• SeanRenaud said on Jul 19, 2009....

  Iran and recent rioting over a rigged election would beg to differ.  Hell an assassinated (under Bush's watch no less) Pakistani leader would also tell you to eat a dick.

• stopmediabias said on Jul 20, 2009....

  I wish I could argue with you but I don't know what you are talking about.
   
  My point here highlights my other point in the other post, that it is absurd to claim the President's speeches have put terrorist's on the defensive.  This is highlighted by the fact that the vast majority of people in Iran didn't hear the speeches and this recent attack also highlights this.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 20, 2009....

  Only if you cherry pick your facts can you come to this (or really ANY conclusion) over Obama's actions particularly as it goes overseas.  For a week (and it's still going on just quieter) Iran was completely up in arms over their election.  Over a guy who at least seemed more pro-America than the current pres.  (Granted pro-american to them means instead of raping us, then killing us they'll be kind and kill us THEN rape us but baby steps.)
   
  When they like us more overseas which is already happening as we can see from the rockstar like receptions Obama gets everywhere he goes terrorists will find their hiding places drying up.

• kevinunknown said on Jul 21, 2009....

  Obama has put terrorists on the defensive for a number of reasons. First of all by opening up the opportunity for negotiation with the Islamic world he is seen to be sympathetic with the Islamic people and at the same time this could encourage some terrorist organisations to lay down arms for negotiations in the long term. Also Obama’s willingness to talk to the Muslim world could also discourage some would be terrorist individuals form taking up arms.

  Obama’s middle name “Hussein” coupled with his Muslim heritage and his race is something that Muslim people can relate to and there for he can talk to them in a way no other American leader has ever been able to. So maybe when he talks some of them listen

  With regards to Obama’s foreign policy his criticism of Israel and his policy of reducing combat operations in Iraq with a view to have the troops out is a big step in reducing the threat of terrorism to the USA. The invasion of Iraq in 2003 and Bush’s support of Israel was a major motivator for terrorism. I would say however that Obama could be more critical of Israel.

  Some Terrorists are “hardcore” and will never listen to negotiation and some people can’t be negotiated with however Obama’s presence on the international stage could be a path way towards reducing the number of active terrorists in the world. Obama is probably the best person for the job, as it stands he has a much better chance of getting through to these people than Bush could ever have.

  I don’t really see though how any of this is relevant to the Jakarta attacks do you thing president Obama could have stopped them? The Jakarta attacks were a domestic issue carried out by a domestic terrorist group with lose links to Al-Qaeda so i don’t see how it has anything to do with Obama.

• stopmediabias said on Jul 21, 2009....

  You guys are making me laugh.  Our President is cutting defense programs, apologizing, grossly misrepresenting past events, and when he speaks most of these Muslim countries populations don't even know it.  Then another terrorist attack.  And you guys think his Carteresque bleeding heart speeches is putting them on defense?  Why can't you just say it is a poor choice of words.   

  And this stupid notion George Bush created more terrorism is profoundly false and if it was even remotely true how do measure that?  Doesn't taking terrorists out of the public and putting them in a dark cell reduce terrorism?  How many young  maybe future terrorists did the spector of Gitmo in the news stop?

  Support for Israel?  You make it sound as if that is a bad thing.  Haven't all Presidents supported Israel because they are the good guys over there and they are allies? 

• javadewd said on Jul 21, 2009....

  Eat a dick... That's funny stuff... So exactly what part of Obama's speech roused the Iranians to riot over a rigged election? Do tell oh great cherry picker of facts! Last I heard, Obama wouldn't even show those guys any sort of support. In fact, he wouldn't acknowledge them at all... Then the Iranian media "mis-quoted him," to which he really got huffy... Oh, no, wait, he simply stopped addressing Iran's media at all... Sounds like Bush's policy at that point!
  
  While you're at it, explain to Kev about domestic terrorism and how his part of the world is being carved out from the inside by the likes of Al-Qaeda and Muslim immigrants who are taking over countries by overloading refugee populations. Yet, with all of these "great speeches" from Obama in Cairo and the like, shouldn't these unwanted guests be just disarming themselves and kissing this great rock star's feet?
  
  I hardly believe that Obama's "velvet touch" has squashed the radical masses...
  

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 21, 2009....

  I don't believe it yet either.  But it's equally likely as your stance that because of him Osama has gain super powers.  Or rather that the current bombing had anything to do with anything.

• kevinunknown said on Jul 22, 2009....

