So the administrion won't say "Islamic terrorists"

[Doc]

and while I don't agree with their reasoning, I do understand their reasoning. I've never have a big issue with this. Sort of one of those things that the GOP gets their panties in a wad over and looks foolish doing so when their are so many actual things to worry about. I mean if the President won't say "Islamic Terrorist", big deal. Everybody knows who they are and what they are. His lack of saying those words means nothing. He can use the excuse that the extreme radicals are just a very small fraction of the Muslim population, fine. To each his own. If he wants to do that, so be it. No skin off my ass at all.

However in what is perhaps one of the biggest examples of blatant hypocrisy West of Atlantic Athletic Conference basketball territory, we have this (http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/19/politics/terror-threat-homeland-security/), where the Dept of Homeland Security claims the need to focus on right-wing sovereign citizen extremists as a source of domestic terrorism. Interesting in that the White Houses justification for NOT using the term Islamic when describing middle Easterners who burn and behead people is that they don't want to prejudice ALL Muslims as radicals yet there is no aversion to do that with a "RIGHT WING" adjective. I'm right wing, but not a gun toting off the grid, build-a-bomb-in-my-garage kind of guy. I don't have a compound in the back woods of Mississippi where I have a stockpile of M-15 or M-16 (whatever) and grenade launchers. I don't know how to make a bomb out of fertilizer and drain-o or consider camo as formal wear. And if an American extremist ever chopped off the head or burned anybody alive, I'd be pissed and hope to hell that the bastards who did it would be caught. It appears as if its "RIGHT WING" then labelling them really wasn't a concern for Obama et al since DHS is part of his administration. Also likely means exactly what everybody expected, that the labelling in general aspect was BS because the specific label is what is important. Apparently its OK to label if the you're "right wing" with a negative connotation but can't do that with Muslim/Islam.

“And what sort of lives do these people, who pose as being moral, lead themselves? My dear fellow, you forget that we are in the native land of the hypocrite.”
― Oscar Wilde,

[CitizenBBN]

IMO the issue of what Obama calls them goes to his overall treatment of them. If he weren't simultaneously ruling these acts of terrorism as some kind of random crime violence instead of terrorism, it wouldn't be as big a deal. But he's trying to sidestep the entire idea that there is terrorism in the world in some way, and that's a problem.

Those poor Egyptians were chosen b/c they were Coptic Christian, and if we can't be honest about what they are doing and how they are thinking how will we rally public support to oppose them? Of course we can't, and that's the whole goal, to avoid having to do anything.

But I agree completely with the blatant hypocrisy of it all, and I won't hijack but this goes to Rudy's comments about Obama this week, that IMO are completely fair. obama isn't a patriot, he's a 'blame America first' true believer. Everything wrong in the world they try to turn back onto America and Americans. that's just about the opposite of being a patriot isn't it?

So Benghazi is b/c of a video not b/c of seriously failed US foreign policy and security in the region.

As Ann coulter said, they see this nation as the east and west coast and in the middle are a bunch of backward, violent gun-toting hicks who "cling to their guns and religion" as Obama HIMSELF said. How much more obvious does it need to be what he thinks of us? we're backward, stupid people to him and his ilk, so it's no surprise they see us as the bigger threat.

Not only are they afraid of us becoming violent (thus the disarmament thing), we can even vote. I agree, we are a far bigger threat to their agenda than ISIS. And proud of it.

[Doc]

IMO the issue of what Obama calls them goes to his overall treatment of them. If he weren't simultaneously ruling these acts of terrorism as some kind of random crime violence instead of terrorism, it wouldn't be as big a deal. But he's trying to sidestep the entire idea that there is terrorism in the world in some way, and that's a problem.

Those poor Egyptians were chosen b/c they were Coptic Christian, and if we can't be honest about what they are doing and how they are thinking how will we rally public support to oppose them? Of course we can't, and that's the whole goal, to avoid having to do anything.

I understand all that but its sematics IMO. He isn't going to do jack regardless. He made it known during the election in 2008 he wasn't going to do anything other than get us out so what he calls them or doesn't call them matters not. He knows there are a bunch of bad guy over there and he is going to ignore them. He knows there are a bunch of bad guy over there and rather than address the problem, he pulled out our troops because that is he legacy. He wants to be known as the guy who got us out of the Middle East, that is all that matters.

But I agree completely with the blatant hypocrisy of it all, and I won't hijack but this goes to Rudy's comments about Obama this week, that IMO are completely fair. obama isn't a patriot, he's a 'blame America first' true believer. Everything wrong in the world they try to turn back onto America and Americans. that's just about the opposite of being a patriot isn't it?

So Benghazi is b/c of a video not b/c of seriously failed US foreign policy and security in the region.

As Ann coulter said, they see this nation as the east and west coast and in the middle are a bunch of backward, violent gun-toting hicks who "cling to their guns and religion" as Obama HIMSELF said. How much more obvious does it need to be what he thinks of us? we're backward, stupid people to him and his ilk, so it's no surprise they see us as the bigger threat.

Not only are they afraid of us becoming violent (thus the disarmament thing), we can even vote. I agree, we are a far bigger threat to their agenda than ISIS. And proud of it.

I think his definition of Patriot and our definitions are way different (LOL). I think he sees himself as a Patriot, and an American. And I do HOPE that what we call as AMERICANS are a bigger threat to what he sees as the direction of where America is going than ISIS but that change is a non-violent one. ..

[KeithKSR]

I think it is pretty simple. Obama considers political dissenters to be more radical than ISIS.

[Doc]

I think it is pretty simple. Obama considers political dissenters to be more radical than ISIS.

Yes, he sees Right Wing Extremists as NOT Americans. Here is a news flash. Right Wing Extremists ARE Americans. They are every bit as "American" as he is. They have the same right to change the direction of the country as he has! So their "threat" to America isn't a threat at all. What it is is a threat to his idea of what America should be. In his egocentric view, he believes that his view is the only way that American can be and that all Americans should envision this country as he does. That's the thing about democracy, it doesn't work that way. So long as their attempt to change America are not done in a violent matter, they are of no threat at all. Last incident that I recall were violence was involved was Timothy McViegh bombing the Fed building in OKC which happened 20 years ago.

[suncat05]

So when does "the push" come? That's what he is doing, I think. He's doing the pushing, and wants to see a response. Not just any response, though. He wants a certain kind of response, the kind that will give him the excuse he needs to do exactly what he wants to do, the law and the Constitution and the American people be damned.
This is the wrong guy in the wrong place at the wrong time in American history. EVERYTHING he does is wrong for America and Americans.