[quote]pookie wrote:
JeffR wrote:
In the meantime, terrorists will be afforded far more sweeping rights than they GIVE TO OUR CAPTURED SOLDIERS.
Yeah, being the “good guys” is a lot harder than being the evil bastard scum bags. Rules, principles, morals and all that annoying high-brow stuff.
If you sink to their level, how does the world tell you apart?
“I’ll take World Countries for 500$ Alex.”
“This country imprisons with no trial, uses torture, spies on it’s citizens and ignores internation conventions and U.N. resolutions.”
“What is Iraq, Alex.”
“No, the answer is ‘What is the United States’, sorry Ken.”
[/quote]
Thanks, sky. That was a nice post.
I suppose I must tell you that comparing us to saddam hussein’s Iraq invalidates everything you have said and will say. Unless, you moderate your little flippant nonsense in short order, it’s going to be hard to discuss things with you. I would trully miss having fun with you.
I know you are the quintessential Anti-American rock thrower. However, I think you make interesting points from time to time.
If you choose not to edit your original post, then welcome to the “vroom.”
Ask yourself these questions: What would saddam have done with the prisoners? Would he have shut down the camp voluntarily? Did we defy un resolutions or did we enforce them?
[quote]terribleivan wrote:
You are a perfect example of what is wrong in our country. And, I dont mean that offensively. You are obviously bright, yet you cannot see that the media programs that reach the largest audience have a liberal bias.[/quote]
Ivan,
I think you are delusional my friend.
You see, your viewpoint is a bit skewed due to the fact you watch FOX, for example, and believe it speaks the gospel.
The mainstream media usually lays out both sides of the story and let’s people decide. The unfortunate thing, from your point of view, is that they do their job and ask questions when the administraton makes statements.
That is what the media does. It asks questions and looks into issues and gives us that information.
The real question, concerning the media, is whether or not it is presenting accurate information and letting the viewer draw a conclusion.
Also important is that you don’t seem to realize that having a more liberal viewpoint than yourself is not “a problem”. There is nothing wrong with having a different view of the world than you do.
You do realize you live in a democracy right? You realize that the viewpoints of all people are respected through the voting system? You realize that the administration, any administration whether left or right, will try to provide information that presents it and it’s actions in the best possible light? You realize it is the duty of the media and the citizen to try to ascertain the full picture and make up their own minds?
Aw fuck it, who am I kidding anyway. As if you’ll even give a shit what I’m trying to say.
That, my friend, is the true picture of what is wrong in your country today.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
A few quick thoughts on Bush:
He has not been the leader we need during a serious war against Islamism.
He has presided over a government of bad laws - regardless of their substance, it’s like he and the Republican Congress will pass any piece of trash presented. That is bad stewardship, regardless of party.
[/quote]
I agree with these.
Being as you’re a conservative, I understand why you wouldn’t change your vote to the liberal from Massachusetts. But what does that mean “see the fight on the correct terms”? I need that explained more. Do you mean a wider cultural war against Islam, or invading their states as opposed to strategic strikes?
[quote]
And, something else that needs to reiterated - should the GOP lose the House or even the 2008 election, there is absolutely no one else to blame other than the GOP itself. It will be because the GOP has not governed well and lost touch with the vast majority of the middle-class-ish vote, which the current crop of politicians most certainly have.
It won’t be because the Democrats stole an election or that Democrats put the people under some kind of groupthink trance that tricked them into voting against their interests or any of the other usual scapegoats the Left has proffered in response to being resigned to the political wilderness. It won’t be a conspiracy or propaganda, it won’t be the Jewish lobby.
If the GOP loses, it’s because they blew it when they fell victim to the same excesses they rebelled against in 1994.
One of the biggest weaknesses of the Democratic party - nay, the biggest - is the assigning of blame to some other external force as to why they lost a given election. It is never their fault. Democrats have really yet to sober up and say “you know, our ideas and/or our leaders just don’t resonate with the voting public - we need to reform” - there is always the excuse that the Democrats’ ideas are ideologically pure and flawless, but someone keeps them out of power by cheating.
The GOP - like the Democrats of the past 10 years - have no one to blame but themselves should they lose.[/quote]
I agree. The problem is across party lines though. There are few politicians on the state or federal level that I feel give a flying fuck about what I think- the only one is the guy who was the interim governer of Jersey, Codey. Other than that, both parties are corrupt and full of rich men pretending to know how the workin man feels.
At least with a guy like McCain, I thought he was genuine. Bush has always, in my eyes, been a lying, idiotic rich kid who stumbled into the White House, and crashed this country just like he did to his business.
It is time for reform in both parties - the Republicans need to get back to being conservatives and not big government fiends who “Nation build”, and the Democrats need to stop being pussies, declare that they are willing to fight, and put someone up who seems like he cares about the working/middle class again.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Vroom “logic” = If I disagree with you, then you are:
a) An idiot
b) A fool
c) Ignorant
d) Any many other choice words that usuall have 4 letters in them.[/quote]
Steveo,
Plenty of people disagree with me and don’t qualify as a fool, idiot, ignorant or any other four letter choice word.
You however, you ignorant stupid waste of a life fuckwad, aren’t one of them.
[quote]Notice how he never can refute the facts though.
Bush wasn’t defeated and the conservatives will not be defeated by the leftists in 2008. There is too much at stake to give the country’s helm to a weak, inept, ‘lefty.’ [/quote]
We’ll have to see what happens in the future before it gets called a fact. Anyway, if you actually quoted facts, then they wouldn’t be so easy to refute, would they?
Do you even know what a fact is?
See, it’s things like that which cement your position as one of the top ignorant idiots around here. Congratulations on your victory!!!
Jerffy, dude, you are falling behind, Steveo is being more of a dumbass than you, how can you let this happen? Have you no pride man?
I’ve met “middle America”. They like NASCAR and they think Dubya’s doing a heckuva job. They think The DaVinci Code is literature and Iraq had something to do with 9/11.
They consider the Olive Garden an acceptable place to eat and agree with Sean Hannity.
Toby Keith’s a great songwriter in “middle America” but Tom Waits doesn’t sell many albums.
Middle America is full of fucking retards.
[/quote]
I agree.
I don’t want politicians pandering to them, and I don’t think that’s the way the Democrats are going to come back- dumbing down their message so those in “the heartland” can understand it.
First, we were not collaborators, we were part of the Third Reich, knowingly and willingly.[/quote]
I appreciate your honesty.
I trully have no idea what fine line you are trying to walk. I assume you are trying to educate me on this. However, the horror and barbarity is beyond description.
Again, before you get up on your high horse, take a peek at this:
I think your camp’s occupants would have KILLED to have it as good as Guantanamo.
Again, I marvel at this phenomena. I’ve said it before. Either you don’t know your own history, or you don’t expect an American to.
I rather think it’s a little of both.
Remind me again of the Western Soldiers that were given a trial and released?
Remind me again of the equivalent of our “SS” murdering Guantanamo Bay prisoners?
Hell, remind me of us putting the prisoners on work detail?
Yes, those of us with any sense are scared. We are scared enough to keep anyone fighting against the United States on a foreign battlefield or engaged in harmful Anti-American activities to do time.
Let me answer you plainly: Many of us aren’t overly concerned that there may be an innocent held.
In peace, you err on the side of letting some guilty go in order to insure that innocents aren’t detained.
In war, you err on the side of MORE detention to make sure that all guilty are held.
Again, be careful how much you celebrate. I’ve already told you my strong suspicion that you’ll be hearing of less captures.
I also suspect that there will be interrogations and detention taking place that you and I will never hear about.
Bush’s great mistake with Guantanamo, was not aggressively defending it. He shouldn’t have given the Anti-American’s a focal point for their hatred.
He either should have aggressively defended it, or never opened it.
If you listen to him, you’ll see how relieved he is that is closing.
I believe he’s learned.
I didn’t say this. Oh, they are armed much better than “stone age warriors.”
However, in war, I want both fists flying. Not one (or both) tied behind our backs.
[quote]You want to be radical? Then what do you think of this:
The war on drugs is obviously not working, yet it costs 40 billion a year .
What about stopping that and use the money to get some Arab and Farsi speaking men on the ground.
What if we did NOT fire Arab speaking translators if they were openly gay?
Those two things alone would do more for the safety of the US than Guantanamo ever could, but the war on weed and gays is so much more important than to uphold at least the decorum of a civilized nation?
[/quote]
In the middle of calling us “homophobic,” I give you credit for offering a hint of constructive criticism.
Try this one on: I say we build a big freakin’ fence across our entire Southwestern Border. It will stop a large chunk of the drug money flowing in and will free up many resources for our country.
I have to admit to being uncomfortable with us shooting the immigrants as they would try to rush the fence. However, the fence may be the only real solution.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Ask yourself these questions: What would saddam have done with the prisoners? Would he have shut down the camp voluntarily? Did we defy un resolutions or did we enforce them? [/quote]
Of course, the US still has one hell of a way to go before it gets in a similar position as Iraq was with Saddam. Let’s assume that most people here know and understand that.
I’m simply a bit worried about the extreme latitude afforded to your government by a large part of your population, all in the name of security. Your freedoms are slowly being eroded and a large portion of the population is applauding because they think its makes them safer.
Even if you trust your current administration not to abuse those additional powers, what about some future, more power hungry administration? Once doors are open and checks and balances removed, it’s a lot harder to restore the previous state of affairs.
So the point is not to be sympathetic to Saddam. He was a scumbag and the only unfortunate event is that he is still alive. Leaving aside your country’s previous support of him when he was “an ally in the region”; or whether other scumbags were more deserving of getting deposed (Saudi Arabia anyone?) getting rid of him was a good thing. Period.
The actual point is that no administration is without fault; yet, time and again, we see a number of you here on these forums giving full support to anything the administration does. No matter the scandal, the skirting of the law or other shady manoeuvre; you guys are out in force backing it up.
That’s what I was trying to point out in my previous post. To blindly follow without ever criticizing or finding any fault seems to me somewhat unamerican. Your country gives you the right to criticize and question your government; why is it that anyone who does so is considered an unpatriotic traitor nowadays?
Are the terrorists really scaring you that bad? Are you ready to scrap everything your country stands for just out of fear that one of these scumbags might exploit your judicial system and get away? Would you prefer a US that captures terrorists and beheads them publicly on TV without a trial? I mean, that’s what they do to soldiers they capture, isn’t it?
You’re supposed to be a nation of law; the self-declared “beacon of freedom”, “leader of the free world”, etc. Does abandoning all those principles and resorting to the methods of despots and tyrants really do you credit?
If you are willing to excuse every cheap shot artist and hypocrite that tees off at the expense of your country, then that is your problem. Oh, before you try and trot out that “I’m a dissatisfied Bush voter”
crap and “orion isn’t talking about me” save the key-strokes. A guy like orion, would happily think of a way to trash things you find near and dear.
Countries with so much blood on their hands should not take a “holier than thou” approach to the United States.
One gets the sense, sometimes, that some of these countries live in massive denial about their recent past.
JeffR
What is so tragically ironic is that your attitute makes fascism possible.
Yeah,freedom and Democracy are one thing but people need work and the Bolshevists are in the East ready to attack…
Let us not look backwards but forwards, let us give our Leader the means to fight these Evils, let us forge strong alliances with Italy and Japan…[/quote]
I appreciate what you are saying. You may be surprised to hear that I agree with watching our leaders closely.
