Republicans support Daesh

It’s not that they really want to support Daesh, they would only do so as a way of obstructing ANYTHING that Obama tries to do.
e.g., There is a guy who has bipartisan support for confirmation but the Senate leadership has refused to bring up the vote for 222 days, now. This guy is widely viewed as the best person for establishing the interruption of funds to Daesh.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/republicans-national-security-nominee-isis_564d0250e4b08c74b7344681

I think it’s deeper than that. If you wrote up into three columns the viewpoints of IS, Cons, and Nazis I think you’d see alot of similarities, especially that latter two. Nazis weren’t called right-wingers for nothing.

“Leaving Adam (Szubin) to serve in an acting role would undermine his influence in our efforts to counter terrorism financing and press for tough sanctions measures against Iran’s malign activities and other security threats…This mission is too important right now for us to have anything less than our best person with the full backing of the U.S. Congress out leading the charge.” US Treasury spokesperson
Just about everyone seems to agree that Adam Szubin is the man for the job. Yet the Republican leadership of the Senate will not allow a vote to confirm Adam Szubin. Thus jeopardizing the full ability to address the problem of funding sources to Daesh. Meanwhile the House Republicans along with some pussy Democratic Congressmen have thoughtlessly and eagerly passed a bill that can “protect” us from the non-threat of Daesh infiltrating via Syrian refugee asylum.

"Leaving Adam (Szubin) to serve in an acting role would undermine his influence in our efforts to counter terrorism financing and press for tough sanctions measures against Iran's malign activities and other security threats....This mission is too important right now for us to have anything less than our best person with the full backing of the U.S. Congress out leading the charge." US Treasury spokesperson Just about everyone seems to agree that Adam Szubin is the man for the job. Yet the Republican leadership of the Senate will not allow a vote to confirm Adam Szubin. Thus jeopardizing the full ability to address the problem of funding sources to Daesh. Meanwhile the House Republicans along with some pussy Democratic Congressmen have thoughtlessly and eagerly passed a bill that can "protect" us from the non-threat of Daesh infiltrating via Syrian refugee asylum.
Sounds exactly like what we've come to expect from Republicans. Themeselves and the party first, what's good for the country way down the list. Lois
I think it's deeper than that. If you wrote up into three columns the viewpoints of IS, Cons, and Nazis I think you'd see alot of similarities, especially that latter two. Nazis weren't called right-wingers for nothing.
True. The only difference between them is the conservatives have the best donors, Nazis had the best clothes, and ISIS has the most white girlfriends.

On the use of the name Daesh unstead of Isil or Is:
“Readers and viewers seem interested in this debate; a Boston Globe article about the different terms was recently among the most-read stories for several days. I think that if world leaders and U.S. politicians start using the term Daesh regularly, it will slip into regular journalistic use, just as Myanmar replaced Burma. Until then, newsrooms need to decide which title conveys the news fastest and most clearly, especially in headlines and news bulletins. Right now, for Americans, that term is ISIS.”
http://www.northeastern.edu/news/2015/11/3qs-what-using-the-name-daesh-rather-than-isis-or-isil-really-means/
I think we should call them Islamic Shits (IS) and be done with it. (Actually even that’s too mild.)
Any other suggestions?

On the use of the name Daesh unstead of Isil or Is: "Readers and viewers seem interested in this debate; a Boston Globe article about the different terms was recently among the most-read stories for several days. I think that if world leaders and U.S. politicians start using the term Daesh regularly, it will slip into regular journalistic use, just as Myanmar replaced Burma. Until then, newsrooms need to decide which title conveys the news fastest and most clearly, especially in headlines and news bulletins. Right now, for Americans, that term is ISIS." http://www.northeastern.edu/news/2015/11/3qs-what-using-the-name-daesh-rather-than-isis-or-isil-really-means/ I think we should call them Islamic Shits (IS) and be done with it. (Actually even that's too mild.) Any other suggestions?
I'll stick with Daesh, since that's what pisses them off the most.

What I usually call them would probably get me banned. :cheese: