Surrender or Obama will kill another hostage.

[LWW]

This "HOSTAGE TAKING" mantra from the left has had me thinking it through, and if you follow the first rule of Alinskyist political debate ... whatever the left is actually doing, they will project that sin onto the opposition in an effort to make them defend a position they have never taken while also distracting the harsh light of truth away from their own treachery.

Obama demanded that we accept him as ruler, in his own words he said he was ready to rule on day one. When we failed to surrender, the thugocracy began killing hostages.

Let's review:

HOSTAGE #1: - The first hostage to go was the idea of American exceptionalism. Obama went on a world tour apologizing for US greatness and confessing to all the moonbat accusations that the nutjobs of the world believe in.

HOSTAGE #2: - The next hostage was the Iranian people. The Bush doctrine in the middle east was designed to remove the region of it's nut job theocratic terror sponsoring states whether by external or by internal forces. Following the fall of Iraq and Saddam's fashionable new neck tie Moammar Khadaffyduck swore off of WMD, Syria settled down, and the Iranian people saw a free Iraq next door and wanted some. After seeing a fixed election they took to the streets. Obama gave the mullahs carte blanche to suppress what was the only real people's movement in the mideast to date.

HOSTAGE #3: - The US health care system could not be replaced with a full blown failure such as the UK/Canadian model ... so it was sabotaged with OBAMACARE which will destroy the world's greatest system from the inside out. Another hostage down.

HOSTAGE #4: - Mubarak was a long time ally of the US. Much like the Shah of Iran, he was opposed by islamic extremists and sacrificed by a moonbat POTUS. Hostage number 4 now sits in a cage on life support.

HOSTAGE #5: - Hostage number 5 is the Syrian people. Again, a popular uprising against an enemy of the US and freedom ... and Obama gives a wink and a nod to the Syrian army murdering Syrian citizens.

HOSTAGE #6: - Another multiple hostage situation was the soldiers at Fort Hood. By promoting an atmosphere that seeing the obvious about islamic extremism could end an officer's career led to a situation where a US officer who had "SOLDIER OF ALLAH" on his business card being allowed to continue working with unsuspecting soldiers.

HOSTAGE #7: - The US economy. The regime has steadfastly refused to take steps that would allow the US economy to continue to grow.

HOSTAGE #8: - The US poor. Low skill jobs have all but disappeared as they have been sent overseas or allowed to be taken by illegals. Black UE is at depression levels. The very people the democrooks promised to help the most are the ones they have betrayed the hardest.

HOSTAGE #9: US border security. Not only has the regime refused to defend the integrity of our borders, they are taking to court anyone else who tries to.

HOSTAGE #10: The integrity of US elections. By giving legal protection to, and accepting help from, the likes of ACORN and the NBPP our electoral integrity is more in question than at any time in the history of the republic.

HOSTAGE #11: Citizens of Mexico. The regime has allowed weapons to illegally enter Mexico which has caused the death of many innocents and weakened our relationship with the Mexican government.

HOSTAGE #12: US law enforcement. See above. At least 1 US LEO has been killed with these weapons.

HOSTAGE #13: Future generations of Americans. The level of deficit brought into our fiscal system has done immense damage to the future of America.

HOSTAGE #14: The Gulf of Mexico. While many options were available to stop the spill, the regime blocked them all. Once they let oil people run the fix ... it was fixed.

HOSTAGE #15: The integrity of our legal system. The bankruptcy of Chrysler and GM was a completely crimianl act and millions of US citizens were raped of their assets to pay off the UAW ... and to eliminate dealers with a history of backing conservative candidates while granting those territories to historic democrook backers.

HOSTAGE #16: The US credit rating ... an inevitable victim of the most corrupt US regime since Grant, the most totalitarian since Lincoln, and the most inept since Carter.

[Soflasnapper]

You haven't shown any requested quid pro quo for these supposed hostage negotiations.

He said he'd do what unless what happened?

Nothing like that is remotely the case. Even granting these examples are true (just for giggles, not taking them seriously, but in arguendo), what was the demand, and to whom, when not granted, that led to these actions, which were promised as a threat, when the demands (you cannot name) were not met?

That word 'hostage'? I do not think it means what you think.

A creative attempt, but a failed creative attempt, to stretch words to mean what they do not (once again).

[Qtec]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">HOSTAGE #10: The integrity of US elections. </div></div>

LOL.

link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pisBdNLmo-A)

Q

[LWW]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">what was the demand, and to whom</div></div>

That we amend our legal system to place union thugs above secured creditors.

That we abandon the greatest medical system in the history of the world in favor of one that places the power of life and death in the hands of the state.

That we continue to support organization, with federal funds, who work to rig elections.

That we confiscate franchises which were properly paid for and grant them to supporters of the regime.

That we burden future generations with backbreaking debt to buy the votes of current wealth transfer recipients.

I could go on ... but I suspect you see no problem with any of this.

[LWW]

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/gm11080420110804071338.jpg

[Soflasnapper]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">what was the demand, and to whom</div></div>

That we amend our legal system to place union thugs above secured creditors.

That we abandon the greatest medical system in the history of the world in favor of one that places the power of life and death in the hands of the state.

That we continue to support organization, with federal funds, who work to rig elections.

That we confiscate franchises which were properly paid for and grant them to supporters of the regime.

That we burden future generations with backbreaking debt to buy the votes of current wealth transfer recipients.

I could go on ... but I suspect you see no problem with any of this. </div></div>

A person behaving badly, putting forth even corrupt plans, doesn't thereby become a hostage taker. A mass murderer or a serial killer is not a hostage taker when they perform those acts.

A hostage taker demands something be done so that the hostage will be released, relatively unharmed.

So for this poor analogy to work even slightly, you'd have to find something Obama demanded or ELSE he was going to do these things, and when that demand wasn't met, THEN he did these things. Just doing them without some promise he wouldn't do them, if only other demands were met, makes it not a hostage taking event at all.

To simplify, a hostage taker says, do XYZ (usually, pay me a lot of money, but it could be a political act instead, like release the 100 freedom fighters from prison), or else the hostage gets it (continued captivity, or even death).

You've described the end-result acts, but left out the first two parts (the demands, or else, and the refusals that led to the or else going forward).

You are a silly-billy, making things up, or perhaps in need of a Rosetta Stone course in English to try to get up to speed on word usage here in the US.

[LWW]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">A hostage taker demands something be done <s>so that the hostage will be released, relatively unharmed.</s> and then almost always kills the hostage anyway</div></div>

I fixed that for you.

Other than that ... your post resembles the ramblings of a man cursing the trees for blocking his view of the forest.

[Soflasnapper]

A hostage is a person or entity which is held by a captor. The original definition meant that this was handed over by one of two belligerent parties to the other or seized as security for the carrying out of an agreement, or as a preventive measure against certain acts of war. However, in modern days, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>it means someone who is seized by a criminal abductor in order to compel another party such as a relative, employer, law enforcement, or government to act, or refrain from acting, in a particular way, often under threat of serious physical harm to the hostage(s) <span style='font-size: 20pt'>after expiration of an ultimatum.</span></span>

[LWW]

Very good.

You almost get it ... if you try, you still might.

[Soflasnapper]

I already get that you're wrong, and why you're wrong (it's called the English language).

The question is do YOU get it? And why the hell don't you?

By your construction, Ted Bundy killed his ransom hostages, one after another, but in some bizarre way, over and over again, forgot to ask for his demands to be met. Bad memory, perhaps?