US President Obama to miss anti-terrorism unity rally in Paris

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:What a brilliant idea.  Send our highest ranking elected officials to a hot terror zone to take part in a march.  Would we have stamped targets on their backs as well?  Maybe we should have sent Boehner.   Holder was attending security meetings in Paris.  Our Ambassador to France took part, as did our assistant Secretary of State.  We were certainly doing our part.

So Netanyahu doesn't represent a target? And yet he marched. Even the White House tardily admitted it screwed the pooch by not sending a more prominent official although it readily had a list of excuses for not sending Obama, Biden or SoS Kerry. If not them, then which "prominent" WH official would it have been? Just more pablum and wanting to have it both ways from this tiresome man boy. Which is not surprising in the least coming from an administration that has trouble even using the word terrorism let alone linking it to radical Islam.

And seriously, aren't the tears Obama sheds for Charlie Hebdo crocodilian in nature? After all didn't the Big "O" scold us  at the UN “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” in direct reference to Charlie Hebdo's satirical cartoons.

My apologies to Shakespeare:

"If that the earth could teem with man's tears,
Each drop he falls would prove a crocodile."

Who gives a shiste what Netanyahu does?  An imminent public apology is a very small price to pay for a very calculated risk.  Hats of to the administration for making the right decision.

So French President Francois Hollande, British Prime Minister David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy didn't take a risk marching? Obama is the world's #1 apologist for Islamic extremists. It's a wonder he didn't frame this massacre as "workplace violence" since it all occurred in businesses.

Face it, Obama likes to display his bravado and pound his chest but in reality he is a ruff-tuff creampuff. Not unlike when he admitted that joining the military was an honorable option, but since the Vietnam War had come to an end and that we weren't engaged in an active military conflict he decided against it. WTF?

And WTF is an imminent public apology?

An imminent public apology would be an apology that you know you will have to give as a result of your plan of action.  A pawn of sorts, if you will. A small price to pay for the bigger picture.

Again, who gives a shiste what other countries choose to do with their elected officials.  Ours were right where they belonged.

LOL....you don't care what other countries think on this issue, but on others you do.

Go figure.

It's called thinking objectively.  You should try it sometime.

Please give your definition of "objectively".  We are aware to you "imminent" refers to something that might have already happened.

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:What a brilliant idea.  Send our highest ranking elected officials to a hot terror zone to take part in a march.  Would we have stamped targets on their backs as well?  Maybe we should have sent Boehner.   Holder was attending security meetings in Paris.  Our Ambassador to France took part, as did our assistant Secretary of State.  We were certainly doing our part.

So Netanyahu doesn't represent a target? And yet he marched. Even the White House tardily admitted it screwed the pooch by not sending a more prominent official although it readily had a list of excuses for not sending Obama, Biden or SoS Kerry. If not them, then which "prominent" WH official would it have been? Just more pablum and wanting to have it both ways from this tiresome man boy. Which is not surprising in the least coming from an administration that has trouble even using the word terrorism let alone linking it to radical Islam.

And seriously, aren't the tears Obama sheds for Charlie Hebdo crocodilian in nature? After all didn't the Big "O" scold us  at the UN “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” in direct reference to Charlie Hebdo's satirical cartoons.

My apologies to Shakespeare:

"If that the earth could teem with man's tears,
Each drop he falls would prove a crocodile."

Who gives a shiste what Netanyahu does?  An imminent public apology is a very small price to pay for a very calculated risk.  Hats of to the administration for making the right decision.

So French President Francois Hollande, British Prime Minister David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy didn't take a risk marching? Obama is the world's #1 apologist for Islamic extremists. It's a wonder he didn't frame this massacre as "workplace violence" since it all occurred in businesses.

Face it, Obama likes to display his bravado and pound his chest but in reality he is a ruff-tuff creampuff. Not unlike when he admitted that joining the military was an honorable option, but since the Vietnam War had come to an end and that we weren't engaged in an active military conflict he decided against it. WTF?

And WTF is an imminent public apology?

An imminent public apology would be an apology that you know you will have to give as a result of your plan of action.  A pawn of sorts, if you will. A small price to pay for the bigger picture.

Again, who gives a shiste what other countries choose to do with their elected officials.  Ours were right where they belonged.

LOL....you don't care what other countries think on this issue, but on others you do.

Go figure.

It's called thinking objectively.  You should try it sometime.

Dr. Jones wrote:
What are you talking about "might have already happened"?

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:What a brilliant idea.  Send our highest ranking elected officials to a hot terror zone to take part in a march.  Would we have stamped targets on their backs as well?  Maybe we should have sent Boehner.   Holder was attending security meetings in Paris.  Our Ambassador to France took part, as did our assistant Secretary of State.  We were certainly doing our part.

You are correct .. after all the terrorists only killed at least 12 unarmed people at a place publishing cartoons and no unarmed young black man was killed so no big concern to the MT suit HMWAIC.

This is like a merry-go-round, what are you talking about?

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:What a brilliant idea.  Send our highest ranking elected officials to a hot terror zone to take part in a march.  Would we have stamped targets on their backs as well?  Maybe we should have sent Boehner.   Holder was attending security meetings in Paris.  Our Ambassador to France took part, as did our assistant Secretary of State.  We were certainly doing our part.

