PDA

View Full Version : Questions for Liberals



Pages : [1] 2 3

Variable Wind
02-21-2011, 08:03 PM
I desire some insight into some observations concerning liberal/progressive beliefs that seem a bit contradictory to me. I am going to list some of these contradictions and observations and would like to know what exactly drives the liberal thought process to reach these conclusions.

Id rather not take the easy way out and try to answer these questions by using 8 acid tabs. Please keep in mind that I do not necessarily support either position on a given topic discussed here.

1) the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.

2) You are against capital punishment but for abortion on demand.

3) When it comes to abortion, a woman has the right to hoose because it is her body, but when it comes to fast food, the govt needs to step in because you can't be trusted to make such an important decision when it comes to your body.

4) The same public school idiot who can't teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

5) Trial lawyers are selfless heroes and doctors are overpaid.

6) Guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranians.

7) Global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the sun, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.

8) Gender roles are artificial but being gay is natural.

9) Businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

10) Self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11) There was no art before federal funding.

12) The free market that gives us 500+ channels can't deliver the quality that PBS does.

13) The NRA is bad, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.

14) Taxes are too low but ATM fees are too high.

15) Cesar Chavez is more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson.

16) Standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't.

17) Second-hand smoke is more dangerous than HIV.

18) Conservatives are racists but that black people couldn't make it without government help.

19) The only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

Please address any of the following. You may not subscribe to all of these ideas but please feel free to respond to the ones you do.

Voiceofsanity
02-21-2011, 08:33 PM
I'm not a liberal but since I've got a couple in my office I can answer each via this simply observation...

Liberalism (in it's post-1960s incarnation) is simply narcissism applied politically. Look at any position they grasp on to and realize that they are simply focused on methods in which they think their own self-percieved greatness can be best supported by the rest of us. This is also why we're starting to see collisions of interest amongst liberals...ie, they want high-speed rail but can't build it because of the environment and etc. They insist on reproductive rights but at the same time support governments like China and "zero percent population growth policies. Finally, to be a liberal is to be amoral and woefully uninformed on any given issue. Because again, it's all about their individuality and ways through policy that it can be propped up and furthered above and beyond all else.

nicknack
02-21-2011, 11:40 PM
As a self identified liberal (I consider myself a moderate with liberal tendencies) I will take a stab, or at least provide my view points


1) the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding. .

No the AIDS virus is spread by morons and idiots. The deal with federal funding, is trying to educate people about AIDS, and to make it alright to get tested if your concern



2) You are against capital punishment but for abortion on demand..

I am actually for capitol punishment in certain cases, pre-mediated murder, pedophilla, elderly abuse. I don't support abortion on demand unless it is to save the life of the mother in extreme circumstance.



3) When it comes to abortion, a woman has the right to hoose because it is her body, but when it comes to fast food, the govt needs to step in because you can't be trusted to make such an important decision when it comes to your body..

Yes, I feel the woman has the right to choose an abortion, because it is her body. I don't think the government has the right to close down fast food places, but if the companies (fast food, or otherwise) won't at least inform people what crap their food are made out of, then yes the government has the right to mandate they inform the consumer. Leaving it up to us, the consumer, if we really want to eat that stuff.


4) The same public school idiot who can't teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about sex..

I think education should be federally standardized. If you leave it up to the states, then you aren't getting standarized education from one state to the next. And at some point 2+2=5 may actually be correct in a state. Sex education should be taught by the parents. Let them deal with it if their lil'Suzy gets knocked up at 15.


5) Trial lawyers are selfless heroes and doctors are overpaid..

I am a medical professional, so my view point is skewed. There needs to be tort reform regarding malpractice and negligence lawsuits. Some doctors are overpaid, but then those are the ones who do just research, or have been practing for decades. My dad is a lawyer, and he knows lawyers aren't selfish hereos. He is also a conservative, so we have fun discussions alot.


6) Guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranians..

No. Key word there was law-adbiding. I don't know why someone needs to have a fully automatic assult rifle, or clips exceeding 15 rounds. But if they are law adbiding then they arent going to be a problem. Iran scares the hell out of me, who knows what Achmedwhatshisnutsjimabad is going to do.


7) Global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the sun, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs..

We have an effect on the environment, that's an obvious fact. But I have always thought that the climate is mostly cyclical in nature. So not a big Gore and Global warming supporter.


8) Gender roles are artificial but being gay is natural..

From all my sociology and anthropology classes, yes that is true. There is archiological evidence that proves that most gender roles are artifical, and dictated by societal standards at the time. As one of them their gays on this board, yeah it is natural.


9) Businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity..

The argument is true, and also can be true in reverse.


10) Self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it..

In some cases yes, but I do subscribe to the theory that your self-esteem will be a hell of a lot better if you earn it.


11) There was no art before federal funding..

Hmmm...I might get kicked out of the liberal club on this one. We should not be paying to subsidize art.


12) The free market that gives us 500+ channels can't deliver the quality that PBS does..

Is PBS even on anymore?


13) The NRA is bad, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution..

See my answer for #9


14) Taxes are too low but ATM fees are too high. .

Not sure why this one was put in there. I think those of us on the lower end of the icome scale, should pay less in over all taxes. While we not spend as much, we spend more often, because we need more neccessities more often, we can't afford to buy them all at once.


15) Cesar Chavez is more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson..

No. I don't know to many liberals who have said that. The only ones I can think of who might say that are in California and Mexican. I am in California and I have never heard that


16) Standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't..

Standardized tests aren't, the quotas and set-asides are. The reason for the quotas was to original combat the old Jim Crow type laws that encouraged discrimination. We do need to look into seeing if the quotas are needed anymore.


17) Second-hand smoke is more dangerous than HIV. .

I'm an ex smoker, and second hand smoke is more dangerous, because it is easier to come in contact with then HIV.


18) Conservatives are racists but that black people couldn't make it without government help..

I think conservatives are more likely to be obvious racists, but liberals trying to be overly non racist maybe trying to overcompensate. Blacks not making it without government help I think is crap.


19) The only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge..

Capitalism only obviously hasn't work. And Socialism only won't work. You need some sort of socialism along with some form of capitalism. Funny, that's what we are doing. Medicare, Social Security, DOMA, the Health Care reform, Veterans Benefits...all just some examples.

Edit:

That's the sort of attitude that makes the conservative movement look ignorant. Both groups have double-standards and contradictions. And you can't equate liberals here with communists in China. The fact of the matter is we are Americans, and to be completely polarized like we are is against everything that makes this country great. I am not a liberal because I am gay, I am a liberal because I am a veteran and because I am jewish. I used to be a Republican, but the social influence of the christian colition is what helped make me switch sides. While there are some ethnic and religious minorites within the conservative movement, the overwhelming majority of them are white and christian. This country is more than that. And it is better then just one view point.

Voiceofsanity
02-21-2011, 11:55 PM
- If the woman has the right choose because it is her body, does the baby in her womb not get a say in the matter?

- Capitalism has never existed in the first place.

- Show me one instance in which government has created prosperity. And no, don't cite FDR because that myth was debunked two decades ago.

- Show me evidence that conservatives are more likely to be racists...and while you google it, I'll go ahead and point at inner city America and places like Detroit where liberals have governed for years. The only thing those populations have gotten out of the deal are empty promises every election cycle from the left. If that isn't racist I don't know what is. If that isn't good enough I'll cite any of the many instances of the left jumping all over people of color who disagreed with the leftist agenda. (And if you want to shift to sexism I can accomodate because libs are just as guilty on that count too).

The problem with liberalism is that it attempts to dissolve anything resembling standards. Without some baseline anything goes. That's fine if you are intellectually an adolescent hell bent on pursuing whatever feel good thing of the moment moves you. It doesn't work though in the real world. In the real world actions have consequences both good and bad - no matter how hard libs try and avoid it.

Voiceofsanity
02-22-2011, 12:09 AM
By the way, with regards to taxation:

- Subtract from the amount of taxes you "paid in" the amount of your "refund". That is what you paid in taxes. It is a fact that the majority of taxes in this country are paid by the top end of the income scale.

- Don't even trot out the notion that we should raise corporate taxes. Why? First, American corporations are already taxed at about 10% more than their EU counterparts (the US rate is approx 35%, the EU 25%). Singapore and Hong Kong feature even lower corporate tax rates than the EU. But in any case, no corporation pays taxes to begin with - it is passed on to you and me at the check out counter in a higher sticker price. Want to help out the little guy and make our corporations more competitive? Lower corporate taxes. On top of that eliminate tarrifs on export items like the EU has done so we can sell products overseas and can compete (ie, a Buick can't compete with a BMW because Buick is taxed on the vehicle as an export item while a BMW made in Germany isn't).

nicknack
02-22-2011, 12:15 AM
- If the woman has the right choose because it is her body, does the baby in her womb not get a say in the matter?

Do you get to tell a woman she can't do something? I don't agree with abortion, but it's not our decision to make. It is hers.


- Capitalism has never existed in the first place.

Neither has true socialism



- Show me one instance in which government has created prosperity. And no, don't cite FDR because that myth was debunked two decades ago.

Ike and the interstate highway system.


- Show me evidence that conservatives are more likely to be racists...and while you google it, I'll go ahead and point at inner city America and places like Detroit where liberals have governed for years. The only thing those populations have gotten out of the deal are empty promises every election cycle from the left. If that isn't racist I don't know what is. If that isn't good enough I'll cite any of the many instances of the left jumping all over people of color who disagreed with the leftist agenda. (And if you want to shift to sexism I can accomodate because libs are just as guilty on that count too).
No what I said was that conservatives are more likely going to be more overtly racist, while liberals are more likely to be hidden racist. And I can show you instances where conservative movement has been overtly racist. It's both sides that are guilty, not just the one.



