President Obama Calls for Religious Tolerance (1 Viewer)

[Renae]

Since you want this to be about us, or you whatever, tell me how you decided I was hyperprtisan. I mean, did you decide that from my opinion on this one topic?

I called you out and you refused to respond, this entire thread you've spent pissing on the Right because you think you have some moral high ground angle to do so. Basically you've been playing the "Oh look Trump said this, and he's really a voice for most of if not all right wingers who irrationally hate muslims!!!" And Z has been schooling you and yet you double down on your own failings. This says a lot, a lot about you.

 

[mak2]

OK, then exactly which point I made do you disagree with?

I called you out and you refused to respond, this entire thread you've spent pissing on the Right because you think you have some moral high ground angle to do so. Basically you've been playing the "Oh look Trump said this, and he's really a voice for most of if not all right wingers who irrationally hate muslims!!!" And Z has been schooling you and yet you double down on your own failings. This says a lot, a lot about you.

 

[Ntharotep]

So, the OP makes it sound like the President is lying and doesn't really feel this way but others have "forced" him to speak about it?
I would rather think the President is having one of his rare sincerity moments.

But if the OP believes the President is a lying scum who panders to others then that is a freedom allowed.
I guess the OP doesn't believe the President is a Christian either...

Strike the above. After rereading it, I understand the OP better now. It was actually just saying those evil Christians and Republicans are the only ones who hate anyone ever...got it.

 

[AGENT J]

Are you speaking that it's the exact opposite in that speech? Or the exact opposite throughout his presidency?

Both of those require a very different response. Either of which would have to point out that you're missing, as you so often do, the fact there is grey area. That one can be both divisive and inclusive at the same time. That divisiveness of one person doesn't mean there cannot be divisiveness of another.

His presidency. His ability to bring people together is what got him elected twice. I talking overall. Also nothign was missed, that would require me denying that there are people that are more divided because of him, I didn't, in fact i pointed that out. The reality and my point was calling him the most divisive president in history or our lifetime as a general statement, as some people do, is beyond silly. Mentioning it in the way some do is purely nonsensical and simply not true.

 

[OpportunityCost]

I don't know.

Isn't some of the intolerance to Islam from the extreme side of the radicals within that religion? The radicals blow themselves and other people up, cut other peoples' heads off, wage war in their religion's name, take away civil liberties from women, from other religions, and outright kill sexual orientations that don't agree with their holy text. Not to mention supporting Sharia law and refusing to assimilate to Western countries they are immigrating to.

Meanwhile most other religions radicals talk about things until they are blue in the face, but they don't kill in the name of their religion. There are some exceptions, but that percentage is very small.

I am not going to say that there is some intolerance with Islam, but Islam has a lot to be intolerant about and until its radical side stops being a pain in the neck to the rest of the world, accepting it will be an uphill battle. Obama thinks we should just accept it completely, I feel that is being blind to the religions many, many faults right now and whether the radical elements of Islam are considered part of it or not, THEY consider themselves to be acting in the name of Islam.

Maybe the President feels we should take the good with the bad when it comes to Islam but I think we should take the good and take steps to protect ourselves from the bad. That's where we disagree, I suspect.

 

[Renae]

OK, then exactly which point I made do you disagree with?

I have to disagree, it says a lot about Republicans. An awful lot.

Broad brush insult against the GOP because one guy (who lost in Iowa) said something crass.

If there is no religious intolerance in America why is one of the rwo major political parties talking about limiting their access to the country?

You are trying to make the calls to limit access about the religion, as if there is no reason someone might take a moment to consider the issue "Must be RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE!!" Your premise precludes any other reasoning, while at the same time placing anyone who disagrees with you to first have to counter your false positioning of the issue as being about intolerance. It's a very dishonest discussion tactic.

 

[mak2]

Trump was and probably still is the front runner for the Republican nomination. Not exactly some guy with minimal influence.

Broad brush insult against the GOP because one guy (who lost in Iowa) said something crass.



You are trying to make the calls to limit access about the religion, as if there is no reason someone might take a moment to consider the issue "Must be RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE!!" Your premise precludes any other reasoning, while at the same time placing anyone who disagrees with you to first have to counter your false positioning of the issue as being about intolerance. It's a very dishonest discussion tactic.

