Wednesday, March 4, 2015

Obama's Critics Disagree with Obama's Decisions


Chris Suess  [shared link]  Dear Leader helping his Hommies

Richard Sherman - I would like to say that this is unbelievable, but sadly, it IS believable.

Muhammad Rasheed - Peter Brookes wrote: "The president came under fire—again—for not calling the violent extremism we’re experiencing either 'Islamic' or 'Islamist,' even though that is what the conference seemed to be mostly about." 

He's being criticized by not labelling violent extremism as Islamic. That must be Israel's complaint.

Chris Suess - no one should really be surprised, he's not gonna rat out his hommies.

Muhammad Rasheed - He's not labelling it Islamic because it's not. The critics are being slimy.

Chris Suess - the Islamic State of Iran and Syria isn't Islamic?

that's retarded.

Richard Sherman - But you can bet that Muhammad would be quick to point out that those knucklehead nut jobs that protest funerals claim to be christians and would have no problem believing it to be true.

Chris Suess - actually they are democrats

Diane J. Thalheimer - the question is, do they themselves think they are islamic?

Muhammad Rasheed - No, the actual question is if "violent extremism" is Islamic, not the state, not the state religion.

Are everyone of you also slimy, or genuinely slow of mind?

Muhammad Rasheed - What is wrong with you three?

Chris Suess - We refuse to bow to political correctness?

Muhammad Rasheed - That's a really shitty answer. 

It was a rhetorical question anyway.

Muhammad Rasheed - Richard Sherman wrote: "But you can bet that Muhammad would be quick to point out that those knucklehead nut jobs that protest funerals claim to be christians and would have no problem believing it to be true."

You would lose that bet. I know more about Christianity than you three will ever care to know about Al-Islam. I would NEVER be so stupid as to equate violent extremist actions of professed Christians with the faith itself.

Only jackasses do that. Routinely.

Diane J. Thalheimer - I am not sure why you are calling me slimy, my question was purposeful. I wasn't being coy or ignorant or any othe adjective. I wan't talking politics or theories. Does it matter what any other person thinks the terrorists are, if they themselves think they are Islamic? Truthfully, some of these "lone wolves" I do not believe are anything, just use the fact that there are Islamic terrorist as a cover to act out their evilness.

Muhammad Rasheed - Diane J. Thalheimer wrote: “I am not sure why you are calling me slimy…”

Deliberate, willful attempts to slander other people while ignoring reason and any amount of effort to understand parallel behaviors between different groups because you prefer to slander other people to make yourself feel good is fundamentally slimy behavior.   

Diane J. Thalheimer wrote: “Does it matter what any other person thinks the terrorists are, if they themselves think they are Islamic?”

It matters when folk like you are being very vocal about attacking other Muslims because of what you falsely think.  If I decided that all white Americans in past decades who did horrible things to people did so precisely because they were Christian, and the people who thought like that had the ability to influence national policy and start an international war machine, do YOU think it would matter?

 Diane J. Thalheimer wrote: “Truthfully, some of these ‘lone wolves’ I do not believe are anything, just use the fact that there are Islamic terrorist as a cover to act out their evilness.”

How is ISIS a “lone wolf” when they work as a group?  That’s the opposite of ‘lone wolf.’

Chris Suess - to willfully slander Diane and assume that she is doing it to make her self feel better is pretty cunty on your part.

Diane J. Thalheimer - I am not slandering anyone, I am not attacking anyone, I had a simple question and I wasn't trying to feel good about anything. I am not sure what a "folks like you" is unless you are lumping anyone who does not think exactly like you as a "folks like you" And I am not sure why you are so angry. My assumption is nothing. My thinking is very simple. I had no comment to make about Islam itself. My question, in more words than it is worth was simply what does it matter what anyone else thinks, if that particualr terrorists thinks they are Islamic. That doesn't mean they are true followers of Islam, it is what they choose to think. As to my "lone wolves" comment, I am not very sophisticated, I have even been called stupid, a rube, hick, redneck, etc. Simple thinking does not mean ignorant. Islam, or better yet, Islamic terrorist is a hot button in the world today, it stops all sorts of people in their tracks. My comment is exactly what I said, there are evil people out there who do evil things under the guise of Islam, or Islamic terrorists, only because it gives them the attention they crave. Tomorrow they will call themselves the catch phrase of the day, but the truth of the matter is they are just evil people committing evils acts with no true attachment to anything.