However, in a Republic we MUST trust our elected leaders to a degree.
They must earn it and use it wisely.
Where our “need to know” begins and ends is a constantly moving line.
In wartime, our “need to know” narrows considerably.
You may be also surprised to learn that I was initially nervous about domestic surveillance.
However, once the actual nuts and bolts were explained to me, I wasn’t nervous at all. In fact, I would have been angry had the Administration not made an attempt to intercept an al qaeda to atta connection.
In summary, the Administration has earned and kept my trust. It is the only way a war can be successfully prosecuted.
You will hear my pals accuse me of being a “sheep” or a “cheerleader” for these two sentences. You will hear them call me naive or ignorant. However, I am active in counter terrorism and am aware of what we are up against. I want them to succeed and I say we give them the tools to win.
Win. Not merely survive. Win. Not have “acceptable levels of losses.” Win. Not have to go through what Israel has.
I’ve met “middle America”. They like NASCAR and they think Dubya’s doing a heckuva job. They think The DaVinci Code is literature and Iraq had something to do with 9/11.
They consider the Olive Garden an acceptable place to eat and agree with Sean Hannity.
Toby Keith’s a great songwriter in “middle America” but Tom Waits doesn’t sell many albums.
Middle America is full of fucking retards.
I agree.
I don’t want politicians pandering to them, and I don’t think that’s the way the Democrats are going to come back- dumbing down their message so those in “the heartland” can understand it.
[/quote]
little irish,
That is a bunch of rubbish. Dumbing down assumes that the left coasts are superior in intellect.
I appreciate what you are saying. You may be surprised to hear that I agree with watching our leaders closely.
However, in a Republic we MUST trust our elected leaders to a degree.[/quote]
Not really. That’s why we watch them.
[quote]
You may be also surprised to learn that I was initially nervous about domestic surveillance.
However, once the actual nuts and bolts were explained to me, I wasn’t nervous at all. In fact, I would have been angry had the Administration not made an attempt to intercept an al qaeda to atta connection.[/quote]
How do you know the full details of what they have been doing? The actual nuts and bolts? My guess would be that the general public probably has less than 40% of the full picture at any given time in this country, even with the media looking for any story possible.
[quote]I want them to succeed and I say we give them the tools to win.
Win. Not merely survive. Win. Not have “acceptable levels of losses.” Win. Not have to go through what Israel has.
JeffR[/quote]
How do we WIN a war on ideals that lead to acts of terrorism?
I’ve met “middle America”. They like NASCAR and they think Dubya’s doing a heckuva job. They think The DaVinci Code is literature and Iraq had something to do with 9/11.
They consider the Olive Garden an acceptable place to eat and agree with Sean Hannity.
Toby Keith’s a great songwriter in “middle America” but Tom Waits doesn’t sell many albums.
Middle America is full of fucking retards.
I agree.
I don’t want politicians pandering to them, and I don’t think that’s the way the Democrats are going to come back- dumbing down their message so those in “the heartland” can understand it.
little irish,
That is a bunch of rubbish. Dumbing down assumes that the left coasts are superior in intellect.
There is your great fault.
Enjoy the wilderness.
Can you hear the crickets?
JeffR
[/quote]
No, I think people are all equally lazy.
If you try and explain a belief that imperialism is just the natural state of man in order to justify the building of an American empire, people will stare at you blankly.
If you try and explain that the human race can begin to move away from these old orders, and head towards a better one using the UN or something like it, and get rid of imperialistic empires once and for all, letting soverign nations decide their own futures as long as it’s within the realm of being “Human” (without genocide, oppression, etc.), then people will still stare at you blankly.
The first question tends to be, “What’s imperialism?”
The average person is lazy, and doesn’t give a fuck about these things. They work, go home, and vote Republican or Democrat just because that’s what they’ve always done. There are plenty of idiots in Jersey, just like there are in Texas. It is what it is.