  SMB- there you go again just jumping in without any research. Recently it’s been announced that an extra 22000 US troops are being sent into Afghanistan so that doesn’t sound to me like defence cuts. Guantanamo didn’t put any terrorists off if anything it encouraged them, it reinforced there view of America being the “Grate Satin”.  If you want to prevent terrorism then support of Israel is a bad thing end off and might i remind you they have not always been such a grate ally during the 6 day war they attacked a American navy ship.

  Java- i am not suggesting that Obama is going to totally remove the terrorist threat because no one can ever do that, what i am trying to say is that he has a good change of reducing the threat. He’s not the only one trying this Brittan is trying out this new approach as well and for us it seems to be working.

  I still don’t see what the Jakarta bombing had to do with Obama though?  

• javadewd said on Jul 22, 2009....

  @SR - Neither assertion I made, oh great twister of the facts...
  
  @Kev - I hope you're right. I guess if we get attacked again [soon] then that will pretty much show how effective or more to the point ineffective words really are...
  

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 22, 2009....

    So it seems some homicide bombers have detonated yet another coordinated set of bombs in Jakarta Indonesia.  This was a murder of 8 people and a wounding of 50 people.  I guess they didn't get the memo that President Obama was looking to talk to them.  Lets go back to John Kerry in the New York Times:
   
  Did so.

• javadewd said on Jul 22, 2009....

  Hey, how about that little Hizb ut-Tahrir conference in Chicago? These guys got the memo alright. They got the memo that Obama is either helping them to establish Muslim dominance over the US [a fundamental traitor] or just a big idiot. The only dialogue they want to start is the one where Obama shuts up (which to me seems like a great idea) and simply hands over the country to them. Oh, and Kev, they already banned these fuckers over in your neck of the woods and are about to do the same in other major parts of the world like Australia.
  

• kevinunknown said on Jul 22, 2009....

  Java- Hizb-ut-tahrir is a political party not a proscribed terrorist organisation (banned). They are just like any religious party wanting to impose their religious views on the world but it won’t ever happen. And i don’t recall Obama offering hand over America to Muslims.

• javadewd said on Jul 22, 2009....

  They are banned in Germany and many other countries like Lybia, Egypt, Iraq, etc. Also many members of this group are already banned in the UK. Also, HT hardly rates in the 'moderate' category like Ron Paul supporters here. They're extremists.
  
  Also, I guess it could be worse... They could be athiests!
  

• kevinunknown said on Jul 22, 2009....

  But they are not proscribed as a terrorist organisation in the USA or UK there for are free to operate in the USA and UK until they proscribed. Just because one country or a group of countries says one group is a terrorist organisation doesn’t mean that they are in another country this is for a verity of reasons. Anyway this has nothing really to do with the blog.

   

• stopmediabias said on Jul 22, 2009....

  Kev-You are naive to the point it is written all over your posts.

   

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 22, 2009....

  Wow. Just wow java.  It's kinda shocking SMB, you're one of the guys I expect better than this from.  The HuTs we are talking about are clearly radicals, and they are clealry conspiracy theory, America/Capitalist hating morons.  But they are also not terrorists, not enough for America to ban them which should be good enough for you. 

  Are we really going to hold up the standard that it's illegal in Germany, a nation in which thought and free speech can be crimes sure.  This is America, get used to it.  There is a reason why the FIRST amendment is free speech, the very first thing of the sacred laws that make America the greatest nation in the world is that ability.

  These guys are scum, anybody who doesn't condemn 9/11 is scum. 

• stopmediabias said on Jul 23, 2009....

  These guys have got nothing on the modern liberal party. 

• kevinunknown said on Jul 23, 2009....

  SMB- how can you possibly call me naive you are the one who is naive you probably knew nothing about the group responsible for this attack before a few days ago. You just ignore what people say if it contradicts you’re deluded views of the world you don’t even bother trying to debate it at least Java had something remotely constructive to say.  In everything you have said over the past few months’ you have targeted your president face it Obama won! don’t spent the next 7 and a half years moaning about.

  SR- again I concur with you these guys are sum for not condemning 9/11 but that is free speech for you; just because they don’t agree with us doesn’t make the terrorists

• javadewd said on Jul 23, 2009....

  @SR -- Why not? You fuckers want to ban Pastors in churches talking down Homos as "hate speech" like they do in Canada. Actually, you fruit, nut and flake fuckers out in CA want to ban anybody with an opinion as "hate speech." Don't hide so quick behind the flag you're setting ablaze you hypocrite!
  