I really don't understand what you mean here. Taking a moment to consider what issue. There is, without question religious intolerance of Muslims in this country. Obama addressed that and some self identified conservatives attempted to make the intolerance Obama's fault for mentioning it. What other reasoning should I consider, Obama mentioning it caused it?

 

[Renae]

Trump was and probably still is the front runner for the Republican nomination. Not exactly some guy with minimal influence.

I really don't understand what you mean here. Taking a moment to consider what issue. There is, without question religious intolerance of Muslims in this country. Obama addressed that and some self identified conservatives attempted to make the intolerance Obama's fault for mentioning it. What other reasoning should I consider, Obama mentioning it caused it?

The irony here of your intolerance of the Right, as you attempt to smear the Right because of something Donald Trump said. As if your own intolerance is somehow acceptably principled.

Obama is a king of strawman discourse. That was his position. That Donald Trump pointed out Obama's bs is merely amusing. The Chump called out the Strawman Killer.

Mak, you're double, and triping down on partisan hackery. You have exhibited deplorable debate skills and your position is "It's okay to insult right wingers, because they are bad people, look at Donald Trump!"

 

[mak2]

What point did I make you disagree with? Donald Trump pretty much is the right.

The irony here of your intolerance of the Right, as you attempt to smear the Right because of something Donald Trump said. As if your own intolerance is somehow acceptably principled.

Obama is a king of strawman discourse. That was his position. That Donald Trump pointed out Obama's bs is merely amusing. The Chump called out the Strawman Killer.

Mak, you're double, and triping down on partisan hackery. You have exhibited deplorable debate skills and your position is "It's okay to insult right wingers, because they are bad people, look at Donald Trump!"

 

[mak2]

I said nothing personal to either of you.

 

[CycloneWanderer]

Does anyone else find it strange and a bit nonsensical that Obama goes to a Mosque to speak to Christians?

Could make for some funny analogies (e.g., Obama going to a Mosque to talk to Christians is like trying to sell chicken fingers at a Vegan Festival).

 

[Renae]

What point did I make you disagree with? Donald Trump pretty much is the right.

Donald Trump was a democrat not 10 years ago, and if he thought he had a better chance running as a democrat today he would have. He's not the Right, he's barely a conservative, he's more "Has some conservatish views". This entire line of yours about "Donald Trump pretty much is the Right" is exhibit A, of your partisan hackery.

 

[Zyphlin]

I just went back and reread the post where you agreed with me there is Muslim intolerance in this country. Now what other point did you disagree with me about?

Since you're seemingly having such a hard time understanding this, and since you just *happen* to again completely miss the second key issue I was having with your posts, let me try to walk you through it .

The first issue was your quoting and agreement with the following:

Yep. Obama is not the problem. The problem is the people who oppose Obama have no boundaries, social etiquette, or concept of truth and reality. To them, Obama is a Kenyan Marxist, Muslim Fascist and racist who hates America. Nothing will change that perception.

Oh, and only the people who voted against him are "Real Americans."

I think this is why Trump and political incorrectness (aka sophomoric crudity) is so poplar with them. It isn't a perception, it kinda self mind washing. If they repeat it to themselves often enough they believe it. Comeon man, does anyone really believe there is no intolerance of Muslims in this country...no one really believes that. Look at this thread, it's obvious.

An ignorant, hyperbolic, and ridiculous broadscale insult towards all those that dislike Obama, accusing them of lacking social etiquette and inherently equating Obama is a Kenyan and a Muslim and so on. The same style of unnuanced condemnation and attack that the left so typically utilizes to "prove" the "Right Wings" supposed "intolerance" towards "muslims".

Yet as you've spent all thread CLEARLY implying that a broad portion of the Republican voting base must think this way in your not-so-sly sly way, what did you do with Calamity's post?

Not correct, criticize, or nuance it at all...but actually indicated it was absolutely true and declared it the reason why Trump is so popular.

At best you seem to give him the benefit of the doubt and must just assume that despite him making zero effort to utilize nuance and indicate that his ignorant condemnation is not an across the board one, or even a majority one. Yet, not surprising as a symptom of hyper partisanship if having standards that shift based on ideology, when it comes to Republicans, you assume no such nuance and seem to act as if any unnuanced condemnation or intolerance (and even in some cases, ACTUAL NUANCED instances) are absolutely meant as broadly targeted barbs.

Its your blatant and partisan double standard in the basis of your argument against Republicans while utilizing the very same logic as a means of issuing out your attacks.

Now the second issue, which you oh so keep conveniently ignoring and not really responding to, is that of your fallacies with this post:

I believe if they break no laws they can preach any form of religion they want to. Funny how conservative Republicans are all for freedom of religion...well except for ones that aint like them. Constitutionalists:lamo.

The bold one is a strawman as it relates to the discussion of this thread, which is concerning societal tolerance and acceptance.

The underlined one is simply a red herring at best, or a just abject misunderstanding of Constitutionally protected rights by you, either or. Having a societal intolerance or lack of acceptance towards a religion is not an issue of "freedom of religion" as it relates to the constitution. And again, the focus of the speech here was regarding society, not legislation. On top of that, you again engage in and apparently want the benefit of the doubt you seemingly don't want to give right wingers, which is to lob a broadscale insult without nuance and expect people to just assume you're not talking about everyone but just a narrow assumed group.

The red is a perfect example of what I was speaking about earlier in terms of the stylistic differences in hyper partisanship and how "lack of decorum" isn't some kind of requirement. The sudden change in tonal presentation with the "ain't like them[/b]" is nothing but a clear cut attempt at condescension and derision, depicting them as uneducated or poor speaking "yokels", and is the type of elitist, "above the frey while actually mucking around in it', stylistic tendency that is a hallmark of left wing hyper partisanship. Especially on the back of my previous point, where your presentation is speaking about "conservative Republicans" in a broad sense.

Hopefully that clears it up for you.

 

[Renae]

I said nothing personal to either of you.

No, you merely insulted the entirety of Conservatism, but it wasn't us as individuals. Alll ****ing left wing commie pinko bastards are stupid heads! See, I didn't insult YOU personally.. but it would have been equally as asinine.

 

[mak2]

He is one of the two top runners for the nomination of the Republican party. It is not partisan hackery to point out that might have something to do with the group view of Republican voters. I don't see how you can say me pointing that out is partisan hackery.

Donald Trump was a democrat not 10 years ago, and if he thought he had a better chance running as a democrat today he would have. He's not the Right, he's barely a conservative, he's more "Has some conservatish views". This entire line of yours about "Donald Trump pretty much is the Right" is exhibit A, of your partisan hackery.

 

[mak2]

It is perfectly acceptable on political fourms to address views of political groups.

No, you merely insulted the entirety of Conservatism, but it wasn't us as individuals. Alll ****ing left wing commie pinko bastards are stupid heads! See, I didn't insult YOU personally.. but it would have been equally as asinine.

 

[Renae]

He is one of the two top runners for the nomination of the Republican party. It is not partisan hackery to point out that might have something to do with the group view of Republican voters. I don't see how you can say me pointing that out is partisan hackery.

That you cannot see that is a you problem . Also Trumps pulls support from a lot of not conservative base voters. He's a chump, not a champ.

 

[KLATTU]

I grew up around Muslims in Chicago and have a lot of Muslim friends. They're normal people with normal beliefs, two of my best friends in fact are Muslim and both stoners.

When raised in a western secular society like America, you're likely to pick up some if not most of the culture, even while retaining your beliefs. It's not right to unfairly demonize these people who have done nothing wrong just because of a small minority of bad apples.

That's the elephant in the room. Is it really a small minority? Not in my opinion . More than a small minority of Muslims hold some VERY disturbing views, including some very disturbing anti-semitic views.
I do feel for those here who don't buy into any of that.

How to draw the line between acceptance and calling the religion out for what it is, is a very sticky problem.

 

[Zyphlin]

His presidency. His ability to bring people together is what got him elected twice. I talking overall. Also nothign was missed, that would require me denying that there are people that are more divided because of him, I didn't, in fact i pointed that out. The reality and my point was calling him the most divisive president in history or our lifetime as a general statement, as some people do, is beyond silly. Mentioning it in the way some do is purely nonsensical and simply not true.

Here's the problem with this, and it's funny given your original post talked about "black/white".