You are correct .. after all the terrorists only killed at least 12 unarmed people at a place publishing cartoons and no unarmed young black man was killed so no big concern to the MT suit HMWAIC.

This is like a merry-go-round, what are you talking about?

Think man/woman, think !!  The MT suit HMWAIC sent three from his administration to the funeral of Michael Brown but only gives lip service to France for the loss of at least 12 people at the hands of terrorists.

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:
What are you talking about "might have already happened"?

Yes sir, it is time you get off the merry-go-round, you are getting quite disoriented!

Let's try it one more time and I will even type slow since you can't read fast, OK?

At 10:06 am today you state, " An imminent public apology is a very small price to pay for a very calculated risk."  Again IMMINENT means about to happen ... like sometime in the near future time AFTER your 10:06 am post.

Then later you provide a link to an excuse in article in the Washington Post dated, January 12 as proof of such IMMINENT apology.

You are trying to use a PAST happening to prove an IMMINENT event, (you know it is about to happen) but hasn't.

Do you understand now?

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:
What are you talking about "might have already happened"?

Yes sir, it is time you get off the merry-go-round, you are getting quite disoriented!

Let's try it one more time and I will even type slow since you can't read fast, OK?

At 10:06 am today you state, " An imminent public apology is a very small price to pay for a very calculated risk."  Again IMMINENT means about to happen ... like sometime in the near future time AFTER your 10:06 am post.

Then later you provide a link to an excuse in article in the Washington Post dated, January 12 as proof of such IMMINENT apology.

You are trying to use a PAST happening to prove an IMMINENT event, (you know it is about to happen) but hasn't.

Do you understand now?

I think you need to re-read my posts and study up on the happenings if the situation.  You are obviously missing something.  I would suggest you consider finding someone to read it for you and explain to you what is going on.

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:
What are you talking about "might have already happened"?

Yes sir, it is time you get off the merry-go-round, you are getting quite disoriented!

Let's try it one more time and I will even type slow since you can't read fast, OK?

At 10:06 am today you state, " An imminent public apology is a very small price to pay for a very calculated risk."  Again IMMINENT means about to happen ... like sometime in the near future time AFTER your 10:06 am post.

Then later you provide a link to an excuse in article in the Washington Post dated, January 12 as proof of such IMMINENT apology.

You are trying to use a PAST happening to prove an IMMINENT event, (you know it is about to happen) but hasn't.

Do you understand now?

I think you need to re-read my posts and study up on the happenings if the situation.  You are obviously missing something.  I would suggest you consider finding someone to read it for you and explain to you what is going on.

You are elected to provide the explicitly worded apology from the White House for not having any high level person representing the US other than the ambassador to France.

You have already tried to pass off the Washington Post containing Josh Ernest's excuses and agreeing someone should have been there as an apology but it hardly is an apology.

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Gomezz Adddams wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:What a brilliant idea.  Send our highest ranking elected officials to a hot terror zone to take part in a march.  Would we have stamped targets on their backs as well?  Maybe we should have sent Boehner.   Holder was attending security meetings in Paris.  Our Ambassador to France took part, as did our assistant Secretary of State.  We were certainly doing our part.

So Netanyahu doesn't represent a target? And yet he marched. Even the White House tardily admitted it screwed the pooch by not sending a more prominent official although it readily had a list of excuses for not sending Obama, Biden or SoS Kerry. If not them, then which "prominent" WH official would it have been? Just more pablum and wanting to have it both ways from this tiresome man boy. Which is not surprising in the least coming from an administration that has trouble even using the word terrorism let alone linking it to radical Islam.

And seriously, aren't the tears Obama sheds for Charlie Hebdo crocodilian in nature? After all didn't the Big "O" scold us  at the UN “The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” in direct reference to Charlie Hebdo's satirical cartoons.

My apologies to Shakespeare:

"If that the earth could teem with man's tears,
Each drop he falls would prove a crocodile."

Who gives a shiste what Netanyahu does?  An imminent public apology is a very small price to pay for a very calculated risk.  Hats of to the administration for making the right decision.

So French President Francois Hollande, British Prime Minister David Cameron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy didn't take a risk marching? Obama is the world's #1 apologist for Islamic extremists. It's a wonder he didn't frame this massacre as "workplace violence" since it all occurred in businesses.

Face it, Obama likes to display his bravado and pound his chest but in reality he is a ruff-tuff creampuff. Not unlike when he admitted that joining the military was an honorable option, but since the Vietnam War had come to an end and that we weren't engaged in an active military conflict he decided against it. WTF?

And WTF is an imminent public apology?

An imminent public apology would be an apology that you know you will have to give as a result of your plan of action.  A pawn of sorts, if you will. A small price to pay for the bigger picture.

Again, who gives a shiste what other countries choose to do with their elected officials.  Ours were right where they belonged.

LOL....you don't care what other countries think on this issue, but on others you do.

Go figure.

It's called thinking objectively.  You should try it sometime.

