patrick.net

 
  forgot password?   register

#housing #investing #politics more»
757,022 comments in 77,874 posts by 11,065 registered users, 2 online now: Tenpoundbass, WorkInProgress

new post

President Obama STILL won't call it straight!

By Fucking White Male   2015 Dec 4, 9:22am   13,910 views   60 comments   watch (1)   quote      

He's an asshole. A lying disingenuous one. When he said it could possibly be workplace violence, he was lying. He certainly was told about the explosives found in the house and about the terrorist/ISIS connection. Yet he still had to lay it on thick and maintain that ideological crap.

Fuck him. Lying sack of shit. And anyone who continues to support him. We are clearly not safe. Radical Islamic terrorists are here. They are at war with us. We must be at war with them. If I'm in that situation I'm not going out like a lamb to slaughter. I expect our president to be strong and take care of the governments number one function...the protection of its people and their property. President Obama has abdicated that responsibility in the name of an unamerican ideology. Least he could say is that we are at war with Muslim terrorists. But no, he's a liar.

« First     « Previous     Comments 21-60 of 60     Last »

21   Rew   2015 Dec 4, 4:54pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

@Quigley, you can neutralize the potency by steeping the muslims in Pepsi products. Totally works!

lostand confused says

Europe is allowing what may amount to be millions of immigrants. Being against that is good. Let me ask you-I am assuming you have a nice house- if 10 people from the ghetto come rushing in and you refuse to let them in-are you anti blah, blah, blah?

Same thing if you have a concept of a country-then you decide who gets in or not-simple. Kumbayah globalism is what allowed the jihadis free movement across the globe.

Sometimes when people get too comfortable and too intellectual-they forget common sense.

Islamic terrorists found all sorts of ways to travel to other countries and perpetrate attacks, prior to having a large Syrian refugee issue. They will get to where they want to be one way or the other (and IS has means to do things without risky travel with refugees). I'm happy to have a screening process for Syrian refugees, and I'm sure the FBI and DHS can figure out the right thing to do there ... and will.

I could handle 1 or 2 mouths to feed at my door, and would accept them, given the right circumstances. I've got a spare room right now and can do it. Yep (sorry jsut actually mentally figuring out how I would do that ...)

10 is a bit much. Each country will be able to position itself best to accept whatever it can. Typically, immigrants commit lower amounts of crime and are typically more productive, once integrated, than other members of society. America is a powerhouse because of it. We rely directly on immigration to grow.

This is pretty heart warming ... oh man ... my faith in America slightly restored:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/latest-texas-pulls-back-effort-block-syrian-refugees-35583955

"5:10 p.m.

Amid a legal battle that has delayed the arrival of Syrian refugees in Texas, a suburban Houston church held a rally in support of its neighbor — a mosque — as well as local Muslims.

More than 50 members from the Bay Area Unitarian Universalist Church and others lined the road leading up to the Clear Lake Islamic Center as people went to Friday prayers.

The church and mosque are neighbors.

Church members held up signs that read "Love Thy Neighbor No Exceptions" and "We Support Our Muslim Neighbors."

Ibrahim Ezghair, associate imam at the Islamic center, called the rally a "really nice gesture."

The Rev. Peter Morales, president of the Unitarian Universalist Association, said "it's important to stand on the side of respect and love and tolerance.""

Ohhh, Unitarians ... yeah. I love them. :)

22   TwoScoopsMcGee   2015 Dec 4, 5:01pm     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Unitarians are a bunch of SJWs. I'm surprised Men still attend.

23   BlueSardine   2015 Dec 4, 5:29pm     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

The very first step is to hire skywriters to draw Mohammed over the skies of mecca and medina...
Quigley says

The first step is to STOP importing members of this vile religion.

24   indigenous   2015 Dec 4, 5:54pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Regardless if you agree or not, this is the chickens are coming home to roost.