Driving a further wedge between two already divided groups IS still being divisive. You don't get to just hand wave that away and say it doesn't exist. Nor do you get to broadly claim, as you did later, that he was in no way significantly divisive and rather the opposite in a broad sense.

He has done things that have united people, absolutely. But it's ridiculous to act like he has not done plenty of divisive things as well. The infamous "I won" line, his reaction to and statements regarding the Treyvon Martin case, amongst other instances definitely help increase the divide that existed.

Few people are wholey one thing or another. I also think making claims of any recent president as the [x]-iest President ever is ignorant from a historical perspective. There's been plenty of unifying and divisive things done by this President. None of which means he shouldn't speak about unity, but none of it means he's some authority that is standing tall above the frey either.

 

[Renae]

It is perfectly acceptable on political fourms to address views of political groups.

Yes, it is, too bad you're not addressing anything, just insulting everyone who happens to be conservative. That's... the most incredible comment I've ever read someone make with a straight face.

 

[Zyphlin]

He is one of the two top runners for the nomination of the Republican party. It is not partisan hackery to point out that might have something to do with the group view of Republican voters. I don't see how you can say me pointing that out is partisan hackery.

It's partisan hackery because it's taking something in an isolated vacuum, ignoring all other context and factors, and twisting it as a means of attacking the other side. It acts as if because Trump is the leader of an extremely large field (who doesn't even have close to a majority of support of the party) that means that Republicans in general agree with him on a specific issue). It ignores that some of Trumps support does not just make up Registered Republicans, but registered Democrats and independents as well. It ignores the fact that support for his view on a temporary halt to foreign muslim entrance into the country could be more motivated around a generalized fear of terrorism as opposed to actual bigotry towards religion. And finally it ignores that it's quite possible to support a candidate while not supporting all of his views.

Despite that, the singular fact that Trump is a "front runner" and has stated things viewed as intolerant towards muslim, you ignore all context and act as if that is somehow justification for your broad condemnation and representation of Republicans.

That's why.

 

[Captain America]

All anyone has to do is go to my FaceBook page and read all the posts about Islam/Muslims, or click on the propaganda that my right-wing, GOP voting, acquaintances, friends and family post, to get a pretty good idea of what's going on.

I understand you mak2. Don't let the spin doctors and word twisters divert you from your message. True, your earlier point may not hold true to ALL the right leaning, GOP voting citizens.

But by all appearances, (given that so, so many of them tend to gather around those who preach intolerance,) when speaking in generalized terms, you are dead nuts on point.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

Some cons came to this thread and flat out said there is no problems in this country concerning tolerance(or intolerance) of Islam. They got called out on that. But instead of addressing the cons who said there isn't a intolerance problem in the US, this thread has now turned to attacking the people who rightfully called out the cons for their wrong and partisan statements saying there is no intolerance towards Islam in the US. .

Deflection 101.

 

[Zyphlin]

All anyone has to do is go to my FaceBook page and read all the posts about Islam/Muslims, or click on the propaganda that my right-wing, GOP voting, acquaintances, friends and family post, to get a pretty good idea of what's going on.

All one has to do is go on someone's facebook and read all the posts on just about ANY group.

I'm still relatively young so have a good bit of the late 20's early 30's people I went to college with.

Slings and arrows towards Christians and those of faith in general, non-stop propaganda from various liberal meme generator sites, etc. And it's not limited to politics, but typically any "tribal" style thing.....being in DC, I see plenty of hateful, mocking, ridiculing things about the Cowboys, Eagles, and Giants all the time.

If one takes their facebook page as some kind of accurate representation of the mentality of the majority of people in America then I can see why they'd have such a slanted view of things, but they'd be crazy to actually judge it based on that and would highlight their massive lack of understanding of how the social media space is not an accurate representation of the population at large.

But I do love your supporting of mak and your bestowing on him the benefit of the doubt that he's not REALLY saying his insults are about all conservatives, while ignoring that the basis for his insults is him not extending that same courtesy to many of those he's speaking about.

 

[mak2]

Whatever he is, he is still one of the front runners from your party. What is it I cant see?

That you cannot see that is a you problem . Also Trumps pulls support from a lot of not conservative base voters. He's a chump, not a champ.