The problem with liberalism is that it attempts to dissolve anything resembling standards. Without some baseline anything goes. That's fine if you are intellectually an adolescent hell bent on pursuing whatever feel good thing of the moment moves you. It doesn't work though in the real world. In the real world actions have consequences both good and bad - no matter how hard libs try and avoid it.

Like I said, its that polarizing attitiude that ruins this country. The conservatives also make choices with consequences. Us liberals don't have a monopoly on that. And the thought that liberalism is hell bent on dissolving anything with standards is an outright inaccuracy. How is ensuring equal right not a good standard? How is treating people with respect and dignity a bad thing?

As for your taxes, all I gave was my opinion of them. In fact, the OP was just asking the liberals on this board for some clarification on some of the things he sees. I know that the higher income pay more, but I also know there are more loop holes for the higher income and for coporations. He wasn't insulting, but you are. See the difference...you want a civil discussion, then act civil. Not degradating. At no point did I go out of my way and insult conservatives

Voiceofsanity
02-22-2011, 12:33 AM
I'd love to believe your claim that the left seeks equality, tolerance, and respect of others but it isn't true. The left seeks those qualities of selective groups that are useful to the left. But of those that aren't the left spews hatred and derision. Just look at how the left portrays Christians. Or stay at home moms. Shall I continue?

And yes, we've seen full blown socialism and it has been an horrific failure everywhere it has been applied.

Voiceofsanity
02-22-2011, 02:08 AM
Well excuse me for speaking my mind before the great, vast, and allegedly unbiased "middle"!

Variable Wind
02-22-2011, 02:30 AM
As a self identified liberal (I consider myself a moderate with liberal tendencies) I will take a stab, or at least provide my view points
I see you as liberalish...more libertarian, as I see that you and I agree on, dare I say, probably over half of what you discussed. Try to remember, this wasnt so much of a conservative vs liberal point/counterpoint. This was me taking the views and stances of the progressive group as a whole.

Full disclosure. I am a conservative...a CONSTITUTIONAL conservative. There are things that I agree with in the GOP and there are things I disagree with. My politics are in line more with the Tea Party, which is more on fiscal conservativism and small on social conservativism. It isnt as racist as people scare themselves and others into thinking.

I appreciate the response, no patronizing or sarcasm intended. I like how you answered my questions and I am glad you took the time to post. Thank you.


The fact of the matter is we are Americans, and to be completely polarized like we are is against everything that makes this country great. I am not a liberal because I am gay, I am a liberal because I am a veteran and because I am jewish. I used to be a Republican, but the social influence of the christian colition is what helped make me switch sides. While there are some ethnic and religious minorites within the conservative movement, the overwhelming majority of them are white and christian. This country is more than that. And it is better then just one view point.
I disagree, this country was borne out of political discourse even decades after we won our independance. I think the diversity in opinion makes us stronger but weaker at the same time. I do not see how being jewish would make you a liberal or a veteran. Most veterans I know, and almost every Jew that I know is conservative or moderate leaning conservative. I find it hard that you use those identities to define your political ideology. I certainly dont for you or for me.

Do not forget, the overwhelmingly largest demographic of this country is white, and the majority of this country is Christian. There is a lot more to this country than just the cities, there are the rural and rural-suburban small town America which still has an identity of its own and it certainly isnt as evil and stupid as the media has made it out to be.

nicknack
02-22-2011, 04:38 AM
Really, most Jews you know are Conservative? I see the opposite. The exception was my Grandfather, he actually worked for Ike, and was a die hard Republican. There are pictures of him shaking hands with all the Republican presidents since and including Ike, so Nixon, Ford, Reagan and both Bush's. My mom, her brothers and sisters the exact opposite (meaning very liberal). And one of my uncles is a retired full bird Colonial from the Army. The majority of my Synagogue also predominately liberal. And in polling research the Jews tend to swing to the left. I had mentioned it as part of my political leanings, because of the huge influence of the Christian right in the conservative movement. They scare the hell out of me (pun intended).

I also switched political idealogy while I was in the Navy, I am from Minnesota, and surprisingly enough the former, more left then Lenin, Senator from Minnesota Paul Wellstone was a huge supporter of troops and veterans, not so much for the wars. I did some more research, and to me, I saw more support for the troops and veterans from the left, and just a lot of lip service from the right. Both sides use us as pawns though, I am not completely blinded.

I think the biggest reason I swing more to the left, as I am somewhat of a minority. I keep hearing about how faith plays a big part in the conservative movement, but it's the Christan faith they are talking about. The conservative movement is not wholely welcoming towards people with different view points or even religious differences. I know that Consitutional Conservatives are different, my dad is one. And I can totally get behind the general ideas of the Tea Party movement, but it's been highjacked by the GOP and the Christan right, so there is no place for me there. I grew up in the Midwest, so I have seen small town White Christan America. Family in a small town in Nebraska even (Christans from my dad's side), great town, great people. But they need to remember that there are more people then they see also.

JD2780
02-22-2011, 05:14 AM
Does the rape victim get a say in the abortion?

I can take most of this BS, but a woman raped by a sick and twisted freak should NOT be condemned to be carrying his seed full term just to give it up for adoption. She SHOULD be allowed to abort it in a timely fashion. Now I do understand there should be time constraints set into place.

Seriously, though what Father, Husband, or Brother would want to see a woman he loves carry the child of a man who took her rights away?

imported_LOAL-D
02-22-2011, 05:29 AM
Least he didn't say "Questions for Leftists"...like we're in Nicaragua or something

Variable Wind
02-22-2011, 12:46 PM
Really, most Jews you know are Conservative? I see the opposite. The exception was my Grandfather, he actually worked for Ike, and was a die hard Republican. There are pictures of him shaking hands with all the Republican presidents since and including Ike, so Nixon, Ford, Reagan and both Bush's. My mom, her brothers and sisters the exact opposite (meaning very liberal). And one of my uncles is a retired full bird Colonial from the Army. The majority of my Synagogue also predominately liberal. And in polling research the Jews tend to swing to the left. I had mentioned it as part of my political leanings, because of the huge influence of the Christian right in the conservative movement. They scare the hell out of me (pun intended).
My point was to illustrate that religion does not seem to promote political ideology. Also, since polling research also shows that muslims tend to swing to the left, I would think that would scare you back to the right. I will also note the vast similarities between Christianity and Judaism. I mean, we even share some of the same scripture. While you can say that there is a huge influence of the Christian right on the conservative movement, you can also say that there is a huge influence of socialism in the progressive movement. But you have liberals who arent progressives and conservatives who arent part of the religious right. The arguement is specious (my favorite word) because all ideologies are hyjacked by similar more extreme ideologies that are harder for the populace to swallow. It is both symbiotic and parasitic. So its more than just left vs right, you also have up and down.

Take Dark Heart and I for example. He is I believe, a liberal gay atheist and I am a conservative straight Christian. However, we BOTH believe in limited government interference in our personal lives so we are actually very similar on many views. This is why I think Libertarians and Constitutionalists feel left out of the political arena save for the Tea Party. You say the Tea Party has been taken over by the GOP and the Religious Right...I would disagree. Do not confuse someone who leans on their faith to help make decisions with someone who believes the government should be run theocratically. It is the difference between a Constitutionalist (Glenn Beck) and a member of the Religious Right (Anne Coulter). The media and the left want you to think that they are one in the same but if you listen to the message, you will hear something quite distinctly different.


I also switched political idealogy while I was in the Navy, I am from Minnesota, and surprisingly enough the former, more left then Lenin, Senator from Minnesota Paul Wellstone was a huge supporter of troops and veterans, not so much for the wars.
Well that means little to me because the communists are big on the military. I am trying to figure out WHY you switched political ideology. It SOUNDS like it was because of identity politics but that explanation does not line up with your positions on some issues. Can you clarify this for me?


I think the biggest reason I swing more to the left, as I am somewhat of a minority. I keep hearing about how faith plays a big part in the conservative movement, but it's the Christan faith they are talking about. The conservative movement is not wholely welcoming towards people with different view points or even religious differences. I know that Consitutional Conservatives are different, my dad is one. And I can totally get behind the general ideas of the Tea Party movement, but it's been highjacked by the GOP and the Christan right, so there is no place for me there. I grew up in the Midwest, so I have seen small town White Christan America. Family in a small town in Nebraska even (Christans from my dad's side), great town, great people. But they need to remember that there are more people then they see also.
Well if you think that the conservative movement is not wholely welcoming towards people with different view points, its probably because of your homosexuality and not because you are jewish. That is slowly changing. People of all walks of life are generally accepted but people are always protective of their own beliefs.

How about trying to be part of the progressive movement if you believe that God is more important in your life than government. If you believe that races are equal and the government should treat them equally. If you think that powerful conservative women still represent womens rights. Look at what the progressives have done to Camille Paglia...she sounds close to your speed politically. Its not pretty.

Variable Wind
02-22-2011, 12:51 PM
V-Dub--I've got another one for you. If government is inherently good, if government is the solution to any problem, and if more government is always better, the why do government employees need to unionize in order to protect themselves from the big, bad government?
You know, I have a real big problem with what is being said in Wisconsin by the union babies. They have more rights even without a union than most private sector unions do. Collective bargaining is a farce. They cannot dictate class size when the state and local governments do not have money to hire more teachers or build more schools. They cannot demand wages above the CPI when the goverment cannot afford to pay them. The people funding them (taxpayers) are hurting too much for them to have any more, and leaving collective bargaining while conceeding everything else, is like taking the deer away from a hunter and leaving him with the rifle and ammo. Hes just going to go out and get another deer.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-22-2011, 02:02 PM
I think conservatives are more likely to be obvious racists, but liberals trying to be overly non racist maybe trying to overcompensate. Blacks not making it without government help I think is crap.