25   curious2   2015 Dec 4, 6:02pm     ↑ like (4)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Rew says

I'm willing to accept risk and loss of life. The loss of life to western nations, and the slight increased risk we take, for accepting refugees, and ensuring Muslims in the USofA are afforded the same rights as non-muslims IS worth it. That ensures we remain a free nation and upholds the core principals of America.

There is no point arguing with a troll, but I did want to preserve that comment. I hope we never get another 9/11, and the ensuing "Patriot Act" stuff, but if we do, I don't want Rew to go back and delete this comment. It deserves a place alongside YesYNot calling hundreds killed "nothing". Also, I note the Freudian slip, principals vs principles, as in my opinion the real beneficiaries of this policy combination (driving Syrian Muslims out of Syria and into Europe and America) are the politicians and their princpal financiers, at the expense of American principles.

26   turtledove   2015 Dec 4, 6:14pm     ↑ like (6)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Rew says

"Dad what was it like back when you could ..."

36 years from now using your plan... Allow me to finish your sentence for you... What was it like back when you could go outside without worrying that someone might kidnap you and cut your head off? Or, what was it like when you could go to popular public places without being shot at? Daddy, tell me about movie theaters.... Daddy, what's a "school?" Or, what was it like when you could use public transportation without risking your life? Or... Why isn't mommy allowed to drive? You two can have long discussions about when freedom of thought actually existed.

(Two thumbs up and a cheezy Joe Isuzu face)

27   zzyzzx   2015 Dec 4, 6:20pm     ↑ like (6)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Obligatory:

28   Strategist   2015 Dec 4, 6:57pm     ↑ like (6)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Rew says

Oh no. I am not denying Islam has a radicalization problem outright. I'm not denying the existence of these attacks. Much like the gun regulation debate, I'm willing to accept risk and loss of life. The loss of life to western nations, and the slight increased risk we take, for accepting refugees, and ensuring Muslims in the USofA are afforded the same rights as non-muslims IS worth it. That ensures we remain a free nation and upholds the core principals of America.

So let me understand what you are saying....... It's worth the loss of life to Western Nations, in order to uphold our freedoms and core principals, which is to give equal rights to people who want to destroy our freedoms and core principals.
Do you want to rethink what you just said?

29   indigenous   2015 Dec 4, 7:03pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Strategist says

core principals

Like who the Bushes or the Clintons or their bosses the NWO?

30   mell   2015 Dec 4, 7:06pm     ↑ like (6)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Rew says

Islamic terrorists found all sorts of ways to travel to other countries and perpetrate attacks, prior to having a large Syrian refugee issue.

There are practically no attacks in countries that severely curbed immigration/visas and locked their borders such as Poland, Hungary etc.

Rew says

I could handle 1 or 2 mouths to feed at my door, and would accept them, given the right circumstances. I've got a spare room right now and can do it.

That's nice if you are serious, but you should think about your family if you have any and not put them in harms way. They should be first priority. But then again, why not house and feed one or two of your fellow American countrymen who have been homeless instead? There is enough poverty here and you need to have a working society with little poverty among its citizens first before you can even think about taking care of other nations.

31   turtledove   2015 Dec 4, 7:09pm     ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote    

mell says

There are practically no attacks in countries that severely curbed immigration/visas and locked their borders such as Poland, Hungary etc.

It couldn't possibly be that simple. Oh wait! It is!

32   indigenous   2015 Dec 4, 7:13pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Also countries that do not enable. Where as France and Spain and the US, not so much.

33   Strategist   2015 Dec 4, 7:14pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

mell says

Rew says

I could handle 1 or 2 mouths to feed at my door, and would accept them, given the right circumstances. I've got a spare room right now and can do it.

That's nice if you are serious, but you should think about your family if you have any and not put them in harms way. They should be first priority. But then again, why not house and feed one or two of your fellow American countrymen who have been homeless instead? There is enough poverty here and you need to have a working society with little poverty among its citizens first before you can even think about taking care of other nations.

