hahahahaha, are all bush supporters as stupid as he is? do you hear his speeches?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
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?
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.
[/quote]
I understand this. Islam is more dangerous than any of the others you mentioned, however, because it invokes God and religion, and I think inspires a more fanatical following. Honestly, I don’t know that we can win this kind of war without a literal clash of civilizaions- armageddon type stuff…and I don’t know that America is prepared to do that.
Got me. It’s a philosophical issue with myself that I’ve never been able to resolve. At the same time I believe in the…“nobility”, I guess you could say, of the masses, I do believe that there are certain people that are meant to lead, and will do so regardless of anything else. Kind of Dostoyevsky-ish Napoleon vs. the masses…I can’t resolve it yet, it will be a while before I’m clear on it.
[quote]
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.
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.[/quote]
Even if the Democrats were to go back to there working roots, the right would simply call them socialists, such as is so often done. The Republican machine has done a great job of making the word “liberal” sound like “heartless heathen cocksucker” to the voters.
Again, I don’t know.
[quote]vroom wrote:
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.
Ivan,
I think you are delusional my friend.[/quote]
Vroom speak: I don’t agree with you so therefore you are delusional and insane and nasty and …etc. Boy is this getting old…[quote]
You see, your viewpoint is a bit skewed due to the fact you watch FOX, for example, and believe it speaks the gospel.[/quote]
No, FOX reports in a fair and balance way…oh, look below for your joke of a comment about the mainstream media. It is a riot! [quote]
The mainstream media usually lays out both sides of the story[/quote]
Oh, really? Why don’t you tell that to Danny Boy Rather – former host of the CBS Evening News. Do you know why he was fired? It was because his blind, one-sided reporting on our President using sources that, shall we say, even a rookie newsman would never have used.
They “lay out both sides,” what “mainstream media” are you watching. The media elite are, perhaps, mainstream liberals, but they hardly reflect most of America. [quote]
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.[/quote]
Baloney and you know it! And if you don’t and are serious, you are all of the names you call others. You must be kidding. They are so one sided it is a joke here in the U.S.[quote]
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.[/quote]
The news should be apolitical (for your info “apolitical” means non political). The news shouldn’t have a poltical leaning. It is very wrong to report the news with a bias of any kind. The fact is that the so called “mainstream” media is not “mainstream” when it comes to the rest of our country. [quote]
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?[/quote]
The media and liberals in general still believe Bush stole the election and have used every opportunity to try to make sure a Democrat will win in 2008. [quote]
Aw fuck it, who am I kidding anyway. As if you’ll even give a shit what I’m trying to say.[/quote]
I doubt if most people care about what you say anyway.[quote]
That, my friend, is the true picture of what is wrong in your country today.[/quote]
[quote]vroom wrote:
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.
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.
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.’
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?[/quote]
See what I mean? Perfect Vroomlogic, replete with those really intelligent sounding words with 4-letter prefixes on them.
Vroom, do you know what a “prefix” means? Just checking, since “prefix” has more than 4-letters in it.
[quote]mazilla wrote:
hahahahaha, are all bush supporters as stupid as he is? do you hear his speeches?[/quote]
Really intellectual comment, Mazilla. However, I doubt if someone who doesn’t use proper capitalization is in a position to call others “stupid.”
Nice try…
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
I doubt if most people care about what you say anyway.
[/quote]
That’s funny coming from you, You know, because you say completely useless bullshit constantly.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
No, FOX reports in a fair and balance way…oh, look below for your joke of a comment about the mainstream media. It is a riot! [/quote]
Ahahahahaha. Steveo, first of all, I wasn’t talking to you, because I know it is nearly pointless to bother trying. Take your tiny little hardon and go chase someone else with it.
Dude, if you didn’t know it, the White House or the Administration is not a source of news. The government releases carefully crafted messages which qualify as not lies only because of careful wording but have a lot in common with propaganda.
THIS IS TRUE FOR BOTH LEFT AND RIGHT INCUMBENTS OF THE WHITE HOUSE!
It is the job of a citizen to be informed about the reality of the situation and to hold the government accountable for it’s actions. Seriously, that is what citizens are supposed to do, be informed and not let people get away with half-truths.
If you were to actually watch and listen to the MSM you’d see that they generally report what was said, and then they present other viewpoints which are not simply a parrot of the administration.
Anyway, though Dan Rather was fired, and made a mistake, I think it is important to point out that it was never argued that the substance of the material was incorrect. Even the old secretary who used to write the memo’s said as much. The gist of the story was accurate, but it was not able to be proven to be unfalsified.
If you want to use your brain on this, you will be able to peel the two issues apart. How Bush comported himself, the gist of the memo’s as verified by the lady who used to type them, versus whether or not it could be verified. They are two different issues.
Anyway, look, the fact that from time to time people take a flying leap off into a strange course does not make the MSM a conspiracy. Danny boy fucked up in a big way and paid the price for it. What more do you want? If it was a conspiracy, he’d still have his fucking job, because it wasn’t the administration that had him fired, was it?
It is very difficult for the media, or for anyone, to find something that is not already political, especially when reporting on political matters. Why don’t you try to present an issue, such as what is happening in Iraq or within Lebanon without touching on any political issues?
The public needs to know those issues, to some degree, to form an accurate opinion about events. To simply say that there is fighting over there somewhere really isn’t very much by way of news coverage.
Where the fuck did this come from? Was I talking about Bush or a stolen election or any other strange bullshit that you are pulling out of your ass? Wake up and join the real world Steveo, the rest of us are waiting for you.
Y’know, for someone who tries to pass himself off as Mr Ultra-True-Christian, I don’t think you are very Christian at all.
I know you aren’t good at it, but try to separate the message from the messenger every now and then. They are not the same thing.
[quote]orion wrote:
This is not a war.
This is a minor nuisance.
A few hundred people dying each year is the cost of freedom.[/quote]
orion, this sums up your position very effectively.
If you trully believe it not to be a war, then you are going to reach the conclusion that you have. Namely, the rules of peace apply.
However, if you knew what some of us do, if you watched the towers burn, if you are aware of the lengths that the terrorists are going to destroy us, you would reach my conclusion.
Oh, saying “it’s not a war” rings very hollow. Especially, in light of the last four days in lebanon and gaza.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
orion, this sums up your position very effectively.
If you trully believe it not to be a war, then you are going to reach the conclusion that you have. Namely, the rules of peace apply.
However, if you knew what some of us do, if you watched the towers burn, if you are aware of the lengths that the terrorists are going to destroy us, you would reach my conclusion.
Oh, saying “it’s not a war” rings very hollow. Especially, in light of the last four days in lebanon and gaza.
JeffR [/quote]
Jerffy,
I can’t say I’m likely to agree with much of anything you say, but I do have to give you credit for starting to make posts that sound like you are applying some mental effort.
Anyway, I don’t think Orion is saying that there aren’t very bad people out there trying to do very bad things to us. He’ll have to speak for himself of course, but I don’t think that’s what he meant by not calling it a war.
The problem is that there is a religion that is very easily twisted to support a murdurous viewpoint. Mainly, fundamentalist Islam. This makes things quite complex.
Anybody of sound mind knows that you can’t just drop nuclear bombs and wipe out a billion people because you can’t tell the bad guys from the moderates. So, in some ways it isn’t a war, because there aren’t easily identified combatants.
However, yes, at times, as in Lebanon, there does seem to be a radical group that is willing to stand up and fight as a force. I’d also imagine that they have backing or support from fundamentalists in various countries, including Syria and Iran.
The problem is, that killing them off, then perhaps overthrowing the governments of Syria and Iran won’t win anything. Also, bear in mind, I’m not arguing for appeasement or anything stupid like that! I’m just saying that the path to victory at this point has never been outlined for us.