  They got the memo that Obama is either helping them to establish Muslim dominance over the US [a fundamental traitor] or just a big idiot.
  
  Considering that --
  
  The fact that the conference was called “The Fall of Capitalism & Rise of Islam:”
  
  The fact that Obama has been apologizing (or as it has been said "opening up") to every country in the world, hostile or not.
  
  The fact that the post in question is titled "President Obama, The Terrorists Didn't Get The Message"
  
  The fact that the messages in the post were highlighting how Obama's plan of singing Kumbaya and lying out his ass about history has not changed the plans of terrorists one iota.
  
  The fact that a Muslim has the obligation to lie to all non-Muslims and therefore is not truthful AT ALL to the American Infidels along with the fact that even if Obama converted to Christianity at some point HE IS STILL CONSIDERED A MUSLIM OR WORSE BY THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY.
  
  His little dance in Cairo, if seen even as appeasement, was riddled with historical inaccuracies that either a 'politician' of usual corrupt stature or someone versed in what would make Muslims swoon. It was no more truthful than the waste of time he performed last night over health care. Yet, people consider this speech 'remarkable.'
  
  In true SeanRenaud form :
  
  
  Why don't you just say that you're a bed-wetting left-leaning anti-Christian nose-picking pickle puffer that eats paint chips and sleeps with donkeys?
  
  
  It's amazing how much Kev seems to know about the history of terrorism. I'm still amazed though at the whole concept. In a parallel example of historical life-cycles, homosexuality yields no off-spring. On any given generation, only 2% of it at the very maximum considers themselves homosexual. Therefore, for every generation, shouldn't this type of self-defeating philosophy make itself extinct? How is it that it seems like EVERY generation still has this tightly wobbling 2% factor? They don't breed! Are they recruiting or something? Is it a learned behavior? Is it some strange anomaly? Is it truly a genetic defect!? What I'm saying here as far as it related to terrorism and Muslims, if these "fringe" groups are of the "extreme" ultra-right wing Islam, then are the terrorists breeding, recruiting or is this just an anomaly that needs to be exterminated by a roach motel?? What exactly gives a terrorist the right to live over a non-terrorist that a terrorist will gladly kill???
  
  Oh, and I care not to post anything to your blog, SR, so I'll let Kev's rant die in peace.
  

• stopmediabias said on Jul 23, 2009....

  Kev-This is what I said:

  "Our President is cutting defense programs, apologizing, grossly misrepresenting past events, and when he speaks most of these Muslim countries populations don't even know it.  Then another terrorist attack.  And you guys think his Carteresque bleeding heart speeches is putting them on defense?  Why can't you just say it is a poor choice of words."  

  This is what you said in response:

  "SMB- there you go again just jumping in without any research. Recently it’s been announced that an extra 22000 US troops are being sent into Afghanistan so that doesn’t sound to me like defence cuts. Guantanamo didn’t put any terrorists off if anything it encouraged them, it reinforced there view of America being the “Grate Satin”.  If you want to prevent terrorism then support of Israel is a bad thing end off and might i remind you they have not always been such a grate ally during the 6 day war they attacked a American navy ship."

  Defense cuts juxtaposed to added troops to a conflict, two different things.  You are either really naive or just stupid. 

  As far a Gitmo, it wasn't Gitmo is was the leftwing media's take on Gitmo which was based on a pack of lies.  And didn't this cockroaches have this view of America long before Bush or Gitmo?  Once again woefully naive or stupid, take your pick.

  Then my favorite, if you want to prevent terrorism then support for Israel is a bad thing?  This is moral relativist bullshit spoken by someone who appears to either be.....naive or stupid, take your pick. 

   

• kevinunknown said on Jul 23, 2009....

  Java—i sort of sympathise with your point of view its terrible that these groups say what they say but they are not a terrorist group but that’s freedom of speech for you. There for it’s not all that relevant for this blog but I think you should post one about it yourself. Also there is a big difference between “opening up” and apologising and he hasn’t offered to hand over America to Muslims. I do agree with you to some extent but i think you might have gone a bit too far. But thanks for letting me away with my rant!  

  SMB—you don’t have to remind me of what you have said and what I have said. With regards to defence cuts the President has announced a 2% raise in defence spending over the next fiscal year. You views on Guantanamo are just another example of you ignoring well documented facts and press reports. As for what you think about Israel shows you have very little understanding of the motivation and ideology of Islamic terrorism. Ideally America should move towards a neutral stance in the conflict. Can you please tell me how you think that full Support of Israel could possibly deter terrorist acts directly against the USA?