I would not mind housing little orphan children, and the old from the refugees. All others including women, can forget it.

34   Strategist   2015 Dec 4, 7:19pm     ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike   quote    

curious2 says

Rew says

I'm willing to accept risk and loss of life. The loss of life to western nations, and the slight increased risk we take, for accepting refugees, and ensuring Muslims in the USofA are afforded the same rights as non-muslims IS worth it. That ensures we remain a free nation and upholds the core principals of America.

There is no point arguing with a troll, but I did want to preserve that comment.

I don't think Rew is being a troll. He is presenting an argument he really believes, which is..........our constitution and our freedoms can overcome all adversaries. I think it's silly, because we have already lost our freedom to publicly criticize Islam.

35   turtledove   2015 Dec 4, 7:30pm     ↑ like (5)   ↓ dislike   quote    

I agree. Rew isn't a troll. He/she seems like a very nice person, actually. Too nice. Too ready to give the benefit of the doubt to a bunch of people who dedicate themselves to a religion that actively preaches killing infidels.

Seriously, Rew... If they succeed... I am so DEAD. Your convictions could result in MY death. They aren't going to put up with me for one minute. I'm everything they hate. Female, educated, outspoken, attractive, in good shape, and too vain to wear a burka!

Though shalt not put me in a fuXXing burka! (the lesser known eleventh commandment)

36   curious2   2015 Dec 4, 7:35pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

This quote is what persuaded me it was trolling.

37   Strategist   2015 Dec 4, 7:38pm     ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike   quote    

turtledove says

I agree. Rew isn't a troll. He/she seems like a very nice person, actually. Too nice. Too ready to give the benefit of the doubt to a bunch of people who dedicate themselves to a religion that actively preaches killing infidels.

And Rew, you should realize we are the ones who respect your opinions. Those extremists would cut your throat in a second for expressing the same opinions.

38   indigenous   2015 Dec 4, 7:38pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

turtledove says

I am so DEAD. Your convictions could result in MY death.

They may just sell you as a sex slave.

With all that at stake perhaps it would make sense to look at how much the US warmongers? and what the affects of that would be?

This is a blind spot with most Americans and conservatives on Pat.net. I'm conservative just against the elephant in the room...

39   indigenous   2015 Dec 4, 7:41pm     ↑ like (5)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

40   Quigley   2015 Dec 4, 8:07pm     ↑ like (6)   ↓ dislike   quote    

When you invite a stranger into your home you run the risk that they will steal all your stuff and/or axe murder you in the night. If it is just you in your home, okay maybe you take that risk, because you're only risking your own life. But when you have a wife and kids, you're risking their lives too.
I felt sorry for the bum I talked to at the beach, and felt sorrier that he was planning to sleep in the beach restroom that night, but I didn't know the guy and I wasn't going to risk my family's safety to do him a solid. I gave him a ten-spot and wished him well. Then I took my wife and kids home.
That's what Obama and Rew don't get. They aren't risking themselves only by inviting America-hating Muslims into our homeland. They're risking our wives and our children as well. It's completely irresponsible, no matter how altruistic the motives, you have no right to put others at risk to accomplish your altruism.

41   mell   2015 Dec 4, 8:32pm     ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Quigley says

When you invite a stranger into your home you run the risk that they will steal all your stuff and/or axe murder you in the night. If it is just you in your home, okay maybe you take that risk, because you're only risking your own life. But when you have a wife and kids, you're risking their lives too.

I felt sorry for the bum I talked to at the beach, and felt sorrier that he was planning to sleep in the beach restroom that night, but I didn't know the guy and I wasn't going to risk my family's safety to do him a solid. I gave him a ten-spot and wished him well. Then I took my wife and kids home.

That's what Obama and Rew don't get. They aren't risking themselves only by inviting America-hating Muslims into our homeland. They're risking our wives and our children as well. It's completely irresponsible, no matter how altruistic the motives, you have no right to put others at risk to accomplish your altruism.