I don’t want the Democrats changing their base ideals just to get elected- I don’t want to hear about religion during their speeches, I want them to support the seperation. I don’t care if Texas or Nebraska like talking about god- keep it out of politics. The Democrats need a strong leader to bring the party together under one banner again, instead of ripping each other apart like they have done.
I don’t expect a quality answer from you jeffr, mostly because you won’t think in philosophical terms, and your “box” is lined with “W” posters, so I doubt you’ll come out of it. But I just thought I’d get that out there.
[quote]orion wrote:
Those two things alone would do more for the safety of the US than Guantanamo ever could, but the war on weed and gays is so much more important than to uphold at least the decorum of a civilized nation?
[/quote]
If this ever happened the Republican party would not have any platform to stand on except abortion–and then how would they scare the american public into voting them into office?
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
orion wrote:
Those two things alone would do more for the safety of the US than Guantanamo ever could, but the war on weed and gays is so much more important than to uphold at least the decorum of a civilized nation?
If this ever happened the Republican party would not have any platform to stand on except abortion–and then how would they scare the american public into voting them into office?[/quote]
That is the point I was trying to make:
Given that they claim to believe that this is a “war” that can and must be “won”, how come they are willing to sacrifice or endanger political freedoms so easily but will not move an inch on their little pet peeves?
That makes me believe that they use the “war on terror” to further their agenda , instead of making sacrifices to win the war on terror.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
That is a bunch of rubbish. Dumbing down assumes that the left coasts are superior in intellect.
[/quote]
Ummmm…we are! If the lefties competed against the righties on Jeopardy we’d kick the righties collective asses.
We rule the universities and most all institutions of science and mathematics. We are the truth!!
Don’t worry though, I’m sure the righties are bigger and stronger–being alpha and all…you could beat us up and take away all our possesions and that would teach us to be smarter than you.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
sactown1 wrote:
Lets talk about the war on terror, you know what i am tired of is that bush supporters always invoke the “war on terrorism” to justify any overreach in power by the president, if the president does have these so-called “emergency powers” which are at the best questionable, where do we draw the line how much power does the president have?
President Bush said that the war on terror “will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.” The question is when will this war end, or will it ever end. If this war never ends will the president have indefinate emergency powers, which means almost any action taken by the president is justified because we are at war. the president contends that his war powers cannot be restrained by any law because he is the “commander-in-chief” and he needs to protect us from the terrorists.
After the Reichstag fire Hitler also declared a state of emergency and told the people of germany that the communists were taking over and effectively used the threat of communism to transform Germany from a democracy into a dictatorship. What is common in between these two leaders is that both of them use fear to justify more and more consolidation of power. Now I am not saying that George Bush wants to use the war on terror to create a perpetual state of emergency to become a dictator, but there is always a threat there, because this perpetual war on terror has been declared we must be very cautious in the amount of power we give to any leader whoever it may be a conservative or a liberal.
Don’t like your Nazi analogy, that’s MoveOn/Michael Moore hysteria territory, but you’re absolutely right in your broader point.
No he is not. It is utter nonsense. Our system of checks and balances is alive and well and working.
Really? Have you read some of the John Yoo and Justice Department memos on torture and the President’s right to detain “enemy combatants,” even when they’re US citizens?[/quote]
Are you aware of recent Supreme Court rulings?
Checks and balances are in place.
Trying to minimize the war on terror as sactowwn has done by pretending it is simply a power grab by the executive branch is foolish and completely inaccurate.
Being as you’re a conservative, I understand why you wouldn’t change your vote to the liberal from Massachusetts. But what does that mean “see the fight on the correct terms”? I need that explained more. Do you mean a wider cultural war against Islam, or invading their states as opposed to strategic strikes?[/quote]
The short answer to that is a wider cultural war against Islam-ism, as distinguished from Islam, as you put it.