  Also I am neither naive nor stupid; I have spent the best part of 3 years studding terrorism and global espionage in my spear time. I have developed a very clear understanding of what is going on in these dark and murky worlds. It is you who is naive not me!

   

• javadewd said on Jul 23, 2009....

  @Kev -- I don't have anything against you, man, seriously. I read a few of your posts and became infatuated with your journalistic style. I won't dry-hump your leg or anything (Muslims call it "thighing" I think), but I hope you realize that political group or not, organizations like this are getting much more headway with a democratic-ran congress and president than under a republican-ran one. They're even getting semi-positive media coverage which to me is too scary!
  
  And not to directly defend SMB or anything, but it has always been the US policy to throw full support to Israel -- I don't want to try to get into specifics as to why, because then SR will call me a liar and work up another useless post -- so for this president to do so in the manner in which he is doing it at this time is more than a little unusual to the rest of us (congress, etc) and to leave Israel high and dry would be a very costly mistake.
  
  I'm also bummed over the dismissal of the F-22's. Those were American jobs that the president threatened enough to veto that Pelosi and company killed the bills. So much for saving jobs! That 2% next fiscal year is going towards what then exactly?

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 23, 2009....

  1.  I would like to see some proof that they are getting more headway now than they have in the past.  I suspect they are simply getting more coverage.  It also probably helps that the President is lessening support for various tactics against them.  I think it's a stretch to call that article you dredged up even semi-positive.  But I digress.  It would be scary for them to get positive press.  However allowing them to operate in the open will destroy them.

  America is without a doubt the greatest nation on earth.  Haters, particularly within our nation thrive because they are forced underground.  Once their debates are brought out into the open and are debated they get torn to shreds.

  2.  The US has thrown full support behind Isreal.  It hasn't worked out.  The fucking region hasn't been truly at peace once in the last seventy years.  This plan of blind support for Isreal  didn't work, not for anybody.  So it's past time to try something new. 

  The Isrealies by the large have been incredibly giving to the babarians around them.  If I were in charge of that country I would have turned off the power (there are no power plants currently in "Palestine" I would have also cut off all trade and starved them to death/exile to nations that wanted them.  They've chosen instead to let the barbarians lob missiles at them. 

  To leave Isreal high and dry would be a fatal mistake.  Not simply costly but fatal.  The US has to support her allies.  There have to be lines of course.  But really if Isreal is forced into a war there is one option and one option only.  We step in, step in hard and then figure out what happened later.

  3.  I'm more pissed at the F22 dismissal as well.  Even though it was a logical cut to make.

  Also I only call you a liar when you, you know lie. 

• javadewd said on Jul 23, 2009....

  I'm confused, but I always seem to be when you reply in a post that is not your own, SR. Since my point of these jack-holes getting more headway = "[media] coverage" and "the President is lessening support for various tactics against them," then I guess I should be so grateful and understanding that you're even remotely seeing my point.
  
  I disagree with you in that haters gain more momentum when they come out into the light and nobody drives them underground. It's like when a commercial building gets spray-painted. Around here, it's usually cleaned up and repaired by 9am the next morning, thereby making the vandals' efforts useless. The vandalism ceases quick. In contrast if a building were to stay vandalized all day, the vandals would think that their efforts paid off and continue to vandalize the neighborhood.
  
  I don't mind the idea of trying something new with Israel (even though the idea of not supporting Israel plays on some personal beliefs), but for the president to be the "lone gun" on whether the US backs Israel or not is a bad policy (he should have had at least a few backers in congress ready to address this direction first) and to leave a country high and dry with no support after 70 years doesn't exactly say anything good to any other extended allies we have had. As much as I admire your thoughts on diplomacy ("step in hard and figure out what happened later" Amen!) I feel that the cold shoulder that Obama is giving them could translate into yet another "hey, fuck it we can defend ourselves without the US" situation and round and round we go again...
  
  I should be happy that the F22 plan didn't make it so that there was a chance that our area would get the FA18 contracts, but that doesn't appear to be happening either, so I'm pissed all the way around at the fucking fuckers!
  
  I think you hit that "liar" button a little too much, but perhaps I simply don't make myself clear enough to you...?
  

• kevinunknown said on Jul 24, 2009....