Interject real fast, are you telling me the TEA party with ZERO proof of being racist as a whole or subduing and kicking out anyone that tries to represent the TEA party and spouting off any racist remark is more racist than "Code Pink" saying "String up Clearance Thomas and his wife" or "Send him back out the the field"? Who is the "obvious" racist here? Or NBP saying "You got to kill some cracka babies", but there is NO evidence of any TEA party supporting any racist remarks or the people that say anything truely racist. If you have some proof of conservatives being racist, please post, other wise, get off the MSNBC tit and think for yourself.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-22-2011, 02:18 PM
Capitalism only obviously hasn't work. And Socialism only won't work. You need some sort of socialism along with some form of capitalism. Funny, that's what we are doing. Medicare, Social Security, DOMA, the Health Care reform, Veterans Benefits...all just some examples.

The problem is, the socialist devices like Medicare, SS, Health care reform are bankrupting the capitalist Union. There are too many people getting handouts for not doing anything. SS was never meant to be a retirement plan for everyone, it was meant for widows of WWI veterans because women weren't allowed to work back in those days so had no financial support of their own, and for the mentally/physically handicapped that couldn't work at anything other than minimum wage paying jobs if at all. Too many people have thought that they deserve it and stopped saving for their own retirement. If SS went back to the original premises of supporting people that couldn't support themselves, AND, the Gov would keep their hands out of this VAST coffer and stop putting IOUs to cover what they took, each individual would pay maybe $10-50 per paycheck to keep SS doing what it was intended for.

Unlike SS, VA was set up and mostly supported by military members and paid into by military members. The money is set aside to only be used for the programs that it was meant for. TA was turned to 100% because for decades we paid into VA and little bit of people actually used the 75% program. The GI bill account was overflowing with money because people paid in the initial $1200 and then never used it. The VA for military home buyers is just a backing to underwrite mortgages of military members, they seldom ever lost money because if the house of a military member got foreclosed on, the VA would "sell" it to another military member for the amount still owed. VA is NOT a socialist type program.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-22-2011, 02:42 PM
Do you get to tell a woman she can't do something? I don't agree with abortion, but it's not our decision to make. It is hers.
That is fine, I won't tell a woman what she can do with her body, but abortions for the sake of not dealing with concequenses of your actions is just amorral.


Neither has true socialism
China, Russia, oh wait, those are communist, the socialist without religion states.


Ike and the interstate highway system. That is like saying military is a prospering endeavor of the government. The projects of the government are overpaid, little result, and heavy burden on taxpayers for upkeep.


No what I said was that conservatives are more likely going to be more overtly racist, while liberals are more likely to be hidden racist. And I can show you instances where conservative movement has been overtly racist. It's both sides that are guilty, not just the one. As I said, conservatives are labled racist by presuptions of liberals with no proof. Liberal parties and affiliates are out right racist and have been since the founding of the US.



Like I said, its that polarizing attitiude that ruins this country. The conservatives also make choices with consequences. Us liberals don't have a monopoly on that. And the thought that liberalism is hell bent on dissolving anything with standards is an outright inaccuracy. How is ensuring equal right not a good standard? How is treating people with respect and dignity a bad thing?
When has the liberals ever been for treating people with equal rights? Is affirmative action equal rights? Is filabusting and voting against civil rights the same as treating people with equal rights? Is breaking away from the government so you can keep slavery treating people with equal rights? There is no digity from the left, just false promises that only get passed when there is enough preasure to force their hands. Obama had no true intention of over turning DADT till the courts forced it and he could use it as an election tool.



As for your taxes, all I gave was my opinion of them. In fact, the OP was just asking the liberals on this board for some clarification on some of the things he sees. I know that the higher income pay more, but I also know there are more loop holes for the higher income and for coporations. He wasn't insulting, but you are. See the difference...you want a civil discussion, then act civil. Not degradating. At no point did I go out of my way and insult conservatives Want equal pay in taxes. 10% across the board no matter how much you make and no matter how many kids you have. No loop holes, no exemptions, just 10%.

As far as the corporation tax, I highly doubt the prices will come down if the corp tax was lowered. 35% corp tax here while the world average is 18%. If the corp tax was lowered to 15%, it would still take time for corps to come back to America and they will just see it as any other person would, "I get to keep more of the money, YAY!" Just like when gas prices came down, did you see any deflation in the prices that rose due to $4/gallon gas prices?

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-22-2011, 02:53 PM
I also switched political idealogy while I was in the Navy, I am from Minnesota, and surprisingly enough the former, more left then Lenin, Senator from Minnesota Paul Wellstone was a huge supporter of troops and veterans, not so much for the wars. I did some more research, and to me, I saw more support for the troops and veterans from the left, and just a lot of lip service from the right. Both sides use us as pawns though, I am not completely blinded.

I think the biggest reason I swing more to the left, as I am somewhat of a minority. I keep hearing about how faith plays a big part in the conservative movement, but it's the Christan faith they are talking about. The conservative movement is not wholely welcoming towards people with different view points or even religious differences. I know that Consitutional Conservatives are different, my dad is one. And I can totally get behind the general ideas of the Tea Party movement, but it's been highjacked by the GOP and the Christan right, so there is no place for me there. I grew up in the Midwest, so I have seen small town White Christan America. Family in a small town in Nebraska even (Christans from my dad's side), great town, great people. But they need to remember that there are more people then they see also.
Well, not so. The GOP hasn't taken the TEA party, the TEA party has been embraced by the GOP who has tried but unsuccesfully to incorporate the movement. The TEA party is not about Christian values and doesn't try to force any values into their political agenda, they just try to push their fiscal/constitutional values, the values that are truely going to matter when it comes to talking about making the US a finacial super power again. The GOP is actually irritated with the freshmen TEA party reps because the TEA party is forcing the GOP to go with the TEA party point of view of spending, or I should say cutting.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-22-2011, 03:20 PM
You know, I have a real big problem with what is being said in Wisconsin by the union babies. They have more rights even without a union than most private sector unions do. Collective bargaining is a farce. They cannot dictate class size when the state and local governments do not have money to hire more teachers or build more schools. They cannot demand wages above the CPI when the goverment cannot afford to pay them. The people funding them (taxpayers) are hurting too much for them to have any more, and leaving collective bargaining while conceeding everything else, is like taking the deer away from a hunter and leaving him with the rifle and ammo. Hes just going to go out and get another deer.Couple of things about the Wisconsin protests, the unions only make-up about 6-12% of the population. And because of that, there wouldn't be half as many protesters out there if the teachers weren't pulling their students out to hold signs protesting something they have no idea what they are falling for. The left just got done saying for the past 2 years that Obama was elected to reform health care and we should just shut up and listen to our elected officials. Now the shoe is on the other foot and the left is bulling the government and shutting down schools because the elected official (Gov Walker) is making good on his campaign promises. The hypocrisy of the left and right is what is the most irritating to me. I fall in line little by little with the TEA party because they aren't spouting off religious rhetoric trying to make their point. They are using common sense to push their ideology.

EOMFD/GFYM8
02-22-2011, 03:22 PM
4) The same public school idiot who can't teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
A) Better them than the Jersey Shore idiots or the internet. I think we all know that parents aren't doing an adequate job explaining how to insert tab A into slot B. The reason 4th graders can't read is because when they get home they don't have to; they have text/chat shorthand (LoL, OMG, etc) and really don't use reading outside the classroom. Learning starts at home and most children go home to moronic and/or uninterested parents.

6) Guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranians.
A) No American has ever been killed by a foreign nuclear weapon, on the other hand, we can't seem to stop shooting each other hand over fist.

7) Global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the sun, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.
A) Global temperatures absolutely change on a cycle. However, since the industrial evolution, changes in things that affect those temperatures (surface reflectivity, atmospheric gases, etc) can be directly tied to human influence in such a way that in can be definitively proven that humans are responsible for climate change being accelerated and more drastic than all past climate-shift events.

9) Businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
A) Businesses create money which few people collect on. Businesses will create jobs and hire people only as long as it profits their shareholders. Workers and consumers are pawns.

11) There was no art before federal funding.
A) Art for the sake of art has to be free...otherwise it will all be for-profit garbage like you see in Pier 1.

12) The free market that gives us 500+ channels can't deliver the quality that PBS does.
A) 200 of those channels are P90X infomercials, 250 are reality shows about refurbishing old crap, 25 are ESPN, 10 are local, and the other ones are pay-per-view. PBS is free, always on, and actually conveys vetted information instead of reactionary, biased, talking-head-spewed nonsense.

13) The NRA is bad, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.
A) The NRA is bad because it defends only one part of the constitution while forsaking the rest of the document. They also prey on the paranoia of middle-America and collect their hard-earned money to give to lobbyists.

17) Second-hand smoke is more dangerous than HIV.
A) It is. Check the numbers.

These are the ones I can answer. I don't agree with all of the liberal ideals that the OP listed, but I do identify myself as liberal.

Variable Wind
02-22-2011, 03:38 PM
4) The same public school idiot who can't teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
A) Better them than the Jersey Shore idiots or the internet. I think we all know that parents aren't doing an adequate job explaining how to insert tab A into slot B. The reason 4th graders can't read is because when they get home they don't have to; they have text/chat shorthand (LoL, OMG, etc) and really don't use reading outside the classroom. Learning starts at home and most children go home to moronic and/or uninterested parents.
Note that they still talk like that with a public school education. So the teachers may not be the problem, but they obviously are not the solution. That makes them excess.


6) Guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranians.
A) No American has ever been killed by a foreign nuclear weapon, on the other hand, we can't seem to stop shooting each other hand over fist.
Only a miniscule number of those shooting involve legally obtained firearms. Are you saying that a nuclear Iran is not as much of a threat as the 2nd ammendment?