And that's by design, feminism and modern leftist propaganda is directly responsible for declining birth rates. If you don't have any immediate loved ones, you may think your job is to save the rest of the world, even if it means that you are putting your fellow countrymen at risk. In fact many of the white leftist 'altruists' are childless and seem to hate their own race and culture with a fervor.

42   indigenous   2015 Dec 4, 8:38pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

mell says

feminism and modern leftist propaganda is directly responsible for declining birth rates.

Actually the number one factor is child mortality. When it is higher people instinctively have more children.

43   mell   2015 Dec 4, 8:41pm     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

indigenous says

mell says

feminism and modern leftist propaganda is directly responsible for declining birth rates.

Actually the number one factor is child mortality. When it is higher people instinctively have more children.

Yes, where it is a factor. But child mortality has been low in most western nations for quite a while, yet birth-rates have been plummeting to new lows each year.

44   indigenous   2015 Dec 4, 8:53pm     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

Fair enough. Do you have a chart on this?

45   curious2   2015 Dec 4, 8:59pm     ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike   quote    

mell says

birth-rates

result largely from economics. Federal policies propping up the price of housing have discouraged household formation, and thus childbearing. Also, federal policies trying to drive up and prop up the CPI have increased the cost of living relative to wages, which have not always kept up with inflation. Also, the guaranteed student loan program has probably had a negative effect on birthrates, for two reasons: (1) people struggling to make loan payments are less likely to have children, and (2) for women, a university degree is a negative predictor of having children. Also, the millenials being an echo boom generation, women in peak child bearing years are having difficulty finding husbands in the age range they tend to look for (a few years older than themselves), because there are fewer. Blaming feminism and leftist propaganda seems a partisan explanation for a mostly non-partisan (or bi-partisan) set of facts.

Meanwhile, back to the thread, the issue reminds me of a debate from Spain. A Catholic bishop, whom I would disagree with about nearly everything else, made the same argument that if people followed the path prescribed by the church, Spain would have a higher birthrate. A Spanish observer acknowledged that they had essentially decided to prioritize their own lives, and have immigrants instead of having children. I suppose the Saudis might perhaps see it as an opportunity to build a wahhabi caliphate and a new Muslim conquest of Spain. I don't see it that way, because I think longer lifespans and greater automation will enable countries to prosper with birth rates below traditional replacement rates. The real estate interests do want more demand for housing, though, and that requires adding more people somehow. Bottom line, I think a lower birthrate would be fine if not accompanied by terrorist immigration.

46   indigenous   2015 Dec 4, 9:11pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

This graph from the Census Bureau says that there is and will be a whole lot of babies in the US for the foreseeable future.

47   FortWayne   2015 Dec 4, 9:23pm     ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike   quote    

These fucking ISIS bastards want us all dead, and I don't understand Obama's pretenses. Stupid.

48   lostand confused   2015 Dec 4, 9:35pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Rew says

I could handle 1 or 2 mouths to feed at my door, and would accept them, given the right circumstances. I've got a spare room right now and can do it. Yep (sorry jsut actually mentally figuring out how I would do that ...)

Wouldn't you want to know who they are-if they are murderers, thieves, rapists, wacky nuts who believe if they blow themselves up and take you with them-they go to heaven and spend eternity with 72 virgins?

Unless you verify that-will you still let them in???

49   mell   2015 Dec 5, 8:19am     ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

indigenous says

Fair enough. Do you have a chart on this?

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=25&c=us&l=en

You can put in any country and also aggregates.

curious2 says

result largely from economics. Federal policies propping up the price of housing have discouraged household formation, and thus childbearing. Also, federal policies trying to drive up and prop up the CPI have increased the cost of living relative to wages, which have not always kept up with inflation.

The interesting part about this is that it works both ways. In extreme poor countries it drives up birth rates while for the US economic poorer times are used to explain lower birth rates. If this were the main factor, then one had to admit that despite all the luxury and technological progress we haven't made economic progress in a while. I think it is a factor but not the largest one. Plus, demographics who don't mind using government assistance are still breeding quite a bit. If you take the sharp decline in the US starting in the 1960s from which it never recovered, it coincides pretty much with the start of 2nd wave feminism.

curious2 says

Blaming feminism and leftist propaganda seems a partisan explanation for a mostly non-partisan (or bi-partisan) set of facts.

Well, a lot of women postpone until it's too late because they are being told that their careers matter more and some companies even go that far to offer them to freeze their eggs. This of course being anecdotal evidence, quite a few of my acquaintances now regret having chosen this path. This huffPo article suggests that only 14% if childless women are so voluntarily

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/melanie-notkin/the-truth-about-the-childless-life_b_3691069.html

curious2 says

Bottom line, I think a lower birthrate would be fine if not accompanied by terrorist immigration.

Agreed. However in some countries it has gotten so low that they depend on imported youth for their economical models to work and that's a risky bet.

50   indigenous   2015 Dec 5, 8:26am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

mell says

You can put in any country and also aggregates.

How do you reconcile the index mundi graph to the Census Bureau chart?

51   turtledove   2015 Dec 5, 8:39am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

lostand confused says

Unless you verify that-will you still let them in???

It's more likely we'd just have them sign the following:

"I, potentially crazy fuck-nut who believes if I kill people I get to go to heaven with my 72 equally crazy virgins, do solemnly swear to uphold the laws of the United States of America."

-------------------------------------------------------- Date: ------------------------------
Signature

-------------------------------------------------------
Printed Name

52   mell   2015 Dec 5, 8:40am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

indigenous says

mell says

You can put in any country and also aggregates.

How do you reconcile the index mundi graph to the Census Bureau chart?

The US birth rate has never fallen below the critical threshold where it would not result in a net population increase, it has always been higher than most European countries. Probably largely due to conservative and minority (e.g. mexican immigrant) populations. If it were only caucasian educated left-leaning folks, it would be on the decline.

53   indigenous   2015 Dec 5, 8:43am     ↑ like   ↓ dislike (1)   quote    

So you believe the Census chart to be erroneous?

54   mell   2015 Dec 5, 8:52am     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

indigenous says

So you believe the Census chart to be erroneous?

It's a projection, so hard to say. It looks a bit overly "optimistic", but maybe it expects continued heavy immigration from breeding populaces ;) Note that it doesn't say anything about the quality of the new youth wrt being good taxpayers and successful citizens.

55   indigenous   2015 Dec 5, 8:58am     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

That has always been my concern.

56   turtledove   2015 Dec 5, 8:59am     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

mell says

It looks a bit overly "optimistic", but maybe it expects continued heavy immigration from breeding populaces ;) Note that it doesn't say anything about the quality of the new youth wrt being good taxpayers and successful citizens.

It is interesting how these projections have changed in the last few years. We were barely replacing ourselves at one point.

57   zzyzzx   2015 Dec 5, 6:49pm     ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike   quote    

Obligatory:

58   BlueSardine   2015 Dec 5, 6:55pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Ironman says

You really want to go there about "quality" of new youth?

59   Quigley   2015 Dec 6, 1:20pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Every generation thinks the next are a bunch of slacker losers who are willfully ignorant and just want to sponge off all the productive people.
Usually they think this as they sit back on Social Security (which the younger workers pay for) and Medicare (again young workers pay) while studiously avoiding having to learn any new technology.

60   Strategist   2015 Dec 6, 1:41pm     ↑ like   ↓ dislike   quote    

Ironman says

I bet they're talking to each other.

« First     « Previous     Comments 21-60 of 60     Last »

users   about   suggestions   contact  
topics   random post   best comments   comment jail  
patrick's 40 proposals  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy  
8 groups who lie about the housing market  
37 bogus arguments about housing  
get a free bumper sticker:

top   bottom   home