  Java—I really do understand what you’re saying about hizb-tu-tahrir they are all nuts, I don’t agree with them at all but the point of this blog is Terrorists and they are not a Terrorist organisation in America that is why I don’t see it as being relevant to this blog. And I have no idea of where that extra 2% is going, I was also a bit pissed at the cuts to the F22 but only because it’s such a cool plain (really am not 12)

  As for Israel I am not talking about America turning its back on Israel and supporting the other side. I know that Israel is an important ally to America for reasons such as trade and also because it makes strategic sense to have such a strong ally in the Middle East. However I am talking in the realms of reducing the terrorist threat to America. Islamic extremists hate Israel for reasons you all no doubt are aware of and America’s support of Israel only intensifies there hatred towards America, in the same way as invading Iraq did and having a large military presence in Saudi Arabia did. Even though all of these acts made sense to you and me, (regardless of differing options on why we went to war) to an Islamic fundamentalist these acts caused great hatred towards America and the west in general.

  Also its worth pointing out that lot’s of military hardware used by Israel comes from America in other words America is supping the weapons the IDF are using to kill Muslims so that is obviously going to further increase their hatred towards America.

• javadewd said on Jul 24, 2009....

  Ah, perhaps Muslim Chihuahuas, Islamic extremists, but not terrorists. I guess I never realized there was a distinction on peddling the overthrowing of a country and the genocide of its citizens and being "non-terroristic." My bad... Nobody considers all of these illegal aliens from Mexico as a threat, but everybody wants to legalize them as citizens to get their vote. What happens when we have the first Mexican-American president? Will he turn our country into a wasteland like south of the Rio Grande??
  
  My thoughts on why the Middle East hates Israel is because Muslims consider Jews Infidels and to a Muslim the only good infidel is a dead infidel... That goes for the rest of us here in America that won't bow to their sword. So what's the difference? If Israel falls, the rest of the world either had better go to the extreme of wiping out all Muslims or they will die from non-action. I personally don't think there is a real "trigger" to Islamic fundamentalists hating us. By default they hate us, so occupying a neighboring country or having a base or two in a "neutral" (ha ha) country just gives them yet another reason to want to kill us, not serve as the basis.
  
  Russia provided Afghanistan and Pakistan with military hardware for the past 30 years or so didn't they? So what, they hate the Russians, too? Do these guys like anybody? Even the Australians!? No. They hate. They're haters... If they wiped out every infidel on the planet, they'd kill each other over their splinter groups! The Sunnis and Shi'ites pretty well proved that in Iraq. I think the US should find the baddest-assed mofos of the bunch, give them a bunch of weapons to wipe out their not-as-lethal splinter groups and then we'll just nuke them!
  

• kevinunknown said on Jul 24, 2009....

  Java I really do sympathise with you that people can say this stuff and not be regarded as a terrorist organisation but as I have said, that’s free speech for you.

  Your views on Muslims though I find most troubling. “To a Muslim the only good infidel is a dead infidel...” you have just basically said that all Muslims want to kill anyone who doesn’t belief in their faith. That’s totally untrue it’s a very small minority of Muslims that seek to use violent means to preach their views. You also seem to be getting the impression I think America should just leave Israel to it; well I don’t what I do think however is that America should have a neutral stance if they want to reduce the risk of Islamic terrorism on their own soil.

  Russia have not provided Afghanistan with weapons they spent all of the 1980’s fighting  with them and during that time America and Brittan provided Afghanistan rebels (they guys who are now the terrorists, how ironic) with weapons, training and finance. Most of their weapons have come from Pakistan.

   Russia has provided some arms to Pakistan but most of their weapons come from China as well as their own Weapons manufactures. Since 2001 America has safe guarded Pakistanis Nuclear deterrent at the cost of $100 million to the tax payer as well as providing military support for their combat operations ageist extremists in Pakistan. If you want to know why Islamic extremists hate Russia so much just look into human rights abuses by Russian soldiers in Chechnya.

• javadewd said on Jul 24, 2009....

  Kev, I don't think that you personally think America should just leave Israel to it, I'm saying that Obama's stance says just that. What I'm saying is that regardless of America's strength behind their support for Israel (mild, hot, lava over-whelming) it doesn't change the basis for Islamic Extremists to hate us. They'll hate us anyway, but by pulling support for Israel the terrorists think we're begging them to bomb them...
  
  The weaker Muslims in the case of a Muslim world domination scenario would be destroyed or made slaves by the terrorists, which is why I don't understand why more Muslims don't allow us to shut them up or shut them down.
  
  Yeah, I dated a gal in Canada who was from Russia who hated Russians over the whole Chechnya deal. Never would understand that. You'd think she'd hate terrorists, not be one! Oh, well. Glad I got out of that!
  

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 24, 2009....

  To be fair Muslims have been stepping up their game of policing and criticising their own over the last few years.  And yes Islam is basically evil at this point but it's learning

• kevinunknown said on Jul 25, 2009....

  Java & SR- I find you views on Islam most concerning. Islam is not evil but there are people who have interpreted the Qur’an in their own way and what they have extracted is truly evil. The problem people in the west have is that they hear words like “jihad, Martyr, Infidel” to name a few and have little understanding of what these words mean. Some people for example believe that “Jihad” means war and that all Muslims are out to kill all “Infidels” this is totally untrue.

  Modern day radical Islam comes mostly from the teachings of sayyid Qutb in a form of radical Islamic activism called “Qutibism”  this guy had a massive influence on Bin Laden and his teachings have been used as a ideological template for many other Islamic extremists the world over however these extremists are in the minority.

  Just because the Muslim down the road form you is going to a mosque every day doesn’t make him a terrorist. This “Islamaphobia” is one of the views that provokes the Muslim community’s into isolation. If they see that their fellow citizens think they are evil and they are the subject of persecution and discrimination then it is more difficult for the security services to communicate with Muslim communities (this is a must in counter-terrorism), there for combating the threat becomes more difficult. It creates a “they won’t help us why should we help them” mentality within the community and it becomes counterproductive for the security services. There is also the possibility that Islamaphobia could be used to radicalise more and more young Muslim men into extreme radical views of Islam, something we have seen hear in Brittan.  

• javadewd said on Jul 25, 2009....

  Kev, if all Muslims were like the guy on Pitch Black there wouldn't be an issue, but then again if that was the case Europe wouldn't be ate up with Islamic-based problems there. When a group of people basically "move in" to your country and over a few years take over every aspect of it, including the politics, and make it so uncomfortable for the original people who were not only there first but had peaceful traditions there, then that is just as bad as the Nazi tanks rolling down the main street of the capital and nobody raising a finger... Like the French... We here in the US see this as a possibility with the Mexicans. An invasion is an invasion, whether you use weapons and heavy artillery does not an invasion make (using a little SR speak there). They can roll out the baby-makers and infiltrate the lower classes in order to gain sympathy for their cause.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 25, 2009....

  Kevin.  You find my views most concerning because you give far too much benefit of a doubt.  Islam is by the large a good religion it's between 1 and 10% that are the dangerous radicals by all accounts.  The problem lies though in the fact that the otner 90%, the vast majority are silent there is a problem. If there were (and I try to look for those stories and post them when I find them) Muslims coming out and condemning acts like the death threats on cartoonist in (05?) or coming out and remembering that supposedly Jews and Christians are supposed to be respected as fellow followers of the Book and by extension Isreal should be allowed to exist.  (particularly in a world that has Hindus left)  Until that day comes Islam is tolerant of evil and this evil itself. 

  I don't care if they build a mosque down the street.  I happen to think that Americanism is stronger than Islam and will infect the ones who stay here long enough.  And you know what, if you want to beat your womena nd force them into submission. . .well one step at a time, no blowing up buildings.  We'll work on the other stuff later.

  I'm also with Java on the Illegal immigrant thing.  Personally I think we should just repeal the 14th Amendment.  Hell I don't understand why that was an Amendment instead of a one time Declaration which would have served the same purpose without the problems we have now.

• javadewd said on Jul 25, 2009....

  I'm confused, SR, so some clarification would be nice :
  
  How does the 14th Amendment protect immigrants or worse illegal immigrants or squatters or refugees like the Muslims in Europe? All it was suppose to do is broaden the definition of an American citizen. Short of immigrants who actually go through the INS, how does this apply to the rest of the groups mentioned? Is that what these libs are saying we have to follow for the Gitmo prisoners, too? Last I heard, none of these folks were citizens...
  

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 25, 2009....

  The 14th has no effect on Europe obviously.

  The 14th Amendment which I am only quoting the first line of reads as follows: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

  This was clearly meant based on the time of its passage to be a naturalization of the African Americans.  Had this been done via declaration it would have done the same thing without the side effects you mentioned.