Muhammad Rasheed - Chris Suess wrote: "to willfully slander Diane and assume that she is doing it to make her self feel better is pretty cunty on your part."

It's pretty slimy for her to keep doing it, and for you to support her in doing it. 

Knock it off.

Chris Suess - Make me.

Muhammad Rasheed - Diane j. Thalheimer wrote: "That doesn't mean they are true followers of Islam, it is what they choose to think."

I wonder if Chris thinks it's "cunty" that Diane is assuming she knows what someone else thinks, or if he's going to elect to ride that hypocrisy train all the way to the station?

Muhammad Rasheed - Chris Suess wrote: "Make me."

[rolls eyes]

Muhammad Rasheed - What are you? 8?

Chris Suess - I think she is just giving them the benefit of the doubt... IE she is saying that not all followers of Islam are enemies of the world. But apparently it is OK for YOU to assume you know what people are thinking.

And apparently YOU think I am eight, and apparently my father.

I'm just letting you know that you aren't man enough to be my father. Or man enough to make me do anything.

Muhammad Rasheed - I think you aren't man enough to pursue truth or demonstrate integrity.

Muhammad Rasheed - That's the extent of my opinion on that. No need to guess.

Chris Suess - and some how that doesn't mean a fucking thing to me what you think about my integrity or my pursuit of the truth

Muhammad Rasheed - Chris Suess wrote: “I think she is just giving them the benefit of the doubt... IE she is saying that not all followers of Islam are enemies of the world. But apparently it is OK for YOU to assume you know what people are thinking.”

She typed in black & white on a public social media forum what she thinks about “islamicists.” You don’t have to make up nonsense to support her.

Chris Suess wrote: “And apparently YOU think I am eight…”

The evidence does strongly suggest this.

Chris Suess wrote: “…and apparently my father.”

You wouldn’t be allowed on the Internet at eight if I was your father.

Chris Suess wrote: “and some how that doesn't mean a fucking thing to me what you think about my integrity or my pursuit of the truth”

Since you equally demonstrate a compete hatred for integrity and truth I am unsurprised by this.

Chris Suess - you presume that you are the holy holder of the truth, which is a false assumption.

Muhammad Rasheed - Diane J. Thalheimer wrote: “I am not slandering anyone, I am not attacking anyone, I had a simple question and I wasn't trying to feel good about anything. I am not sure what a ‘folks like you’ is unless you are lumping anyone who does not think exactly like you as a ‘folks like you’ And I am not sure why you are so angry.”

This stupid thread made me angry, and reading the same old nonsense. I grouped you in it because it read like you were Amening that same old nonsense with a flip question. It’s very difficult to accept comments like that at face value, in this political climate, on a thread by this poster, in a group of these particular posters, from this demographic. Ones I’ve butted heads with over similar issues many times before. 

Diane J. Thalheimer wrote: “My assumption is nothing. My thinking is very simple. I had no comment to make about Islam itself.”

Isolated by itself you would have a point. Grouped in with previous discussions over opposing ideological views, not so much. 

Diane J. Thalheimer wrote: “My question, in more words than it is worth was simply what does it matter what anyone else thinks, if that particualr terrorists thinks they are Islamic.”

When the holy book of Islam states XYZ, but this person who you claim (based on what?) performs his violent extremism precisely because he’s “Islamic,” and an innocent person is killed because of this, why wouldn’t it matter? If he was only spewing empty rhetoric on Facebook then it wouldn’t matter. While doing whatever he and his ilk do in the world, sowing mischief in the land, it matters a great deal. 

Diane J. Thalheimer wrote: “That doesn't mean they are true followers of Islam, it is what they choose to think. As to my ‘lone wolves’ comment, I am not very sophisticated, I have even been called stupid, a rube, hick, redneck, etc. Simple thinking does not mean ignorant. Islam, or better yet, Islamic terrorist is a hot button in the world today, it stops all sorts of people in their tracks.”

Like who? From doing what?

Diane J. Thalheimer wrote: “My comment is exactly what I said, there are evil people out there who do evil things under the guise of Islam, or Islamic terrorists, only because it gives them the attention they crave. Tomorrow they will call themselves the catch phrase of the day, but the truth of the matter is they are just evil people committing evils acts with no true attachment to anything.”