7) Global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the sun, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.
A) Global temperatures absolutely change on a cycle. However, since the industrial evolution, changes in things that affect those temperatures (surface reflectivity, atmospheric gases, etc) can be directly tied to human influence in such a way that in can be definitively proven that humans are responsible for climate change being accelerated and more drastic than all past climate-shift events.
Actually, it has not. All conclusions that point to that have been proven to be biased, corrupted, or insular to peer-review. There in fact is no clear evidence that backs up your claims. The fact that such weather has been documented by geologists as having happened centuries and millenia before the industrial revolution also seems to refute your claim.


9) Businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
A) Businesses create money which few people collect on. Businesses will create jobs and hire people only as long as it profits their shareholders. Workers and consumers are pawns.
I am a worker, I am a consumer. I have prospered in the private market while the government has screwed me over. How do you explain this?


11) There was no art before federal funding.
A) Art for the sake of art has to be free...otherwise it will all be for-profit garbage like you see in Pier 1.
And yet, somehow there was art long before the government sponsored it. In fact the GREATEST works of art were created long before it.


12) The free market that gives us 500+ channels can't deliver the quality that PBS does.
B) 200 of those channels are P90X infomercials, 250 are reality shows about refurbishing old crap, 25 are ESPN, 10 are local, and the other ones are pay-per-view. PBS is free, always on, and actually conveys vetted information instead of reactionary, biased, talking-head-spewed nonsense.
This is false. Many independant research and even testimony from former and current PBS employees convey that it has an openly liberal bend that is in line with outlets like MSNBC and Huffpo. The firing of Juan Williams alone is evidence alone to render your arguement here moot. He was fired for doing what many other PBC employees do on a regular basis.


13) The NRA is bad, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.
A) The NRA is bad because it defends only one part of the constitution while forsaking the rest of the document. They also prey on the paranoia of middle-America and collect their hard-earned money to give to lobbyists.
What other part of the Constitution is forsaken? This claim seems a bit far-fetched.


These are the ones I can answer. I don't agree with all of the liberal ideals that the OP listed, but I do identify myself as liberal.
You did not fare so well as nicknack...where he provided his opinion and conclusions, you used bad information and falsehoods.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-22-2011, 03:51 PM
4) The same public school idiot who can't teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
A) Better them than the Jersey Shore idiots or the internet. I think we all know that parents aren't doing an adequate job explaining how to insert tab A into slot B. The reason 4th graders can't read is because when they get home they don't have to; they have text/chat shorthand (LoL, OMG, etc) and really don't use reading outside the classroom. Learning starts at home and most children go home to moronic and/or uninterested parents.
Too bad that the liberal teaching society focuses on "safe sex" and not "no sex". But you are right about the uninterested parents. I wouldn't call them moronic though, way too many "highly educated" people neglect their children too. The overwhelming numbers of underage and unwanted pregnancies come from inner cities and welfare ridden families. I wouldn't call them moronic, just lazy.


6) Guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranians.
A) No American has ever been killed by a foreign nuclear weapon, on the other hand, we can't seem to stop shooting each other hand over fist.But the problem is that liberals want to take guns from law abiding citizens while the criminals will always find a way to get a gun. Once we get a divice that can eleiminate all guns from working in the hands of criminals, we should allow law abiding citizens the ability to defend themselves. The ability to defend ourselves from nuclear attacks, or respond to, is the reason why no American has ever been killed by a foreign nuclear device. Why does Switzerland have the lowest gun crime? Cause they are all issued guns and taught how to use it, thus, acting as a deterent for crime against individuals. And the guns they have, are automatics.



7) Global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the sun, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.
A) Global temperatures absolutely change on a cycle. However, since the industrial evolution, changes in things that affect those temperatures (surface reflectivity, atmospheric gases, etc) can be directly tied to human influence in such a way that in can be definitively proven that humans are responsible for climate change being accelerated and more drastic than all past climate-shift events.There is no proof that human interferience has significantly changed the climate more than the normal cycle of change. There has been an ice age before, and there have been major droughts, what is to say this is not the cycle that we are supposed to be in?


9) Businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
A) Businesses create money which few people collect on. Businesses will create jobs and hire people only as long as it profits their shareholders. Workers and consumers are pawns.
If a business doesn't produce something the consumer doesn't want, the business goes out of business or changes what they make. When the government gives the citizen something they don't want (Obamacare), the government says shut up and take it or we will tax you for it.

Apple products cost more than the compotition, why? Cause they make quality stuff that people will buy. Apple is not forcing anyone to buy their products. Nope, no oppression there.

GM gets the huge bailout from the US government, then there are reports of Toyota and Honda (The best selling cars in the US) of having acceleration problems that are magnified by the US congressional hearings. GM, Ford have their best quaters/years of sales in decades. They didn't make a better car, they are just owened by the government. Come to find out, Toyota and Honda never had a problem with their cars, but does that matter to the sheeple of MSNBC, no, cause the reputation of those forgeign cars have taken a hit for a few years and now GM can climb back into the game with their substandard vehicles.


12) The free market that gives us 500+ channels can't deliver the quality that PBS does.
A) 200 of those channels are P90X infomercials, 250 are reality shows about refurbishing old crap, 25 are ESPN, 10 are local, and the other ones are pay-per-view. PBS is free, always on, and actually conveys vetted information instead of reactionary, biased, talking-head-spewed nonsense.PBS provides what in the lines of "Quality" programing?


13) The NRA is bad, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.
A) The NRA is bad because it defends only one part of the constitution while forsaking the rest of the document. They also prey on the paranoia of middle-America and collect their hard-earned money to give to lobbyists.
The NRA does not forsake any of the constitution, they are just pin pointing on one specific part of the constitution. ACLU scews the constitution into something that it really doesn't represent. Sometimes the ACLU gets it right, but a lot of the times, they stick the noses into matters of private personal matters.


17) Second-hand smoke is more dangerous than HIV.
A) It is. Check the numbers.
I agree with you. But limiting smoking to only a certain amount of places when you are standing outside is rediculous. On base, it is stupid but I conceed that I am in the military.

EOMFD/GFYM8
02-22-2011, 03:59 PM
[QUOTE=Variable Wind;421937]Note that they still talk like that with a public school education. So the teachers may not be the problem, but they obviously are not the solution. That makes them excess.
-Excess how? Do we eliminate teachers because their lessons aren't sticking? Lessons in the classroom have to be reinforced outside the classroom by family and society. Your argument is like saying that we should get rid of police officers because there is so much crime.

Only a miniscule number of those shooting involve legally obtained firearms. Are you saying that a nuclear Iran is not as much of a threat as the 2nd ammendment?
-Yes, that's what I'm saying. I'm a gun owner and I have all of my guns legally, but if they all get stolen, then I can't say what they'll be used for. Just because I bought my guns legally doesn't mean they can't be taken illegally and used for violence. As far as the nukes go, I have long held the belief that Iran, Iraq, N. Korea, et al can strive to make special weapons all they want. If they were ever to use them they would face massive retalliation from us and the rest of the world and they would cease to exist. So if Iran makes 1 or 2 dozen nuclear weapons, so be it...we have many, many more.

Actually, it has not. All conclusions that point to that have been proven to be biased, corrupted, or insular to peer-review. There in fact is no clear evidence that backs up your claims. The fact that such weather has been documented by geologists as having happened centuries and millenia before the industrial revolution also seems to refute your claim.
-I'm aware of the issues that have brought the data into question, however the same data can't be written off as being false. But I'm not going to say that either of the sides will ever agree on this issue. One side says the house is crumbling and the other side says it's crumbling naturally. Either way, the house is crumbling and we should do everything we can to stop it.

I am a worker, I am a consumer. I have prospered in the private market while the government has screwed me over. How do you explain this?
-SGLI covers me for $400k no matter how I die. USAA charges me $375/mo vs. $79/mo for a $400k policy because of my AFSC. Explain this?

And yet, somehow there was art long before the government sponsored it. In fact the GREATEST works of art were created long before it.
-OK. I'll give you that one. It's just nice to see money spent on something other than destroying stuff.


This is false. Many independant research and even testimony from former and current PBS employees convey that it has an openly liberal bend that is in line with outlets like MSNBC and Huffpo. The firing of Juan Williams alone is evidence alone to render your arguement here moot. He was fired for doing what many other PBC employees do on a regular basis.
-Yet Fox news claims itself to be fair and balanced while watching it is akin to being ear-raped by Stalin.

Variable Wind
02-22-2011, 04:28 PM
Excess how? Do we eliminate teachers because their lessons aren't sticking? Lessons in the classroom have to be reinforced outside the classroom by family and society. Your argument is like saying that we should get rid of police officers because there is so much crime.
Not exactly. The question was, if teachers are failing to teach our kids properly, how can they be trusted to teach them sex education. Public school is maybe at its lowest point ever. I prefer private school, and my children will likely go to one. I think there would be BETTER public school teachers if they were not virtually untouchable. Unless you spank a kid or rape a kid, you can be a teacher forever.


-Yes, that's what I'm saying. I'm a gun owner and I have all of my guns legally, but if they all get stolen, then I can't say what they'll be used for. Just because I bought my guns legally doesn't mean they can't be taken illegally and used for violence. As far as the nukes go, I have long held the belief that Iran, Iraq, N. Korea, et al can strive to make special weapons all they want. If they were ever to use them they would face massive retalliation from us and the rest of the world and they would cease to exist. So if Iran makes 1 or 2 dozen nuclear weapons, so be it...we have many, many more.
You prove my point. Chicago and Washington DC are gun free zones and yet have some of the highest rates of shootings. ALL of the guns there are illegal (except for the cops) and yet we still have this problem. Obviously, gun laws accomplish nothing at best and are a detriment of the highest order at the worst. If Iran uses a nuke to EMP the US, sure we can glass their persian hides, but we also go dark as a nation and may lose millions to starvation and millions more to riots and looting, and millions more to exposure, ect.


-I'm aware of the issues that have brought the data into question, however the same data can't be written off as being false. But I'm not going to say that either of the sides will ever agree on this issue. One side says the house is crumbling and the other side says it's crumbling naturally. Either way, the house is crumbling and we should do everything we can to stop it.
The sea levels arent rising, the polar bear population is climbing dramatically and I cannot remember a single global warming prediction in the past 30 years that has come true. The earth is cooling, now its warming, now its cooling again...now its global climate disruption! The answer is to adapt, as humans always have, not try to manipulate nature which is a fool errand.


-SGLI covers me for $400k no matter how I die. USAA charges me $375/mo vs. $79/mo for a $400k policy because of my AFSC. Explain this?
Who pays for the bulk of your SGLI? Not the consumers. You are talking about a government-private hybrid. I am MORE than willing to agree with you on that little tidbit because similar animals include Freddie and Fannie Mae, AMTRAKand now GM for the time being. Oh and AAFES!!! I have an exceptional healthcare plan that I get for free from my company. I have an AWESOME supplemental plan and life insurance plan through my VFW since I am a life member. Your benefits are part of the defense cost to keep a strong military. I support that, even with the inflated life insurance policy. Hell you even get paid MORE to have kids and get married!


-OK. I'll give you that one. It's just nice to see money spent on something other than destroying stuff.
And I will give you that, but we have SOOOOO many people who are "artists" sucking money, it would be nice for the patrons to start giving money to artists who dont produce junk.

BTW I like Pier 1.


-Yet Fox news claims itself to be fair and balanced while watching it is akin to being ear-raped by Stalin.
Yes, but Fox isnt a government sponsored news outlet. I am the first to admit that Fox leans to the right...but they also are super successful (I watch Oreilly, Gretta, Red Eye (DVR) and Krauthammer when he is on the panel) The question is not who the competition is, but the fact that PBS is not balanced...at all and they get government assistance to be biased.

The irony here is that being ear raped by Stalin would mean it would be a state funded media...like PBS only it would also be state run. Dont get me wrong, I grew up on Lambchops, Mr Rogers and Seasame Street...but Seasame Street & Barney would be picked up in a heartbeat by the networks if PBS imploded. Having a small nephew myself, I notice a general lack of intelligent kid shows on that channel now. Teletubbys? Wow.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-22-2011, 04:39 PM
Yes, but Fox isnt a government sponsored news outlet. I am the first to admit that Fox leans to the right...but they also are super successful (I watch Oreilly, Gretta, Red Eye (DVR) and Krauthammer when he is on the panel) The question is not who the competition is, but the fact that PBS is not balanced...at all and they get government assistance to be biased.
If there needs to be "seperation of church and state", there better be "seperation of media and state." More people get their political views more from TV than the churches now and the government exploits that fact through NPR and PBS and other such media devices.

EOMFD/GFYM8
02-22-2011, 04:42 PM
So, on the climate-change bend: one of the predicted problems of climate-shift (natural or man-made is irrelevent) is mass migration of populations. (e.g. coastal people move inland, tropical people move to temperate areas) What the hell are we going to do about that? Do we set up refugee camps or kill them all or what? Sounds like the uninhabitable areas of the planet will grow, which will lead to crowding in the habitable areas...and you think we can't get along now! Anybody have thoughts?

Variable Wind
02-22-2011, 04:43 PM
If there needs to be "seperation of church and state", there better be "seperation of media and state." More people get their political views more from TV than the churches now and the government exploits that fact through NPR and PBS and other such media devices.

Well NPR and PBS are both part of the CPB (Another government/business hybrid). I dont like MSNBC, I am not impressed with CNN...but those outlets operate on their own merits and I respect that.

Variable Wind
02-22-2011, 04:48 PM
So, on the climate-change bend: one of the predicted problems of climate-shift (natural or man-made is irrelevent) is mass migration of populations. (e.g. coastal people move inland, tropical people move to temperate areas) What the hell are we going to do about that? Do we set up refugee camps or kill them all or what? Sounds like the uninhabitable areas of the planet will grow, which will lead to crowding in the habitable areas...and you think we can't get along now! Anybody have thoughts?
I laughed at this, not at you but the "and you think we cant get along now" part which I agree with. Solving the issue of desertification is not going to involve purchasing carbon credits. It is going to be spending money on finding and developing and deploying a solution. Some sort of terraforming? The problem there is that I wholly do not trust the UN to accomplish the deploying part even if we find and develop a solution. So who is going to do it? If Algore spent more of his time and money on THAT, it would be a much more honest endeavor and ultimately a better investment than telling people to pollute less while polluting more than the entire population to whom he speaks to...combined.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-22-2011, 04:52 PM
So, on the climate-change bend: one of the predicted problems of climate-shift (natural or man-made is irrelevent) is mass migration of populations. (e.g. coastal people move inland, tropical people move to temperate areas) What the hell are we going to do about that? Do we set up refugee camps or kill them all or what? Sounds like the uninhabitable areas of the planet will grow, which will lead to crowding in the habitable areas...and you think we can't get along now! Anybody have thoughts?
Has that been happening? Last I checked, people are onle migrating to more "prosperous" areas of the world.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-22-2011, 04:53 PM
Well NPR and PBS are both part of the CPB (Another government/business hybrid). I dont like MSNBC, I am not impressed with CNN...but those outlets operate on their own merits and I respect that.

I understand MSNBC and CNN doing what they are doing, that is why they are being baught out. But for the gov funded programs that supply the left media and people believe it as being true because it comes from a government back media outlet like NPR.

EOMFD/GFYM8
02-22-2011, 04:55 PM
I laughed at this, not at you but the "and you think we cant get along now" part which I agree with. Solving the issue of desertification is not going to involve purchasing carbon credits. It is going to be spending money on finding and developing and deploying a solution. Some sort of terraforming? The problem there is that I wholly do not trust the UN to accomplish the deploying part even if we find and develop a solution. So who is going to do it? If Algore spent more of his time and money on THAT, it would be a much more honest endeavor and ultimately a better investment than telling people to pollute less while polluting more than the entire population to whom he speaks to...combined.

Yeah, the problem is that it's a global issue and dealing with a global issue means getting concensus from the entire effing globe. Most of the world can't even agree on who's country ends on what line or which imaginary super-hero to talk to on Sunday. Getting everyone to figure out where everyone is going to live, how they're going to eat, and all that other jazz is going to be a royal goat-f*%k. I'm pretty sure we're all done for.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-22-2011, 04:56 PM
Here is a question you should add VW.

Why do liberals repeatedly say things like don't do that, or you are hurting the environment if you do this, but if you look at those liberals specifically, they don't follow their own advice?

Variable Wind
02-22-2011, 05:01 PM
Yeah, the problem is that it's a global issue and dealing with a global issue means getting concensus from the entire effing globe. Most of the world can't even agree on who's country ends on what line or which imaginary super-hero to talk to on Sunday. Getting everyone to figure out where everyone is going to live, how they're going to eat, and all that other jazz is going to be a royal goat-f*%k. I'm pretty sure we're all done for.
Well I cannot remember a time in history when this wasnt a problem so its not that much of a concern...of course the planet seems to be getting smaller. But we are done for anyway, nobody is immortal, not even people who read twilight books.

EOMFD/GFYM8
02-22-2011, 05:07 PM
Well I cannot remember a time in history when this wasnt a problem so its not that much of a concern...of course the planet seems to be getting smaller. But we are done for anyway, nobody is immortal, not even people who read twilight books.

WHAT?!?!? You mean I let some droopy-eyed teenager give me a hickey for NOTHING?!?

Oldkorling
02-22-2011, 06:22 PM
I desire some insight into some observations concerning liberal/progressive beliefs that seem a bit contradictory to me. I am going to list some of these contradictions and observations and would like to know what exactly drives the liberal thought process to reach these conclusions.

Id rather not take the easy way out and try to answer these questions by using 8 acid tabs. Please keep in mind that I do not necessarily support either position on a given topic discussed here.


2) You are against capital punishment but for abortion on demand.

Those who commit capital crimes deserve executions. Foetuses are not morally human. (Yes, I know I opened a can of worms), Therefore, comparing a hardened criminal to a fetus is to compare apples and bicycles. In general I agree making the "point of viability" the cut-off point for getting an abortion.

3) When it comes to abortion, a woman has the right to hoose because it is her body, but when it comes to fast food, the govt needs to step in because you can't be trusted to make such an important decision when it comes to your body.

Yes, a woman has a right to decide whether she will be a mother. The government has the duty to ensure corporations are not feeding us too much garbage. These are not mutually-exclusive positions to hold.

4) The same public school idiot who can't teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

In the overwhelming percentage of cases, that a 4th-grader cannot read is caused by his school lessons not being reinforced at home. Teachers are easy to attack as no parent wants to take the hit for his child's shortcomings.

5) Trial lawyers are selfless heroes and doctors are overpaid.

We wouldn't need trial lawyers if more doctors knew the appropriate standard of care and took responsibility for their mistakes.

6) Guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranians.

I'm more concerned with guns in the hands of criminals. That said, the 2nd amendment clear in that the right to bear arms is an individual right. I think my fellow progressives are wrong on this point. However, I don't think the right to weaponry should be unlimited as some Regressives believe, but there should be no constitutional problem to permitting the citizenry to possess those weapons reasonably necessary for defense of themselves, their families, and their property.

7) Global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the sun, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.

Global warming is caused by people. There is no real debate about this any more.

8) Gender roles are artificial but being gay is natural.

Gender is a social construct. Always has been. "Gay" is a sexual orientation, just like being "straight."

9) Businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

Corporate America would kill us all if it was legal to do so and there was a slim dime to be had in the process. To think otherwise is to horribly delude yourself. Governments create the CONDITIONS that allow citizens to prosper, but not necessarily prosperity itself.

10) Self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

I don't know any progressives who think this. You may know a few on the far-far-left who think this way, but then I can show you a regressive extremist who thinks mixed-race marriages are immoral. I am not interested in the opinions of radicals on either end of the spectrum.

11) There was no art before federal funding.

Before federal funding we had patrons of the arts who would support the artist. That tradition is all but dead. Since the arts are worth preserving and encouraging, we need federal funding.

12) The free market that gives us 500+ channels can't deliver the quality that PBS does.

This is a true statement. What does that say about the "free market?"

13) The NRA is bad, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.

The NRA is not bad, just unconcerned with the rest of the Constitution. The ACLU fights for all civil rights, no matter your political position. How anyone could NOT be a member of the ACLU is bewildering.

14) Taxes are too low but ATM fees are too high.

Again, a true statement.

15) Cesar Chavez is more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson.

We liberals do not think this. If you'll recall it was the regressive Don McLeroy (I think that's his name) from the Texas State Board of "Education" who wanted to take Jefferson out of the history books. No liberal would think this. And no liberal thinks Cesar Chavez is more important to America history than Jefferson.

16) Standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't.

Haven't given this much thought.

17) Second-hand smoke is more dangerous than HIV.

I smoke and know this is true.

18) Conservatives are racists but that black people couldn't make it without government help.

I have yet to meet a liberal racist.

19) The only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

Socialism, Communism, and Capitalism are all wonderful economic systems.....until you add people.

Please address any of the following. You may not subscribe to all of these ideas but please feel free to respond to the ones you do.

Some of the ideas you think progressives hold seem to come from regressive sources, not actual progressives.

Variable Wind
02-22-2011, 07:14 PM
Some of the ideas you think progressives hold seem to come from regressive sources, not actual progressives.

Progressive is a political moniker, because you follow the progressive political ideology does not mean you believe in progress. The opposite of a Progressive is not a Regressive. So either you are politically ignorant or you are a clown who detracts from your arguement more than you substantiate it.

Secondly, you need to quote properly. You dont respond to my comments as if I am saying them. I shall demonstrate:


1)Those who commit capital crimes deserve executions. Foetuses are not morally human. (Yes, I know I opened a can of worms), Therefore, comparing a hardened criminal to a fetus is to compare apples and bicycles. In general I agree making the "point of viability" the cut-off point for getting an abortion.
I actually have no stance on abortion aside from I think that a baby able to live outside of its mother should not be aborted (your point of viability). I also feel that outside of rape or incest, the father of the fetus/baby should also have some say in the matter. The proper comparrison however is not apples and bicycles, its rotten apples and seeds.


2) Yes, a woman has a right to decide whether she will be a mother. The government has the duty to ensure corporations are not feeding us too much garbage. These are not mutually-exclusive positions to hold.
So the government has a right to protect one health decision and intervene in another. They are not wholly exclusive and the believe otherwise is a bit divorsed from reality. If I have the ability to choose whether or not to bring another life into the world, I certainly must be trusted to eat whatever I please.


3)In the overwhelming percentage of cases, that a 4th-grader cannot read is caused by his school lessons not being reinforced at home. Teachers are easy to attack as no parent wants to take the hit for his child's shortcomings.
What you say is partially true, but you also have zero accountability in the education system...so you can say that school lessons are not being reinforced even in the classroom.


4)We wouldn't need trial lawyers if more doctors knew the appropriate standard of care and took responsibility for their mistakes.
We wouldnt need trial lawyers if people were made to realize that medicine is not always an exact science and doctors are not automatons. Mistakes will be made and as long as they are not the cause of gross neglegence, they should not be punished. Doc cut off your ear during a biopsy? Yeah, you need to get some compensation, but not 4 million dollars. The doc doesnt pay that anyway, his insurance does. Thats the nasty little problem that REALLY causes medical prices to go up.


5) I'm more concerned with guns in the hands of criminals. That said, the 2nd amendment clear in that the right to bear arms is an individual right. I think my fellow progressives are wrong on this point. However, I don't think the right to weaponry should be unlimited as some Regressives believe, but there should be no constitutional problem to permitting the citizenry to possess those weapons reasonably necessary for defense of themselves, their families, and their property.
That can include almost anything if you take into the account that the Constitution was written not long after a revolution against an overly oppressive government. Your use of the word regressive is pathetic.


6)Global warming is caused by people. There is no real debate about this any more.
There is no recorded that points directly to people causing Global Warming. There is debate about that, and you are simply wrong. There is no scientific concensus that changing climate is caused mainly by people. There is not even concensus that the earth is warming. I think you need to check your position before saying there is no debate, the tired Algore response makes you sound a little...regressive.


7) Gender is a social construct. Always has been. "Gay" is a sexual orientation, just like being "straight."
Gender is a social construct? I did not know that my testicles are a product of society. This comment is inherently ignorant.


8)Corporate America would kill us all if it was legal to do so and there was a slim dime to be had in the process. To think otherwise is to horribly delude yourself. Governments create the CONDITIONS that allow citizens to prosper, but not necessarily prosperity itself.
Really? I am part of corporate america and I would not kill you for any money. So the person that is horribly deluded is yourself. Big governments impede prosperity more than they promote it...but a small government can promote more than impede.


9) I don't know any progressives who think this. You may know a few on the far-far-left who think this way, but then I can show you a regressive extremist who thinks mixed-race marriages are immoral. I am not interested in the opinions of radicals on either end of the spectrum.
I know many progressive who think this. Listen to NPR.


10)Before federal funding we had patrons of the arts who would support the artist. That tradition is all but dead. Since the arts are worth preserving and encouraging, we need federal funding.
Not only is that tradition NOT dead, but using your logic, if the arts were worth preserving and encouraging, there would be patrons of the arts.


11) This is a true statement. What does that say about the "free market?"
That its a little above your head.


12)
The NRA is not bad, just unconcerned with the rest of the Constitution. The ACLU fights for all civil rights, no matter your political position. How anyone could NOT be a member of the ACLU is bewildering.
The ACLU fights for civil rights, that is true...but they also fight for things that are not rights. That is why I have a problem with the ACLU and I am not a member.


13)Again, a true statement.
And you do not answer the question. I already know you believe this, I want to know why. Read the OP.


14)We liberals do not think this. If you'll recall it was the regressive Don McLeroy (I think that's his name) from the Texas State Board of "Education" who wanted to take Jefferson out of the history books. No liberal would think this. And no liberal thinks Cesar Chavez is more important to America history than Jefferson.
methinks someone is forgetting la raza, a progressive organization.


15)Haven't given this much thought.
Not suprising, but you could have given this answer to a lot of the other bullets here too considering your answers. (see global warming)


16) I smoke and know this is true.
And what does that say about you?


17) I have yet to meet a liberal racist.
You must be that guy in the Geico commercial then, living under a rock.


18) Socialism, Communism, and Capitalism are all wonderful economic systems.....until you add people.
That does nothing to answer the point.

DWWSWWD
02-22-2011, 07:39 PM
The VA for military home buyers is just a backing to underwrite mortgages of military members, they seldom ever lost money because if the house of a military member got foreclosed on, the VA would "sell" it to another military member for the amount still owed. VA is NOT a socialist type program. Really, any program that allow someone to do something they wouldn't otherwise be able to do is a socialist type program. VA home loan programs subscribe to the premise that home ownership is a right. They do lose a lot of money. The red tape involved in purchasing a VA repo most often precludes their being able to sell it to another military member for the amount owed. Add to that, that the amount owed is most often more than it's worth. This is certainly not a zero sum game as you suggest.

nicknack
02-23-2011, 12:21 AM
I had what I thought was a great response to the questions, but I didn't hit post in time so it got lost. I hate Glen Beck, I love Ann Coulter. If I was a Conservative, I would be a Log Cabin Republican. Christans have a longer standing history of oppressing Jews then Muslims. Judiasm is the originating religion of both Christianity and Islam. American Muslims and American Jews get along, because we are the minority religion here. There is a huge deference between us and Isreali Jews and Arabic Muslims. Isreal is a state because of the Democratic Party. It was also the Democratic party that was in charge when Hitler and the Holocaust was brought to an end. The Conservative support is really only since Reagan. American Jews also were part of the Civil Rights movement. Conservative Christans also feel their is a war on Christmas, and to hell with the Jews.

JD2780
02-23-2011, 12:47 AM
The Jews killed Jesus. I'm upset still after all these years.

I hope people pick up on my sarcasm. I wouldnt want to offend anyone. After all I'm in the careforce.

Variable Wind
02-23-2011, 12:54 AM
I had what I thought was a great response to the questions, but I didn't hit post in time so it got lost. I hate Glen Beck, I love Ann Coulter. If I was a Conservative, I would be a Log Cabin Republican. Christans have a longer standing history of oppressing Jews then Muslims. Judiasm is the originating religion of both Christianity and Islam. American Muslims and American Jews get along, because we are the minority religion here. There is a huge deference between us and Isreali Jews and Arabic Muslims. Isreal is a state because of the Democratic Party. It was also the Democratic party that was in charge when Hitler and the Holocaust was brought to an end. The Conservative support is really only since Reagan. American Jews also were part of the Civil Rights movement. Conservative Christans also feel their is a war on Christmas, and to hell with the Jews.

This took me a little aback. You love Anne Coulter, who is Religious Right, pro Government enforcement of Christian values, anti-gay rights ect. She is the definition of what liberals try to label as Facist on the right. However, you hate Glenn Beck who is pro small government, pro personal responsibility and the closest he gets to the religious right is to ask folks to let their faith guide them whatever their creed. I cant stand Coulter because her beliefs are so incredibly INtolerant and I am glad that she gets clowned every time she goes on Red Eye. Why do you like her?

I think you fundamentally misunderstand the conservative ideology. I certainly dont see that at all. I dont see the obvious racism (a charge I would like you to back up) and the skew between Jews and Christians here.

And if you want to dig up the past strife between Christians and Jews, need I remind you about the Pharisees and Christ? The past is the past so lets talk Democrats in WW2. FDR and other Democrats didnt want to get involved in WW2. Progressives loved Mouselini and held him up as an example for US politics.

Bottom line is this, you cannot for one second substantiate a claim that conservatives insulate against Jews. Conservatives support Isreal a whole lot more than the progressives and that is a fact that you can validate by going to Gallup, Rassmussen, Pew, or Zogby. I feel that you have unfortunately fallen under the spell of identity politics.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-23-2011, 12:55 AM
Really, any program that allow someone to do something they wouldn't otherwise be able to do is a socialist type program. VA home loan programs subscribe to the premise that home ownership is a right. They do lose a lot of money. The red tape involved in purchasing a VA repo most often precludes their being able to sell it to another military member for the amount owed. Add to that, that the amount owed is most often more than it's worth. This is certainly not a zero sum game as you suggest.I the original days of the VA, what I said was a true statement. It has changed since then and now your statement is true. I don't consider allowing someone to get what they work for as a socialist program. Socialist program is something like welfare or Obama-care. Giving something for nothing is socialist. Military members worked harder than most getting paid less than most, so when VA was started, it was for the members being paid well under what they deserved. I would call that the enlisted corp, aka "the working corp".

nicknack
02-23-2011, 12:56 AM
hahahahaha I have a sense of humor.

I wanted to add to my my most recent post also. The Tea Party has been hijacked by the Republicans, by virtue of the fact that the Tea Party members in Congress are all Republicans. If they ran as their own party then I would say different, but they didn't. They are an extension of the GOP. I hope they do change the way they Republicans do business though, I really do.

Actually Ann Coulter has just come out as being in support of the Gay GOP wing.

And also just under monetary support for Isreal, the it was highest under Clinton. And you can say that FDR didn't want to get involve, the fact is he did. I know not by his own choice, but it was his party at the end.

HAHAHAHA the pharasies....back to the old Jews killed Jesus argument. There is no actual evidence that they were responsible, that is based upon hearsay. That is just the Christan side of the arguement. The Roman Empire killed him, and they wanted to shift the blame when they became the Holy Roman Empire. Is that an excuse for the Spanish Inquisition? Or the whole Blood Libeal? Or the fact that Europe still harbors Anti-Semitism.

Sir I am afraid you have fallen into the Beck trap. It's like 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon, you can connect anything to anyone. Beck is the biggest Anti Semite on television.

Variable Wind
02-23-2011, 01:21 AM
I wanted to add to my my most recent post also. The Tea Party has been hijacked by the Republicans, by virtue of the fact that the Tea Party members in Congress are all Republicans. If they ran as their own party then I would say different, but they didn't. They are an extension of the GOP. I hope they do change the way they Republicans do business though, I really do.
You know, you seem pretty politically ignorant for someone who has so much political background. Name a political party outside the DNC and GOP that has any noticeable presence in national politics. The only way to get a voice is to go with one of the two. Since the GOP USED to represent conservative ideology, it was the natural path.


Actually Ann Coulter has just come out as being in support of the Gay GOP wing.
I will go ahead and take that as a "NO" to ever reading her books, watching her on TV, or paying any attention to her. She is a staunch opponent of DADT repeal.


And also just under monetary support for Isreal, the it was highest under Clinton. And you can say that FDR didn't want to get involve, the fact is he did. I know not by his own choice, but it was his party at the end.
History fail...big time. The American people put us in WW2 (and subsequently out of the Depression that FDR exasterbated) not the Democratic Party.


HAHAHAHA the pharasies....back to the old Jews killed Jesus argument. There is no actual evidence that they were responsible, that is based upon hearsay. That is just the Christan side of the arguement. The Roman Empire killed him, and they wanted to shift the blame when they became the Holy Roman Empire. Is that an excuse for the Spanish Inquisition? Or the whole Blood Libeal? Or the fact that Europe still harbors Anti-Semitism.
Wow, someone is having some insecurity issues. You brought that up, I merely offered a counterpoint to shut you down...which I did to your arguement but apparently your feeling are getting in the way of reading the actual message. You also show yet another epic history fail when you talk about the Roman empire becoming the Holy Roman Empire. The HRE was hardly very Holy, it wasnt Roman and it wasnt an Empire (it was a confederation). BTW, Barbarossa is 9th grade World History, what Union teacher failed you? Did you even try to show some actual knowledge in what you were talking about?


Sir I am afraid you have fallen into the Beck trap. It's like 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon, you can connect anything to anyone. Beck is the biggest Anti Semite on television.
As you have been asked before, back up your claims. I regularly dole out negative rep for people who racebait. You called conservatives obviously racist and now you are calling Beck an anti-semite. Back it up.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-23-2011, 01:31 AM
I had what I thought was a great response to the questions, but I didn't hit post in time so it got lost. I hate Glen Beck, I love Ann Coulter.Why do you hate Beck? I thought he was a cooke too, but that was just because of Jon Stewart and the faces Beck made. When I finally started to sit through what he was saying, he makes sense when you hear him in full context. To be honest, I don't really know Ann too much, so I am not going to speak on what she is about.

If I was a Conservative, I would be a Log Cabin Republican. Christans have a longer standing history of oppressing Jews then Muslims. How so? If we are talking Christians over the entire span of history of oppression from the past 2k years, then everything that has been going on in the middle east for the past 1000 years far out weigh Christian oppression. But in typical Judaism fashion, (or liberal) everyone is always picking on me is the mentality. And no, Hitler WAS NOT Christian.

Judaism is the originating religion of both Christianity and Islam. American Muslims and American Jews get along, because we are the minority religion here. You really think there is a divide in the Jewish/Christian relationship throughout main stream America? Can you site you proof Jewish/Christian oppression or hatred?

But your assertion of Muslims and Jews getting along in the US, does that mean people like Helen Thomas?

There is a huge deference between us and Isreali Jews and Arabic Muslims.
And?

Isreal is a state because of the Democratic Party.That is a falsehood, the League of Nations and the UN being pressured by the Great Britain was responsible for Israel.

It was also the Democratic party that was in charge when Hitler and the Holocaust was brought to an end. Now there you go completely off the wrong side. Because of the progressive, Hitler had the propaganda techniques to round up the Jews and turn the country against them. Not until the Japanese came along and attacked us did we ever feel the need to go to war.

The Conservative support is really only since Reagan. Yeah, and has been moving up since then, but the racial exploitation of minorities from the democrats and the liberals/progressives has been sense the US was founded.

American Jews also were part of the Civil Rights movement.Funny you bring that up, cause it was the Republicans along side the fight for civil rights. They were the ones that voted for it in congress and Robert Byrd (D) was the spearhead that lead the filibuster against the act, you know that "longest filibuster in US history".

Conservative Christans also feel their is a war on Christmas, and to hell with the Jews. When is that ever come up? I know we don't have Chanukah parties, but was it the Jewish people that started "holiday parties" or Atheist?

Variable Wind
02-23-2011, 01:34 AM
Nicknack...I have one question for you:

Are you a product of the Wisconsin Public School System?

garhkal
02-23-2011, 01:40 AM
First off, not all these imo are limited to Liberals. BUT then again a number of things that some liberals hold dear are 180 opposite conservatives. SO both are just as bad as one another... BUT i will make comments on specifici ones.



2) You are against capital punishment but for abortion on demand.


This is always strange to me. How can one be against killing folks (criminals), but all for a woman killing a newborn in her belly which has done no wrong. NOW while i DO feel abortion is ok in event of
Rape,
Incest
Mother's life is at stake
i do not feel it is ok for others. Too often i see it used as a form of birth control (this is from my POV from speaking to those who have had it and why)



3) When it comes to abortion, a woman has the right to hoose because it is her body, but when it comes to fast food, the govt needs to step in because you can't be trusted to make such an important decision when it comes to your body.


Massive +1 on this. Why is it "Our body" for one choice but not the other?? Same with smoking?



4) The same public school idiot who can't teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.


This is imo part of a bigger issue in relation to teaching and schools period.


6) Guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranians.


This is imo cause one we can control with out much issue (the guns in our own hands) while the other would require us to do something many don't seem to be able to stomach.



8) Gender roles are artificial but being gay is natural.


In some ways i agree. BUT i do see where gender rolls are artifical. Most of the aspects we did seem to push.


10) Self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.


Agreed. I hate it how we seem to reward medeocraty rather than reward exceptionalism.



13) The NRA is bad, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.


That is a good one. WHy is one group ok for holding up the con, but not the other? Either they are both good, or both are wrong..


16) Standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't.


See above for teaching. BUT i do agree quotas are to me as racist as denying you a spot because you are black/mexician/asian/white/martian etc..



17) Second-hand smoke is more dangerous than HIV.


This is to me the biggest. Some states (CA) seem to think they can tax smokers, to help pay for something (boardwalks along some beach areas) but then tell us we can't use them. It is getting so damn bad, i would love to see how these states would handle things if all us smokers simply said "ENOUGH" and upped and left those areas...
No more taxes from sales of smokes. No more state taxes on those people's income. No more taxes from all the stuff they purchased/used. No more imcome tax from those who sold tobacco. No more property taxes from those stores..
Lots of lost tax revinue.