  Javadewd said:

  We here in the US see this as a possibility with the Mexicans. An invasion is an invasion, whether you use weapons and heavy artillery does not an invasion make (using a little SR speak there). They can roll out the baby-makers and infiltrate the lower classes in order to gain sympathy for their cause.

  This phenomon is known (atleast in Cali) as anchor babies.  Since bleeding heart liberals refuse to separate parents from children and you can't deport American citizens all a woman needs to do gain de facto citizenship is give birth on this side of the border.  Voila her child is American and she gets to stay until the child is eighteen by which point it's likely that amnesty will pass anyway and if not it's a bitch to find her and other various things. 

  The fourteenth amendment was clearly not meant to let anchor babies launch an invasion of the states as you put it.  There is no doubt that they cause more problem than they solve. 

• javadewd said on Jul 25, 2009....

  That makes sense, but what about those illegals who are here without such a stipulation (anchor babies). Also, the problem in Europe doesn't have that stipulation (as you said I never inferred the 14th Amendment has no effect on Europe). So then you'd want the 14th Amendment repealed to detach anchor babies? Wouldn't it make more sense to have something a bit stiffer in place first?
  

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 25, 2009....

  Repealing the 14th wouldn't detatch the current anchor babies.  They would be grandfathered in.  It would prevent new ones from being created however and would make it easier to deport them.

  Personally I would do raids on companies every few months and impose strict fines and putting the owners in jail. Something like six months per employee.  I would hammer down so fucking hard on employers that the risk of being caught employing illegal immigrants would be so far away from the savings of paying them under the table that they would be forced to hire Americans.  Dry up the work and start taking away other benefits (school and medicine being cheif amongst them) and the problem will solve itself.  We won't have to deport them, they'll leave.

  Sadly Bush didn't push THAT through in his final months when he probably could have.  Illegal immigrants are kinda like phantom charges on your credit card.  When you're broke and about to lose your house suddenly it's important where that thirty bucks is going.  When you're completely debt free you simply don't care.  We would have cared last year (and this year) but we both know given a choice between tightening laws on immigration and Amnesty that Obama is amnesty.  And I'm completely against it but it was one of those problems one had to take (and to be fair McCain wasn't exactly a hardliner, infact his NAME was on the last amnesty bill.  So of the three candidates he was debatably the worst.

• javadewd said on Jul 25, 2009....

  I thought California finally started drying up those bennies... Or was that just the reaction from the loss of budget?
  
  Fascinating analogy. I don't think Obama cares enough to cater to illegals, though. He's pushing too hard with the bleeding-hearts now in congress for reparations, even though there are no slaves in this country and determining who is a descendant of a slave (compared to an immigrant after the fact or a free-man)  would be very difficult and take too much time to be considered 'fair' to those being considered for them. Perhaps if Obama figures that latinos will save him in 2012 over his efforts with ACORN perhaps he will push for Amnesty...
  

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 25, 2009....

  Obama has never once come out for reparations to the best of my knowledge.  I even yahooed it and I can't find anything beyond the fact that Reverend Wright supports such a plan.  Got anything solid?  I mean your link simply explains what reparations ARE as if I was some four year old who'd never heard the word.

  He'll push for Amnesty.  Sad part is he might get it particularly if he pushes now or if things are generally seen as improving by the end of 2010 allowing the Dems to maintain (or grow) their majority.  But like I said it's not like McCain and Hillary (and Bush) weren't pushing for it.  And the last Amnesty bill was a McCain bill (like his was one of two names on it officially) so whatcha gonna do?

• javadewd said on Jul 26, 2009....

  Okay, your density, here are a few dots for you :
  
  Stimulus Bill or Reparations Bill?
  
  Team Obama to MI ... Yet, after the "stimulus" bill passed, MI gets tons of cash... And bails out auto suppliers, and let's not forget the Government Motors bailout...
  
  Now then, it is Michigan US Congressman John Conyers who came up with HR 40, the Slavery Reparations Bill (or more specifically the establishment of the study of such). He has also swooped in to appear to defend Obama on different political aspects and even opposed Obama on his conservative views. When he started seriously going after ACORN, there have been several appeasements for his bills, one of which is the follow-up to HR 40 and much of the press over his wife has been pooh-poohed to shut down his asperations of bringing down the most highly sought-after liberal tool of the democratic party. What the media doesn't say is that reparations would be a win-win for a "black" president to throw support behind, and given that Obama is a political opportunist bent on pumping up his legacy, he'll push reparations and make 'minorities' (i.e. blacks) his iron fist in 2012, not illegal immigrants. He doesn't even have latinos on his radar screen...
  