How is a solely US POV objective? You don't have a clue as to the meaning of objective vs subjective or for that matter most of the terms you toss around. See imminent. But then I forget, you're a "Big Picture" kind of thinker.

I would be very interested in seeing your explanation of how either of those words have been used improperly.  My  thought is that, due to a lack of a competent rebuttal,  you are simply talking out if your ass as usual.  It's up to you to prove me wrong.

He didn't really say it, but it captures succinctly Voltaire's belief of freedom of expression: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" and it captures the essence of objective thinking perfectly.

Who are you talking about?

By the US not having a visible and meaningful representation at the march in Paris, we've sacrificed our moral authority and the high road for the defense of free speech/expression. We in effect handed a victory to the butchers who carried out the attack and validated their motives. Thanks Obama.

Due to a lack of time to properly secure the area, and therefore an inability to effectively protect whomever we would have chosen to represent us, the administration chose to sit this one out.  An assassination of this calibre would have given these terrorists some real validation, which is the last thing we would want.  Given the fact that we were already present on multiple fronts, including right there in Paris, this administration decided to not give the terrorists that opportunity.  Thanks Obama

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:
What are you talking about "might have already happened"?

Yes sir, it is time you get off the merry-go-round, you are getting quite disoriented!

Let's try it one more time and I will even type slow since you can't read fast, OK?

At 10:06 am today you state, " An imminent public apology is a very small price to pay for a very calculated risk."  Again IMMINENT means about to happen ... like sometime in the near future time AFTER your 10:06 am post.

Then later you provide a link to an excuse in article in the Washington Post dated, January 12 as proof of such IMMINENT apology.

You are trying to use a PAST happening to prove an IMMINENT event, (you know it is about to happen) but hasn't.

Do you understand now?

I think you need to re-read my posts and study up on the happenings if the situation.  You are obviously missing something.  I would suggest you consider finding someone to read it for you and explain to you what is going on.

You are elected to provide the explicitly worded apology from the White House for not having any high level person representing the US other than the ambassador to France.

You have already tried to pass off the Washington Post containing Josh Ernest's excuses and agreeing someone should have been there as an apology but it hardly is an apology.

"I think it's fair to say that we should have sent someone with a higher profile" to the event, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Monday.

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:
What are you talking about "might have already happened"?

Yes sir, it is time you get off the merry-go-round, you are getting quite disoriented!

Let's try it one more time and I will even type slow since you can't read fast, OK?

At 10:06 am today you state, " An imminent public apology is a very small price to pay for a very calculated risk."  Again IMMINENT means about to happen ... like sometime in the near future time AFTER your 10:06 am post.

Then later you provide a link to an excuse in article in the Washington Post dated, January 12 as proof of such IMMINENT apology.

You are trying to use a PAST happening to prove an IMMINENT event, (you know it is about to happen) but hasn't.

Do you understand now?

I think you need to re-read my posts and study up on the happenings if the situation.  You are obviously missing something.  I would suggest you consider finding someone to read it for you and explain to you what is going on.

You are elected to provide the explicitly worded apology from the White House for not having any high level person representing the US other than the ambassador to France.

You have already tried to pass off the Washington Post containing Josh Ernest's excuses and agreeing someone should have been there as an apology but it hardly is an apology.

"I think it's fair to say that we should have sent someone with a higher profile" to the event, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Monday.

It is time to retire this and agree to disagree as to what constitute an apology.

BladeRunner wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Maybe we could ask Gomezz and Skeptical to weigh in here with their moral equivalence rhetoric?

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Maybe we could ask Gomezz and Skeptical to weigh in here with their moral equivalence rhetoric?

No need, no doubt you will wade in on the horrible actions of the United States after Pearl Harbor was attacked.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Maybe we could ask Gomezz and Skeptical to weigh in here with their moral equivalence rhetoric?

No need, no doubt you will wade in on the horrible actions of the United States after Pearl Harbor was attacked.

Ummm, OK?

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Maybe we could ask Gomezz and Skeptical to weigh in here with their moral equivalence rhetoric?

No need, no doubt you will wade in on the horrible actions of the United States after Pearl Harbor was attacked.

Ummm, OK?

Oh crap!  Don't tell me I just gave you another idea for you to use to justify the horrific attacks by the Islamic terrorists.

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Maybe we could ask Gomezz and Skeptical to weigh in here with their moral equivalence rhetoric?

No need, no doubt you will wade in on the horrible actions of the United States after Pearl Harbor was attacked.

Ummm, OK?

Oh crap!  Don't tell me I just gave you another idea for you to use to justify the horrific attacks by the Islamic terrorists.

...still have no idea what you are talking about...

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

Skeptical wrote:

Dr. Jones wrote:

BladeRunner wrote:

Maybe we could ask Gomezz and Skeptical to weigh in here with their moral equivalence rhetoric?

No need, no doubt you will wade in on the horrible actions of the United States after Pearl Harbor was attacked.

Ummm, OK?

Oh crap!  Don't tell me I just gave you another idea for you to use to justify the horrific attacks by the Islamic terrorists.

...still have no idea what you are talking about...

Your sheep activities getting to you, huh?