My goodness NC you don't bother with the facts but fall back on the "I hate the president" argument. I detailed the points showing the president has either misinterpreted or miss used the facts and you didn't bother to address them. Don't worry about my motivation discuss the point I made.
It shouldn't be Pride but it got made into one. This is my problem also with a 24 hour news cycle: in the absence of real news to talk about they manufacture news like this crap
Winston, you've barely presented any facts. The Crusades began in 1095 at the urging of Pope Urban II, if I am not mistaken, because he wanted Christians to reclaim the Holy Land. The Christians actually reclaimed the Holy Land in 1099 only to lose it again in 1187. The final Crusader conquered lands were lost in 1291 and that marked the end of the Crusades. You insist that Christians were only acting in retaliation to previous Muslim aggression but there is plenty of dissenting scholarly opinion on that assertion to say that you are stating your opinion more than quoting hard historical fact. Secondly, there is plenty of instances to show where Christians were over-the-top brutal during the Crusades like the Rhineland Massacres of 1096 that are widely regarded as the worst anti-Semitic violence prior to the Holocaust and four or five Jewish settlements were slaughtered. Yep, the Crusaders killed Jews and Muslims. Were there heavy casualties on the part of the Crusaders? Absolutely. In fact I think only about 5% of them survived. The fighting was brutal. Further, you've completely ignored the other part of the Presidents statement where he named the Inquisition, Slavery and Jim Crow as other examples of Christians who used religion to justify their brand of hate and terrorism. I've also named the KKK and the Nazi's as examples. Do you care to defend those too? So if we are going to get into the facts, Winston, then we need to get into all of them and not just the ones that you prefer. You see, that is called being FACILE, and that is by the definition that is given in the dictionary, not my own. I wish I didn't have to but you've left me no choice. For too long you've tried to claim the mantle of a centrist while espousing this kind of fringe outrage over something that isn't even newsworthy unless you are a die hard conservative or Christian who are looking for a reason to not like the President. The guy has plenty of room for criticism as far as I am concerned for his reluctance to act against ISIS.....why aren't they talking abut that?
Conversations never get tot hat because you liberals can't even admit when he speaks out of turn. If you can sit there and say how he said what he said was condescending and out of touch/place, how on earth can we debate any-further?
It's absurd to make a comparison about a current issue with something that occurred 800 years ago. If you have to reach that far back, you have a weak point and should find some other rock to stand on. IMO, he simply fell back on his tendency toward historical academia. It's nice if you are teaching a class or no longer in office but as the POTUS, it was stupid, offensive, and a perversion of facts.
No, that's actually a very real issue that deserves plenty of news attention. We have a Measles outbreak in the country because people prefer listening to Jenny McCarthy over their doctors.
Conversations are never allowed to get to the substance because we are always dealing with the bull shit that the right wing media throws against the wall......his speech to the National Prayer Breakfast being one of them.