Lefties - and I exempt liberals, although increasingly they are one and the same - sees Islamism as some post-colonial response to all the mean stuff the West has done. All too often, the Left simply cannot see Islamists as committing any kind of orginal evil - every barbaric act is some reaction to some materialist force outside their poor, innocent lives.
To which the only solution to get them to stop their acts of terror is to ‘show tolerance’, etc., when that is exactly the weakness they are looking to exploit in order to win the day.
Lefties think that with a little more love and understanding, maniacal suicide bombers will sit and reflect rationally on their acts, lay down their creed, and forgive those who have made their life hell (although that is a fictional grievance), and they will all suddenly start open-mouth kissing and hugging people of all cultures in one big worldly, cuddly peacefest.
Kerry didn’t necessarily go that far with his rhetoric, but he was unserious about calling Islamism by its name - just a brand of fascism that wants to dominate the world with its vision of enforced purity. Nazism used race, Communism used the idealized masses, and Islamism uses religion - but the goals were all the same. Kerry wouldn’t recognize that, and I have no interest in anyone who would duplicate European policy twaord Islamic extremism here in the states.
Your populist rhetoric is quite believable until I read your later post agreeing with the imbecile Harris on the stupidity of middle America.
So which is it, Irish? Are you a champion of the common man? Or are you like the rest of the Left, who actually despises all the values of the common man?
I agree completely. So how does the Democratic party purge itself of its coastal elitist Lefties and get back to being the populist party it once was?
And again - the only way you can care about the middle class is to respect the middle class in the first place. Till your Democrats solve this schizophrenia, the so-called ‘working man’ ain’t buying what you’re selling.
I appreciate what you are saying. You may be surprised to hear that I agree with watching our leaders closely.
However, in a Republic we MUST trust our elected leaders to a degree.
They must earn it and use it wisely.
Where our “need to know” begins and ends is a constantly moving line.
In wartime, our “need to know” narrows considerably.
You may be also surprised to learn that I was initially nervous about domestic surveillance.
However, once the actual nuts and bolts were explained to me, I wasn’t nervous at all. In fact, I would have been angry had the Administration not made an attempt to intercept an al qaeda to atta connection.
In summary, the Administration has earned and kept my trust. It is the only way a war can be successfully prosecuted.
You will hear my pals accuse me of being a “sheep” or a “cheerleader” for these two sentences. You will hear them call me naive or ignorant. However, I am active in counter terrorism and am aware of what we are up against. I want them to succeed and I say we give them the tools to win.
Win. Not merely survive. Win. Not have “acceptable levels of losses.” Win. Not have to go through what Israel has.
JeffR[/quote]
This is not a war.
This is a minor nuisance.
A few hundred people dying each year is the cost of freedom.
The cost of freedom is less than the cost of the combustion engine, swimming pools or electricity.
And much less than the cost of “armed militias”, NRA, things like that…
No big deal, no reason to lose your head, no grounds for calling it a war…
Not only can a “war on terror” not be won, it is impossible to fight a war without the use of “terror”, call it “shock and awe” if you want to.
The underlying problem however is religious superstition that uses terror as a means to an end.
The ideas you would have to fight are that:
There is a God.
He has given us a scripture that instructs us how to live.
That societies that do not really believe this and DARE to prosper not only in spite of it but because of it…
Do you really think that the US is equipped to fight this war of ideas, when there are quite a lot of people in the US who think that “Of People and Pandas” is on the same level as the “Origins of Species”?
The very nature of this “war” makes it impossible to win, so I do not think that those changes would be temporary.
Ummmm…we are! If the lefties competed against the righties on Jeopardy we’d kick the righties collective asses. [/quote]
Wow.
Nope - liberals happen to work at the universities. Academia does not necessarily have the smartest guys in America working there - just the smartest guys who aren’t interested in working outside academia.
This is probably right. The Left has been emasculating its men since the 1960s with no clear end in sight.