  I'd be pleased to hear your argument that he'd rather go Amnesty than reparations, though, but for now I'll just agree to disagree.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 26, 2009....

  So your basic argument if I'm reading your garbled links properly is that the stimulus bill is actually disguised reparations?  If that is your argument then fine OBama supported Reparations and would rather that to amnesty because he's already done it.

  If not Reparations is impossible and any idiot knows that.  Amnesty however seems to happen regularly.  It's funny that Republicans are against it or at the very least don't say Reagan made a mistake when he passed it.  I guess the second coming doesn't make mistakes.

• javadewd said on Jul 26, 2009....

  I don't have any problems with Reagan and his Amnesty program, I just hope that they do it with some sort of strings attached (like the idea of drug tests for welfare checks) or on a sliding scale next time around. My theory is "first time shame on you, second time shame on me." Your pointing out of the anchor babies issue certainly sites an unnecessary loophole that needs a cork put in it.
  

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 26, 2009....

  The only reason I support amnesty in any form is because I recognize the impossibility of tracking down between 7 and 21 million people.  Hell Hitler only managed to round up 11 million.  So that said I see no point in even trying.  That said my conditions for supporting amnesty is as follows.

  1.  Fourteenth Amendment (aka anchor babies) is repealed.

  2.  Employers are punished, severely for hiring illegals

  3.  Border security is stepped up to include a fence and or more patrols (personally I know how much of our military is doing nothing.  I would personally have the bases of South California, Arizona, Texas and Luisiana split into three month sections and patrol as augments of the Border Patrol.

• javadewd said on Jul 26, 2009....

  When it comes to the long ass wall, I like this idea... "Swim this, bitch!"
  
  In the meantime, we should be punishing employers regardless of how such an initiative turns out...
  
  Still fuzzy on how you would argue to get the 14th Amendment repealed...
  
  Even more fuzzy on your argument that he'd rather go Amnesty than reparations, too.

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 26, 2009....

  We should be punishing employers regardless, but if we were on a regular basis I'd be wiling to consider making them legal.

  Repealing the 14th has two prongs I would majorly argue.  The first is that it should never have been an amendment, it should have been a declaration.  It was designed with a single purpose in mind.  To legalize the slaves that were freed following the Civil War.  Unless you can find me a single, just one, African American alive who was born a slave the 14th Amendment has NO positive effects on anything.  There are other amendments that are more or less dead (without looking it up I think the 5th Amendment is the one preventing Soldiers from forcing civillians to feed and quarter them which is laughable in this country at this time)  It's not harmless.  This is allowing thousands if not millions of immigrants to gain defacto citizenship simply by being in the country when they give birth.  I think anchor babies stand for themselves.

  As far as reparations goes even reading through your stuff there is only second hand information that he would support reparations.  Even if we go with the racist idea that he's black and ergo pro-reparations we are still faced with the fact that in the real world repations is NEVER going to happen so who cares if he wants it.  It's just like I would have voted for Ron Paul and he wants to eliminate borders all together and return America to the Gold Standard, but all the rest of his ideas are great and his two crazy ideas are so crazy they can't pass anyway so who gives a shit?

• javadewd said on Jul 26, 2009....

  So you're just basing it on the idea that Amnesty is simply less far-fetched than reparations? It's thin, but if that's what you're saying, okay...

• SeanRenaud said on Jul 26, 2009....

  Yeah Amnesty is so much less far fetched that it already happened in the eighties under Reagan.  It was tried last year by congress and made it past the house only to die in the Senate.  Can you tell me when the last time was that Reparations was even seriously discussed on the national level?

• javadewd said on Jul 26, 2009....

  Well, I already sited that HR 40 caught fire in December of last year, passed two days before Obama took office in January and the commission hasn't blown their $8M budget yet, but in the process not only did congress apologize yet again for the "historic mistreatment of blacks," but the scariest bit is this one, because it's so likely. At a time when the president could easily be a national hero to minorities, why not drop another cool trillion? Who the heck is going to stop this guy? The blue-dogs? The RNC? Only if they want to be labeled "racists!" Can you say "bling?" Spooky!!

Comment on "President Obama, The Terrorists Didn't Get The Message"

Currently tagged	politics terrorism thighing headway jobs military spending boeing Israel Jakarta John Kerry eat a dick journalism (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment