they would work to make him fail. They didn't (make him fail) but they did limit how much progress he made.
I give Obama credit where it's due and blame where it's warranted, as well as giving the GOP a proper amount of blame.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-10-27/trump-vs-obama-who-really-did-better-on-the-economy%3f_amp=true
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/obamas-legacy-economy-anything-mess/
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/7795974002
Craig... "it was the GOP currently behaving like this, I would hold them to the same standard."
Funny.
Where is your condemnation for the GOP for lending unending support to the single most corrupt and criminally inept presidents of our lifetime? Of his coddling of dictators, including Putin? Of his unending dishonest and dangerous attacks on the free press and our election system?
You a funny guy.
Craig... "successful as a rallying cry for a second Biden term."
I believe that Biden rarely comments on the Trump train wreck of a presidency and to the degree he mentions Trump any more, it's because Trump is still trying actively to disrupt the nation, peddling lies, fear mongering and conspiracy theories.
It's only been 15 months. The economy is recovering, he's handling a crazy Putin in about as good a manner as possible... the Covid situation is improving. I fully expect that in 24 months, he'll be running as the president who restored us fairly well, having inherited a mess from the GOP president before him. It's what Democrat presidents have done throughout our lifetimes.
Although, in Biden's case, I'm hoping he chooses to resign to make room for an even better option in another Democratic candidate.
If one is to blame another, it might be a good idea to have prepared for the intention an actual argument for why the other is to blame. You know...drawing a direct line from the other's actions and the consequence blamed upon him. If that was to happen, we could then argue the truth of that, rather than just be expected to buy it.
In addition, to blame another is not such a concern if one has a plan for fixing whatever the other broke. Trump promised to do that with regard to the economy, and Obama wondered if he had a magic wand to improve upon what Obama promised was the new normal. Well...Trump's policies led to economic improvement beyond what Obama wanted to believe wasn't possible.
Now the economy's going in the wrong direction, and it's happened largely as a result of Dem policies, if not specifically Biden policies (though it's really both). Only Dem voters pretend to believe it's not the fault of those for whom they voted, and it will be something to see how turnout is for the midterms given all the problems one could easily tie to Democrats. Might even see some turncoats finally voting for the party which won't enact damaging policies, even if they again do little to get things done without someone with Trump's "moxie" pushing the nation towards better times.
Craig... "At what point does Biden and his DFL majority in both houses of congress become responsible for their actions or for their failure to act? "
At some point mid-administration, it starts to be more reasonable. It's not a simple matter to right a train wreck. Especially if 49% of Congress is fighting you.
"I think - tell me if I'm correct - you're probably seeing the Obama years as awful and the reality is that most historians, scholars and regular folk see it differently. Obama gets middling to good reviews."
Once again, you're wrong when you operate as if what you "think" is reality and respond to your made up bullshit as if it were True.
"Hell, the economy and nation were so strong when he left office that it took all of three years and a global pandemic before a completely corrupt moron trashed it all."
Talk about someone who's hiding from reality. The economy improved significantly under Trump, and the pandemic restrictions started in March of 2020. Which means that the majority of the "trashing" has happened under Biden, and that your 3 years claim is bullshit.
" give Obama credit where it's due and blame where it's warranted, as well as giving the GOP a proper amount of blame."
There it is, the "it's the GOP's fault"
But by all means, let's get the obfuscation started early in the thread.
"At some point mid-administration, it starts to be more reasonable. It's not a simple matter to right a train wreck. Especially if 49% of Congress is fighting you."
Interesting that you seem to be absolving Biden of any responsibility for what's happened since he was inaugurated.
Again pretending that the majority of Trump's term was a resounding success (from an economic standpoint), and the the majority of the COVID restrictions that damaged the economy weren't implemented at the state level, and ignoring that the "vaccine" that is allegedly fueling the Biden "recovery" was pushed by Trump.
"The economy is recovering,"
If historically high inflation, coming "food shortages", massive supply chain failures, the Afghanistan debacle, more food price increases coming, is what you consider a recovery...