I don’t have a problem with the fact that you simply want to fight, but I do wish we had some clear understanding how to achieve a victory. You see, we are fighting and winning battles all the time, perhaps every battle fought is won, but at great cost.
What if there were solutions, not appeasement, that resulted in an appropriate end to the situation. My guess an appropriate end is one in which the radical groups are unable to find support from the moderate populace. I don’t know how to get their either, but I think it’s a good end goal.
I think, right now, that moderates are afraid. It’s as if the mafia are everywhere over there. Nobody is willing to stand against them and they are in complete control. We have no way to know how many moderates their truly may be as they won’t identify themselves, because if they do then they die.
Either we will find a way out of the mess we are in or we will continue to fight skirmishes whenever groups of fanaticals can easily be identified. The world has entered a bad time, and nobody, anywhere, has been able to outline a path towards a better future that does not go through an incredibly bad time.
Perhaps it was the only path available, at least as far as Afghanistan, but going to war as Bush has, will certainly be used to create a ton of propaganda that will fuel hatred and fanaticism for decades. Is it the right decision or not, who can say, though as you know I do wish Bush hadn’t of used the WMD/fear card to get the people to agree to war.
Anyway, keep on thinking Jerffy, it doesn’t matter if you come to the same conclusions as me, but it does matter that you stop being a puppet.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
orion wrote:
This is not a war.
This is a minor nuisance.
A few hundred people dying each year is the cost of freedom.
orion, this sums up your position very effectively.
If you trully believe it not to be a war, then you are going to reach the conclusion that you have. Namely, the rules of peace apply.
However, if you knew what some of us do, if you watched the towers burn, if you are aware of the lengths that the terrorists are going to destroy us, you would reach my conclusion.
Oh, saying “it’s not a war” rings very hollow. Especially, in light of the last four days in lebanon and gaza.
JeffR [/quote]
Yup, that is basically it…
Since you are in favor of granting the executive greater powers during wartime, you are surely as interested as me in what actually is a “war”…
What constitutes a war objectively?
You would not want presidents running around calling themselves “wartime president” just to ram through an agenda?
What is a war, how is the US part of a war right now, anf, if you feel up to it, explain how a “war on drugs” could be included in your definition.
If you find that hard to do, you know why that “war”-talk makes me highly suspicious…
I do know however that exploding airplanes hitting towers “feel” like a war, but politics-by- feelings is more of a “liberal” thing, isn?t it?
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I understand this. Islam is more dangerous than any of the others you mentioned, however, because it invokes God and religion, and I think inspires a more fanatical following. Honestly, I don’t know that we can win this kind of war without a literal clash of civilizaions- armageddon type stuff…and I don’t know that America is prepared to do that. [/quote]
I don’t think that America is prepared to do that either, but I think that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush are really itching for it. Or at least they seem willing to play along with the Ayatollahs, who seem to want Armageddon.
George Bush is merely a pawn being used by the Illuminati to manifest their agenda, which is a unified global government with a global currency, global control, and a microchipped society.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.[/quote]
Honestly…where do you get your bullshit from? It amazes me that the right seems to have convinced themselves that liberals just want to lay down and let Osama knife-rape us.
There’s not one progressive who advocates talking or negotiating with terrorists. We just thought it was maybe a bad idea to create so many by atacking Iraq.
We think that naming people “enemy combatants” and denying them legal counsel is undrmining everything that America means.
Please stop listening to right-wing radio; it is the oppoite of thought.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
JeffR wrote:
That is a bunch of rubbish. Dumbing down assumes that the left coasts are superior in intellect.
Ummmm…we are! If the lefties competed against the righties on Jeopardy we’d kick the righties collective asses.
[/quote]
You wouldn’t know it from the leftists posts on this board.
Absolute ignorance from most of them in any discussion of history and the sciences.
[quote]tme wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I understand this. Islam is more dangerous than any of the others you mentioned, however, because it invokes God and religion, and I think inspires a more fanatical following. Honestly, I don’t know that we can win this kind of war without a literal clash of civilizaions- armageddon type stuff…and I don’t know that America is prepared to do that.
I don’t think that America is prepared to do that either, but I think that Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush are really itching for it. Or at least they seem willing to play along with the Ayatollahs, who seem to want Armageddon.
[/quote]
I don’t think most Americans even understand that this is a possibility and could very well be where we are headed. Oh, They want war because they believe that fighting in Iraq somehow keeps the bad people out of America. What many still don’t get is any “bad people” who could potentially do us the most harm have probably been here for years or decades to begin with.
I truly believe that is what it would take for either side to claim they “won” this if force is our primary weapon.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
We rule the universities and most all institutions of science and mathematics. We are the truth!!
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.
[/quote]
This is exactly right. The social atmosphere of university life appeals greatly to people that lean left.
Most people on the right find it very stifling. The same feelings we have for many of the lefts socialist programs.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
There’s not one progressive who advocates talking or negotiating with terrorists. We just thought it was maybe a bad idea to create so many by atacking Iraq. [/quote]
We created many terrorists when we attacked Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban. Were ‘progressives’ for or against that one?
And I don’t argue that people can’t have differing opinions on whether or not Iraq was a good idea - my point was that even outside the context of Iraq, the Left is not serious about seeing Islamism as a true enemy because, as I said earlier, the Left remains drunk on the idea that Islamism is our fault. If Islamism is believed to be ‘our fault’, it won’t be fought sufficiently.
Fantastic.
First, I wouldn’t even know where to locate talk-radio of any stripe - the only non-music radio I listen to is NPR, and that is rarely.
And secondly, you are one of the dimmest trolls here - don’t you feel embarrassed lecturing people on how to think? You should, so stop doing it.
There’s not one progressive who advocates talking or negotiating with terrorists. We just thought it was maybe a bad idea to create so many by atacking Iraq. [/quote]
We created many terrorists when we attacked Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban. Were ‘progressives’ for or against that one?
And I don’t argue that people can’t have differing opinions on whether or not Iraq was a good idea - my point was that even outside the context of Iraq, the Left is not serious about seeing Islamism as a true enemy because, as I said earlier, the Left remains drunk on the idea that Islamism is our fault. If Islamism is believed to be ‘our fault’, it won’t be fought sufficiently.
Fantastic.
First, I wouldn’t even know where to locate talk-radio of any stripe - the only non-music radio I listen to is NPR, and that is rarely.
And secondly, you are one of the dimmest trolls here - don’t you feel embarrassed lecturing people on how to think? You should, so stop doing it.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
harris447 wrote:
There’s not one progressive who advocates talking or negotiating with terrorists. We just thought it was maybe a bad idea to create so many by atacking Iraq.
We created many terrorists when we attacked Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban. Were ‘progressives’ for or against that one?
[/quote]
They marched in the streets to oppose it in the US and all over the world.
The left leaning members of the media said it would be a quagmire, said we would be bogged down like the Soviets and urged a “diplomatic solution.”
Most of the Democratic party were smart enough to vote for the war in Afghanistan but millions of “progressives” opposed it.
Most of the left tries to forget that. I never will.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
We created many terrorists when we attacked Afghanistan and toppled the Taliban. Were ‘progressives’ for or against that one?[/quote]
You are kidding right? Just about everyone has voiced support for Afghanistan…
Are you talking about Islamofascism by chance, because I don’t think most people think one way or the other about Islamism. Now, I’m sure that Islamofascism is not our fault, but we sure as hell have given them every opportunity to create propaganda and fuel their ranks.
It’s political spin that has such a statement twisted as you’ve done. You should be ashamed of refusing to use the eyes and ears you have to read or listen to what people are actually saying.