People do evil things for numerous reasons, and MOST people in the world are religious in some form or fashion. Continuously linking a particular demographics’ actions to the regional religion when 1.) most of the people of that faith don’t behave that way 2.) Islam, Christianity & Judaism practitioners lived among each other in peace for many centuries at a time without incident, except for a few events that were 100% political in nature, NOT religious, comes across as incredibly slimy and a deliberate attempt to slander the faith.

Muhammad Rasheed - Chris Suess wrote: "you presume that you are the holy holder of the truth, which is a false assumption."

lol I hold truth on certain items because I can read, I don't reject the facts that support those truths because I hate black American presidents, or whatever else is the source of your own particular slime.

Chris Suess - Just because you can read, does not mean you are reading the Truth.

I don't hate the President because one of his parents was black. 

I hate his commie thoughts and how he thinks he is a king. Just like I hated Bush for his outrageous spending and other piss poor policies.

Muhammad Rasheed - Chris Suess wrote: “Just because you can read, does not mean you are reading the Truth.”

I know the religion of Islam, Chris. I know what I am allowed to do and what I am not allowed based on what God said, and what God’s prophet supported because of his basic mission. I am a scholar of the Abrahamic religion of Al-Islam, and I don’t get my understanding of the sacred text of my faith from the political talking points branded about by anti-Islam news-like programs, and their shitty affiliates, that don’t give a flying crap about the message of those texts, and don’t have a problem simply making up bullshit to punch up their ratings from their oh, so easily brain-washed fans. 

Chris Suess wrote: “I don't hate the President because one of his parents was black.”

Perhaps. I think you believe he holds certain opinions about how to perform his job precisely because of the race/ethnic group he chooses to identify with, and you hate those opinions. This amounts to much the same thing in practice. 

Chris Suess wrote: “I hate his commie thoughts and how he thinks he is a king.”

President Obama performs in his job at the limits that the job allows. He doesn’t “think he is a king,” he functions like a leader with vision committed to getting items accomplished that he promised the voters who elected him he WOULD get accomplished. He didn’t allow political and ideological opponents to stop him from doing the job he was elected to do. This is the attitude I look for and respect in everybody in every chain of command I have. 

President Obama believes that a strong middle class is the secret to a strong America, and the facts of American history support this opinion. He has fought against and attacked corporations from setting up new monopolies within existing free markets which is the opposite of “commie” thinking. 

Everything you think about this topic is wrong or twisted in a crazy angle, and I fully expect you to double down on it and believe it even more until the president is an unrecognizable monster in your eyes. 

And this makes me very angry to read.

Muhammad Rasheed - I think you think this way because you surround yourself with people that prefer to think this way, and you are afraid to look at this stuff any different. You're afraid to pursue truth, and jump back from facts that disrupt this crazy worldview you hold as if they will singe your skin.

Chris Suess - sure, you got it all figured out Muhammad...

Muhammad Rasheed - lol

No, I'm just speculating, and trying to draw you into a spirited discussion.

Muhammad Rasheed - Did it work? Are you typing your spirited response?

Richard Sherman - Damn it, Chris- you bit! Muhammad does this shit- trolls along and grabs at people's threads to start shit with them so he can post it, heavily edited, on his ridiculous wall, to show other people who are asleep, sleeping, about to fall asleep or simply unconscious, that he is a clever dude with semi-clever answers to people; a modern day Abraham Lincoln, here to free the unencumbered from their sloth, envy, greed and wrong thinking. He is the Kuwaiti/North Carolinian answer to Bill O'Reilly- pithy, bombastic and an accomplished bloviate. Don't engage him. It will make you itch for about a week.But make sure you check his wall to see that he's done this, and how much he has edited it. You'll see.

Muhammad Rasheed - Richard Sherman wrote: "...heavily edited..."

That's a lie. And you are a shitbag. Take a bow.

Muhammad Rasheed - I have plenty of old exchanges between me and Chris in my FB Note folio. Some even include his goofy brother. He's seen them. His only complaint was that it took too long to post the last few lines of a discussion because he was rushing me.

The "heavily edited" comment is your Official Slimeball Badge, Sherman.