I know you don't care for expressing one's self in this way, Craig, but if there's any evidence we've been deal with a complete moron these many years, it's the evidence of Dan's comments above. His revisionist history presented as an intelligent assessment is the epitome of thoughtless partisan hackers. I expect that when I take the time to punish myself with his latest links, I'll find more of the same. What I won't find are any of those direct lines between policy and asserted outcomes of which I spoke.
I will say that I don't think Michelle Obama would have a hard time drumming up support for a run at the presidency. Look at the last three presidents. We had an empty suit with no accomplishments in his history aside from moving up the politicak foodchain without any, a reality TV guy and now a proven buffoon who managed despite his blatant buffoonery over fifty years to be chosen over an effective reality TV star who improved the state of the nation left him by the empty suit. Why couldn't another ineffective Obama get elected?
Art, I agree that Dan's choice to ignore the objective facts of the Trump administration is egregious and foolish. I don't think he understands that by denying the reality of the Trump administration he undermines his credibility as someone who looks rationally at the facts and ignores partisanship.
Anyone who chooses to ignore the instances when a POTUS from the opposition party presides/leads through a period of economic success (or has any success) is simply a hyper partisan moron.
Wow, Craig! I can't recall a time when you've responded so quickly! Light day? 😁
I remind that Obama was so confident his pathetic rate of economic growth was the new normal we must accept, that he mocked Trump's promise to improve upon it by suggesting Trump would need a magic wand to do so. This is not only an example of unjustified arrogance (common among the left, as Dan so often demonstrates himself), but an unconscionable lack of intelligence on the part of the guy we were assured was "the smartest guy in the room". Trump did nothing special. He only did what has worked in the past so often. He lowered tax rates on all Americans, including corporations, and reduced unnecessary regulations. Obama could have done these things, and gotten away with doing so without the scurrilous charge that he was only serving the wealth 1% (such charges would never be leveled against a Dem). And unless I'm a gay, black thug with a pregnancy I don't want, I can't think of anything Obama did that made any significance to the average American. Sure, there was that Lilly Ledbetter Act, but I'm not sure that qualifies.
And to pretend that Obama was obstructed is nonsensical, given his common tactic of not allowing GOP input. He reminded us "I won, you lost". Trump had obstruction not only by Dems, but by members of his own party, yet accomplished so much more in half the time. And Dan's reference to Mitch McConnell has been explained to him at least once in the past. Go look at his words in total context and McConnell was actually insisting a willingness to work with Obama, and his "threat" was related to if Obama chose not to reciprocate on major issues.
Of course, I can make even more comparisons to show which of the two are worthy of praise from future historians (those who rank presidents after one year are unworthy of recognition) and there's simply NO comparison between Trump and Biden. Biden's not done a damned thing that has improved a damned thing.
I didn't ignore the reality that Trump kept the Obama Era trend of an upward economy. He didn't crash it for three years. Of course, Trump did that in part by going greater into debt and implementing policies that could be expected to have short term benefits (tax cuts for the ultra-wealthy, for instance). But likewise, as with most GOP schemes, that golden goose plan can only work for so long. It's not sustainable to keep the wealth gap ever-increasing while basic infrastructure (human and physical) literally crumble.
The only rational way to have an on-going long-term healthy economy is by investing in it. Which is why GOP administration's regularly have economic crashes or troubles by their end and why Democrat administration's have to come in and fix things.
Look at the reality of our economic health over our lifetimes.
Craig stupidly, falsely said...
"agree that Dan's choice to ignore the objective facts of the Trump administration is egregious..."
Facts:
I ignored nothing.
I noticed that the recovering economy he inherited from Obama continued to recover at the same rate it was under Obama.
Do you all acknowledge THAT fact?
I noted that Trump didn't totally crash it until his final year due, in large part, to Covid.
Do you all acknowledge that?
I noted, factually, that Trump greatly increased our national debt.
Do you all acknowledge that?
I note the reality is that experts, scholars and historians regularly rate Trump as amongst the worse of US presidents. So, while you all may think he was an average to good president, experts disagree.
Do you all acknowledge that?
You referred to Trump's presidency twice in this thread that I can see and both times used the term "train wreck" to describe it. That is hardly a full representation of the Trump presidency. The reality is that Trump managed historic levels of economic growth during the 3 years of his presidency, until COVID hit. Given the reality that COVID was unprecedented and that the bulk of the restrictions that destroyed the economy were NOT implemented by the FEDS, but by the states(as it should have been). Had Trump not cleared the way for the "vaccine" we'd probably still be in lock down and doing more damage to the economy. To pretend that what happened after COVID was representative of Trump's entire term or that there was any better strategy available at the time (obviously in hindsight the draconian, economy damaging measure were probably not totally necessary, but who knew at the time).
Further to present the Biden administration with historically high inflation, supply chain disasters, the Afghanistan debacle, high gas prices, upcoming food shortages, a porous southern border, as a "recovery" is patently absurd.
Again. The only description you gave of the Trump presidency was "train wreck", please don't pretend like you mentioned the excellent pre COVID economy.
Art,
Just lucky I guess. This notion that it's always the GOP's fault is pathetically amusing and hyper partisan. Who expects anything different.
Craig... "The reality is that Trump managed historic levels of economic growth during the 3 years of his presidency, until COVID hit."
The reality is, experts and scholars recognize Trump's presidency as a trainwreck.
Do you understand the reasons why experts consider him amongst the worst of US presidents? The legitimacy of their points... even if you think it's overplayed?
Do you acknowledge these realities?
You can't keep citing a few debatable data points and ignore the reality of the rest of the data.
From Wikipedia, citing economists...
"Economist Justin Wolfers wrote in February 2019: "I've reviewed surveys of about 50 leading economists—liberals and conservatives—run by the University of Chicago. What is startling is that the economists are nearly unanimous in concluding that Mr. Trump's policies are destructive." He assigned a letter grade of A− to the economy's performance overall, despite "failing grades" for Trump's policies, including an "F" grade for trade policy, "D−" for fiscal policy, and a "C" for monetary policy.[72] One July 2018 study indicated Trump's policies have had little impact on the U.S. economy in terms of GDP or employment."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_Donald_Trump_administration#/media/File%3AScorecard_Trump_vs._Obama.png
Fiscal conservative/libertarian review of Trump. These conservatives give his economic policies middling to poor review.
https://www.cato.org/commentary/grading-trumps-economic-policies
"The reality is, experts and scholars recognize Trump's presidency as a trainwreck."
Really, please cite specifically which experts used the term "trainwreck" for the pre COVID portion of Trump's presidency?
"Do you understand the reasons why experts consider him amongst the worst of US presidents? The legitimacy of their points... even if you think it's overplayed?"
I understand that it's likely too soon to accurately evaluate Trump's presidency. Between recency bias, and partisanship, I'll take this with a grain of salt. But feel free to try to argue the opinion polls determine proof.
"Do you acknowledge these realities?"
When you claim something is "reality" without 100% objective proof, I see no reason to acknowledge your hunch as reality.
I guess all the good economic data just means nothing. Because 50 people tell you so.
But excellent job of continuing the "blame Trump" bullshit, while ignoring the disaster of Biden's presidency so far. But if that what you need to ignore this historically high inflation, supply chain disaster, porous southern border, shitty foreign policy, etc, don't let me interrupt your fantasy world.
Craig.. "please cite specifically which experts used the term "trainwreck" for the pre COVID portion of Trump's presidency?"
You're not this stupid.
1. Does it have to be the term "train wreck" or are you able to understand euphemisms?
You're not that stupid.
2. You honestly aren't aware of the many experts, scholars and historians who rate Trump as one of the worst presidents in our history?
You're not that stupid. You aren't that ignorant.
Biden's presidency has been a "disaster" in your head, but Trump wasn't a train wreck??
Again, you can't possibly be that stupid, that partisanly blind, that foolish to honestly think that.
Craig... "I understand that it's likely too soon to accurately evaluate Trump's presidency."
Maybe you ARE blinded by your partisanship. Maybe normally, with average to good administration's, four years is insufficient to adequately assess a president. Trump is simply not in that category.
If you weren't blinded by partisanship, you'd know that.
Didn't we just speak about Dan only liking polls which agrees with him? He proves us right once again. He does the same with "experts" while disparaging those experts who don't support his Trump-hatred. Dan's not about evidence. Dan's about bias confirmation.