Muhammad Rasheed - btw you are directly responsible for why I save my Internet discussions now. You had a very fun 'Righteousness' thread going, back in March '14, where a bunch of folk were answering your intriguing religious/spiritual questions from the standpoint of their faiths. I contributed as a Muslim representative, a Christian or two chimed in, and a couple of rabbis. It wasn't an argument, just a sharing of our views based on our understanding of scripture.

And the next morning it vanished.  

You know you deleted it on purpose. Naturally I think one of your friends told you to. 

Muhammad Rasheed - Ask me why I think you all had the thread deleted, Richard. 

Muhammad Rasheed - Ask me. 

Muhammad Rasheed –


Richard Sherman - As usual, I have no idea what you're talking about. Sounds like some sort of half-assed astronaut language. IF you have some posting, please post it. If not, please refrain from babbling. 

Muhammad Rasheed - OMIGOSH YOU BIT! 

Muhammad Rasheed - Curiosity killed the cat, you know? #trueStory 

Richard Sherman - Apparently, you have no thread to post, so it's just you, talking again. Later, dude. 

Muhammad Rasheed - You seem to be confused as to how typing posts on Facebook actually functions. 

I suggest you keep an eye on my upcoming response so you may feel free to counter. It's now time to build the Note. 

Richard Sherman - Make sure you edit the hell out of it. 

Muhammad Rasheed - *shrug* 

My Notes are quite public for all to see. The readership can make that determination for themselves. 

Muhammad Rasheed - Naturally I wouldn't suggest they take your word for it. That would not be wise. 

It would serve me not at all to edit the responses of my opponents and debate partners. I need to be able to go back and study the responses raw, that I may accurately analyze the mentality behind the things you all say. I need for all the world to see what you all reveal as your core beliefs on the different items of interest to me. 

Muhammad Rasheed - Richard Sherman wrote: “As usual, I have no idea what you're talking about.”  

Well, allow me to remind you. You started a thread on March 25, 2014 in which you asked the religious believers certain intermediate to advanced level questions about faith/religion in what seemed a genuine appeal to understand. As I said above, several people contributed, and it wasn’t an argument or fight at all. We were all just sharing our understanding of scripture with you in the answering. Sometimes I would respond to one of the other posters’ comments and also provide my understanding of scripture to add onto what they were saying, and occasionally to correct. I was encouraged in this by receiving several ‘Likes’ and typed responses agreeing with me, notably from the rabbis. The only pushback I ever received in that thread (one that you refer to as “the Righteousness thread”) came from you.  

I had a LOT of fun in that thread because I was literally instructing the doctors of the Law in their own scripture – and they were agreeing with me! – based purely on my understanding of what Allah said about the children of Israel in the Qur’an. Personally this was one of those moments in my life that was quite faith-confirming, and let me know in no uncertain terms that my most important spiritual decisions have been the correct ones (and why Chris’ comment above about me not holding any actual truth is comical at best).  

In the end you asked a very potent question as to why the believers didn’t need to do animal sacrifices any more when the OT was full of those mentions, and why they were done in the first place. The Christians of course proclaimed that their crucifixion event was the replacement, and why this practice was no longer required by God. I think it was one of the rabbis who said some theologians/scholars lifted it from the people with some doctrine or another, perhaps during the time of the Second Temple. I pointed out that as a Muslim, animal sacrifice is still required of me, and it is one of the mandatory rituals during the Hajj, and I MUST do this before I die. The last of God’s anointed prophet-messengers still had the believers doing it, and if I have to do it, the children of Israel DEFINITELY still have to do it. No messenger descendant of Isaac lifted that requirement from them. I then said that the Qur’an never mentions the ‘why’ behind the purpose of the blood sacrifice, and suggested that perhaps that ancient knowledge is with the rabbis present. I then signed off, looking forward to the next responses, and your next questions. I never saw that thread again. 

Someone decided to get offended, maybe because I had taken over the thread and my responses dominated it, even though it never, ever ceased being a friendly discussion with a pleasant learning environment feel. And now it’s gone. 

A pity. 

Chris Suess - could you take this circle jerk somewhere else? this has zero to do with the article.

See Also:
Praying for the Sins of the Faithful
Slimy Residue from the 'Peculiar Institution'

No comments:

Post a Comment