Dan... "Do you acknowledge these realities?"
Craig..
"When you claim something is "reality" without 100% objective proof, I see no reason to acknowledge your hunch as reality."
It is 100% objective reality that historians and scholars from across the political spectrum have said that Trump is amongst the worst of our presidents.
Are you not aware of this objective reality? At this point, such ignorance would be inexcusable.
It is objective reality that these scholars have just cause for reaching these conclusions.
Are you ignorant of these reasons?
You can't be this stupid, gullible or ignorant.
Various foreign policy experts rate Biden with A's and B's and a few C's. And an F (from Afghanistan... which is fair on the one hand; but then previous administrations for 20 years hadn't figured out how to successfully extract us from Bush's mistake so...) and a D.
But Craig disagrees. So, let's listen to Craig on the Internet. That's reasonable. Or maybe not.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2022/01/20/biden-foreign-policy-report-card-russia-china-afghanistan/
Hey, you're the one claiming that "experts' called Trump's presidency a "train wreck", not me. But then again, Trump could have cured cancer and you'd call his presidency a "train wreck". Again, I'm being consistent when I repeat that it's too early to accurately categorize Trump's administration somewhat dispassionately. It's probably too early to dispassionately categorize P-BO and Bush 43 as well. But that probably doesn't matter that much.
What a fascinating take. I express my opinion, and Dan mocks me for not agreeing with him, yet expects everyone else to simply accept "reality" as he and a few cherry picked "experts" define it. Dan blindly cheering for Biden and bashing Trump, isn't "partisanship" by my suggesting that trying to evaluate a president and their "place in history" when tainted by recency bias is.
I'm guessing that y'all are going to give Biden an A for his recent advocating of regime change in Russia, correct? Or how about an A for the fact that Biden's been spouting all sorts of stupid crap that the rest of his team has to "walk back".
"2. You honestly aren't aware of the many experts, scholars and historians who rate Trump as one of the worst presidents in our history?"
"Many" experts, scholars and historians??? Are you seriously carrying on with this nonsense after I totally shredded your desperate attempt to find agreement among experts, scholars and historians?
I feel it important to again bring up an important point of context. According to one source, there are approximately 3000 people employed as historians in the United States. According to this source from April 2017, there are 6,350 political scientists in America. So, Dan's first link above, refers to a survey of only 170 political scientists. Out of over 6000. 170 out of 6000. What of the other 6180? Why didn't they respond to the survey? How many of them were made aware of the survey? Would they have regarded it as proper to respond if it included a guy who only had a year of work by which to judge?
As to historians, Dan later cites a different study which cites 155 historians. That's 155 out of 3000. That's 2,845 historians whose opinions about Trump are not published in the survey. Why is that? Could it be that responsible, self-respecting historians don't make assessments about today when their field is focused on the past?
The above was from a comment I posted on 10/24 2020 @ 2:22AM in a post from 10/25 2020 entitled, "Dan's Recent Buffoonery". The point, of course, is that Dan's citation of "the many experts, scholars and historians who rate Trump as one of the worst presidents in our history". "The many" are a small percentage of the total. It could be true that the entirety of the historians and political scientists would all rank Trump poorly. Of course I listed a handful of those who didn't, so that wouldn't be the case. But numbers don't matter, especially when the criteria used by those Dan prefers has no mention of Trump's actual policies or adherence to his Constitutional duties as president. Thus, Dan's sources are crap.
I read Dan's Cato piece. While I'm aware of the guy writing it, there's a ton of equivocation and bet hedging in his analysis. What I haven't seen from Dan is a more direct comparison which you argue for whether Obama or Trump was better on the economy. I found a couple, because it's one thing to assert either sucks. The real question is which of the two did a better job. I've read much which tries to assert what Trump accomplished was only because Obama laid the foundation. But that doesn't wash given Obama's insistence that his was the new normal we should all continue to expect. Then, when things really started poppin' after Trump took office, the loser was quick to take credit. So was he lying then or lying after the economy took off after Trump was in charge? It's one or the other, and I'm saying it's both. Both because before Trump, his comment demonstrated his lack of understanding of how the economy works, and definitely the latter because it can't be true as well, since it was in direct conflict with his prediction. Even in Dan's offering, while Lincicome clearly isn't enamored of Trump, his own numbers show Trump was more effective, even if only by a small amount. But then he goes on to say that small difference was a result of some of Trump's other policies, such as tariffs and trade. Still, at the time of his article, there was still time to go on Trump's term and it's a subjective matter to insist that Trump couldn't have gotten more accomplished.
I read most of Dan's offering regarding foreign policy. What a joke. There were scant few which made sense given the grade given versus the narrative accompanying it. Indeed, most comments suggested low grades were appropriate. Anywhere I saw an "A", I read that which doesn't in the least appear to justify it. I didn't bother with "Climate" except to understand one is not served by giving this link the time of day if "Climate" is considered foreign policy. Honest and intelligent people would never include that fallacious category. Yet, he didn't seem to score all that well in the couple I couldn't help but see as I backed out of the link. Dan's just a joke with his "evidence".
Because clearly, the fact that the US is engaged in talks (brokered by the same Russian government who just invaded a sovereign country with no justification) with Iran to restart their nuclear program is an "A" on the foreign policy front.
1. If nuclear energy is such an evil from a green perspective, why would "greens" be facilitating more of it?
2. Iran is one of the most oppressive, least free, destabilizing countries in the Middle East/world, what does it benefit anyone to give them nuclear technology?
3. Nuclear energy gives Iran the most important ingredients to build nuclear weapons, who thinks Iran with nukes is a good idea?
4. If theocracies are bad, why go to these lengths to give a theocracy more power?
5. Does anyone really think that Russia is looking out for what's best for the US?
To answer your questions directly and show you how it's done...
1. If nuclear energy is such an evil from a green perspective, why would "greens" be facilitating more of it?
There is a divide in thinking about nuclear energy amongst progressives, experts and others. Some progressives would NOT want to see any facilitation of it. Others disagree.
2. Iran is one of the most oppressive, least free, destabilizing countries in the Middle East/world, what does it benefit anyone to give them nuclear technology?
Some think that building interdependence and connections with places like Iran is one way of fighting those problems.
3. Nuclear energy gives Iran the most important ingredients to build nuclear weapons, who thinks Iran with nukes is a good idea?
No one. But then, many of us think that NO NATIONS having nukes is a good idea.
4. If theocracies are bad, why go to these lengths to give a theocracy more power?
The point would be to try to build connections to influence them away from anti-human rights behaviors. What's the alternative? Destroy all the people in Iran?
5. Does anyone really think that Russia is looking out for what's best for the US?
Nope. That's why conservatives appealing to them to undermine the Democrats is also a bad thing to do.
The fact that you chose this ONE instance to answer questions reasonably clearly and directly, with some equivocation, is really interesting. It's so rare that one has to wonder what you were trying to accomplish.
But, setting that aside, you seem to have forgotten that Biden is actually engaged in "negotiations" With countries that are actively trying to damage the US, countries that are oppressive, corrupt, and aggressors, to enable Iran to move their nuclear power and nuclear weapons programs forward. Biden is literally enabling Iran to get nuclear weapons, and strengthening the position of Russia among certain countries, and you're spouting bullshit.
Look, if you really think that Biden helping Iran by buying oil from them and helping them advance their nuclear power/weapons programs is a good thing, just admit it. Just admit that you support Biden helping a corrupt, oppressive, theocratic regime achieve their goal of obtaining nuclear weapons.
Actually, he doesn't answer the questions at all. Let's review:
"1. If nuclear energy is such an evil from a green perspective, why would "greens" be facilitating more of it?"
"There is a divide in thinking about nuclear energy amongst progressives, experts and others. Some progressives would NOT want to see any facilitation of it. Others disagree."
This isn't an answer to the question, why would "greens" facilitate more of what they regard is such an evil? It's a dodge. The question isn't concerned with "greens" who you claim have no opposition to nuclear power. It's concerned with those who do, and those would be the most vocal if not the majority of them. Answer the question. You'd delete an answer like what you just gave if someone else provided it at your blog.
"2. Iran is one of the most oppressive, least free, destabilizing countries in the Middle East/world, what does it benefit anyone to give them nuclear technology?"
"Some think that building interdependence and connections with places like Iran is one way of fighting those problems."
Another dodge. What benefit is there in providing to Iran just what they crave because it allows them to develop their nuclear weapons capabilities? How doing THAT "building interdependence and connections"??? Not only absurd, but moronic given the character of those who run that nation. And definitely not an answer to the question.
"3. Nuclear energy gives Iran the most important ingredients to build nuclear weapons, who thinks Iran with nukes is a good idea?"
"No one. But then, many of us think that NO NATIONS having nukes is a good idea."
Well, at least this one constitutes an answer. Just not an honest or intelligent one. Dishonest because clearly Biden is providing for Iran's nuclear weapons desires. So at least HE seems to think it's a good idea. It's unintelligent because it has clearly been shown how just American having nukes worked for the period in which it did as a deterrent to hostile nations. Now, with more countries so armed, we have to consider who has them to determine whether it's a good idea or not. It's fine if we have them, so long as we elect moral leaders. We can't say Iran, Russia, China or Pakistan, for example, do that.
"4. If theocracies are bad, why go to these lengths to give a theocracy more power?"
"The point would be to try to build connections to influence them away from anti-human rights behaviors."
Wow! That's two answers now, but two stupid answers. The point of the question focuses on the moronic move to provide that which you oppose with that which makes them more dangerous. And you think intelligent people think that will "build connections to influence them away from anti-human rights behaviors"???? The absurdity of this response is world class!! The alternative is strangling them financially as Trump was doing when he ended the deal Obama made (further supported by pallets of cash sent in the dead of night). When the mullahs are out of cash, they can't fulfill their evil plans, which include their dominance of their own people. Basic stuff.
"5. Does anyone really think that Russia is looking out for what's best for the US?"
"Nope. That's why conservatives appealing to them to undermine the Democrats is also a bad thing to do."
Dishonest as well as stupid. Clearly Biden does, or he wouldn't depend upon them to negotiate with Iran. That is to say, it is a Democrat appealing to them. What you're asserting is in reality a hope that they would've provided proof of what is now being uncovered as truth...Biden related misconduct. And I don't know that Trump was so much making an appeal but acknowledging Russia's dealings with Dems engaged in unAmerican activities. Trump was clearly not Russia's choice as the Dems always provide space for bad actors to operate.
Dan would have deleted all of these "answers" if questions of his led to responses of this quality in his feeble mind. Except that he gets far better than this to his questions, even given the dishonesty inherent in most of his questions.
No help of any kind should be provide to Muslim nations. And if Dan is too ignorant about Islam to understand that, then he is even more hopeless than I thought.
Religious bigotry much, Glenn?
I know about many Muslim nations, have friends living in some of them. And I know about many Christian extremists, too.
Excellent Dan! You "know about" many Muslim nations. Then surely you know that many of them are theocracies, and that their "civil" laws are objectionable. Surely you know that a there is a high degree of correlation between countries that still have large numbers of slaves, and Muslim countries. Surely you know that many Muslim majority countries are "oppressive" as you would define oppressive?
I wouldn't dare speak for Glenn, but I suspect that he was referring to Muslim theocracies, as opposed to Muslim majority countries with secular governments.
I personally think that Glenn's response is too vague to be worth discussing, but I also don't think that the US should be financing oppressive countries when we have the option not to.
Religious bigotry much, Glenn?
I know about many Muslim nations, have friends living in some of them. And I know about many Christian extremists, too.
Your ignorance is showing again. "Extremist" is what people like you call Muslims who practice their faith. Try reading the Qur'an and Hadith, and try studying history to see the truth about Islam. Their goal is world subjugation and eradication of Jews especially. Always has been. There is no such thing as a peaceful Muslim except to deceive people until they are in power.
YES, there are many secular Muslims just like many secular "Christians" -- those who don't practice their proclaimed faith. With Islam it's usually those who have to call themselves Muslim to escape execution, etc.
You are brainwashed. I have studied Islam and Muslim countries for a few decades. It isn't bigotry to speak truth.
Post a Comment