As a self identified liberal (I consider myself a moderate with liberal tendencies) I will take a stab, or at least provide my view points


Always nice to here from the other side..


No the AIDS virus is spread by morons and idiots. The deal with federal funding, is trying to educate people about AIDS, and to make it alright to get tested if your concern


Fare enough. BUT how in this day and age, unless you are talking about places in mid africa, can you still think people don't know about it??


I am actually for capitol punishment in certain cases, pre-mediated murder, pedophilla, elderly abuse. I don't support abortion on demand unless it is to save the life of the mother in extreme circumstance.


Very nice of you. What about rape? Should cap punishment be used there? Terrorism? Arms smuggling/drug smuggling?


Yes, I feel the woman has the right to choose an abortion, because it is her body. I don't think the government has the right to close down fast food places,

Wow.. you are what i consider moderate.. NICE!


I think education should be federally standardized. If you leave it up to the states, then you aren't getting standarized education from one state to the next.

Agreed. Same level of testing requierd across the board.


I am a medical professional, so my view point is skewed. There needs to be tort reform regarding malpractice and negligence lawsuits

Along with frivelous lawsuits need to be smacked down on. Whether in punishing the one who brought it OR the lawyers who take them..


In some cases yes, but I do subscribe to the theory that your self-esteem will be a hell of a lot better if you earn it.



As a question though, why should we make someone feel better (self esteeme) before they have done something to earn it? Why should we be handing out awards for just participating rather than just to those who succeeded/won?


Hmmm...I might get kicked out of the liberal club on this one. We should not be paying to subsidize art.


They really need a "clap" smily here...


See my answer for #9


BUT what i am not understanding, is how is it ok if group A supports item B, but only in part, while it is NOT ok for group C to do the same, but just with a different portion? either both are right or both are wrong..


We do need to look into seeing if the quotas are needed anymore.


Another Thumbs up for you there..


I'm an ex smoker, and second hand smoke is more dangerous, because it is easier to come in contact with then HIV.



Question for you? How many people you know with smoke? How many have worked/lived around others who smoked? HOW MANY of them are going to die earlier cause of it?
Lets look at my numbers.
USS America, CV66. Ave # of smokers from all 3 yrs i was there was around 1200.. Ave # people exposed to the second hand smoke is around 4 times that (wife/kids/coworkers)..
# people i know from that ship alone who have contracted lung cancer or some other smoking disease... 2. BOTH are non smokers.
So how is it more dangerous than HIV?


By the way, with regards to taxation:

- Subtract from the amount of taxes you "paid in" the amount of your "refund". That is what you paid in taxes. It is a fact that the majority of taxes in this country are paid by the top end of the income scale.

Then you get to add in all the welfare exemptions on taxes such as the eic... And you get to where the lower you are, the less you DO pay. Sales tax won't make up for the 9% or so diff in base taxing i get over say some poor guy.



Do you get to tell a woman she can't do something? I don't agree with abortion, but it's not our decision to make. It is hers.


Then who speaks for the child?
What if she is only getting it cause she does not want to worry about having to change her lifestyle?? Should that be allowed?


The left seeks those qualities of selective groups that are useful to the left. But of those that aren't the left spews hatred and derision..

Or see how they seem to respond to anyone who even brings up the "illegal immagration and what needs to be done" angle.


The problem is, the socialist devices like Medicare, SS, Health care reform are bankrupting the capitalist Union. There are too many people getting handouts for not doing anything.

And there is
A) a lot of those on it, who don't want to get off the gravy train, so keep voting those in power that won't stop it.
B) those on it who use it as a lifestyle and
C) too much imo fraud/abuse in it.


4) A) Better them than the Jersey Shore idiots or the internet. I think we all know that parents aren't doing an adequate job explaining how to insert tab A into slot B. The reason 4th graders can't read is because when they get home they don't have to; they have text/chat shorthand (LoL, OMG, etc) and really don't use reading outside the classroom. Learning starts at home and most children go home to moronic and/or uninterested parents.


LOL right at that. I have seen kids who are 'supposedly' great students in english not be able to spell certain words.. cause they all are used to either having the computer do it (spell check) or have buchered their lingo with text/leet speak.


A) No American has ever been killed by a foreign nuclear weapon, on the other hand, we can't seem to stop shooting each other hand over fist.


I'll give you that one. BUT tell me, how many of those deaths are from law abiding people doing something legal with a legally owned weapon? Very few if any..


A) The NRA is bad because it defends only one part of the constitution while forsaking the rest of the document. They also prey on the paranoia of middle-America and collect their hard-earned money to give to lobbyists.


And the ACLU doesn't by only seeming to vie for the 1st ammendment? (or at least they do to my POV)


Too bad that the liberal teaching society focuses on "safe sex" and not "no sex". But you are right about the uninterested parents. I wouldn't call them moronic though, way too many "highly educated" people neglect their children too. The overwhelming numbers of underage and unwanted pregnancies come from inner cities and welfare ridden families. I wouldn't call them moronic, just lazy.


Massive +1 there... Though i will say it may not all be parents fault.. cause we as society have also had a hand in it, by going from where it is shameful for children to have sex out of wedlock, having babies with no dad around etc, to almost encouraging it / rewarding it (welfare!).

Since this is long i will continue it next post..

garhkal
02-23-2011, 01:44 AM
Here is a question you should add VW.

Why do liberals repeatedly say things like don't do that, or you are hurting the environment if you do this, but if you look at those liberals specifically, they don't follow their own advice?

And its usually the same environmentalist liberals who are all against us using oil, but when we try to use/implement some "clean energy" solutions such as windfarms, solar farms etc, they are against that as it 'destroys/damages/debutifies the wilderness...


The ACLU fights for civil rights, that is true...but they also fight for things that are not rights. That is why I have a problem with the ACLU and I am not a member.



Or they fight for non citizens rights over citizens..

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-23-2011, 03:18 PM
Nick (and other responding liberals), since you have spouted off on saying the TEA party (conservatives) are openly racist with liberals as being "closet" racist and haven't provided any proof to your theories, how about I show you the reverse of what you claim?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=YiPsNYvntKE
The woman that asks if he has children admits “She said the black conservative was such a ‘free spirit’ that she assumed he would possibly not own up to the responsibility of being a father.” You know that whole stereo type of black men running out on their families to escape responsibility?


He, the black TEA party member, admits to being gay to the woman screaming at him.

Variable Wind
02-23-2011, 04:03 PM
Like I said earlier Joker, hes a victim of identity politics. Amazing that he can ridicule Becks conspiracies and yet he presents his own political conspiracies. I guess that is another contradiction worth asking about. If he thinks that the GOP is controlling the Tea Parties, he obviously hasnt been to a Tea Party rally or meeting.

BTW, I do not necessarily believe or subscribe to Becks idea that there is a secret society aimed at overthrowing our government within the Obama administration. However, he did get Van Jones outed and showed Valerie Jarrets admiration of Mao and a lot of the wacky ideas of progressives within the administration. He pressed the Rev Wright issue which was valid and talked about Black Liberation Theology (an obviously racist ideology within the progressive movement).

LOAL-D gives me grief for calling Obama a Stalinist from time to time, and I will admit that my opinion of Obama is ever changing. At the moment I think I confused Obamas megalomaniacal tendancies for something more insidious. I think that his elitist attitude stems from the fact that he cannot deal with the fact that his ideology is called into question. He wants things one way, and that I can see as easily coming across as autocratic.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-23-2011, 04:07 PM
I am amazed that he thinks the liberal/socialist are for Jews. Maybe he doesn't know Code Pink is a liberal arm of the democratic party. The same code pink that help organize the flotilla bound for Palistine to aide them in killing Jews.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-23-2011, 04:08 PM
Wonder why Seon hasn't visited this thread yet. Guess he hasn't found any google references to your questions yet.

Variable Wind
02-23-2011, 04:10 PM
I am amazed that he thinks the liberal/socialist are for Jews. Maybe he doesn't know Code Pink is a liberal arm of the democratic party. The same code pink that help organize the flotilla bound for Palistine to aide them in killing Jews.

CAIR is a liberal organization too.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-23-2011, 04:17 PM
FREE KITTENS A pretty little girl named Suzy was standing on the sidewalk in front of her home. Next to her was a basket containing a number of tiny creatures; in her hand was a sign announcing FREE KITTENS. Suddenly a line of big black cars pulled up beside her. Out of the lead car stepped a tall, grinning man.

“Hi there little girl, I’m President Obama. What do you have in the basket?“ he asked.

”Kittens,” little Suzy said.

“How old are they?” asked Obama.

Suzy replied, “They’re so young, their eyes aren’t even open yet.“

”And what kind of kittens are they?“

”Democrats,” answered Suzy with a smile.

Obama was delighted. As soon as he returned to his car, he called his PR chief and told him about the little girl and the kittens. Recognizing the perfect photo op, the two men agreed that the president should return the next day; and in front of the assembled media, have the girl talk about her discerning kittens.

So the next day, Suzy was again standing on the sidewalk with her basket of “FREE KITTENS,” when another motorcade pulled up, this time followed by vans from ABC, NBC, CBS and CNN. Cameras and audio equipment were quickly set up, then Obama got out of his limo and walked over to little Suzy.

“Hello, again,” he said, “I‘d love it if you would tell all my friends out there what kind of kittens you’re giving away.“

”Yes sir,“ Suzy said ”They’re Republicans.”

Taken by surprise, the president stammered, “But… but… yesterday, you told me they were DEMOCRATS.”

Little Suzy smiled and said, “I know. But today, they have their eyes open.”

garhkal
02-24-2011, 12:36 AM
Not bad... where did that little story come from?

Nickymaz
02-24-2011, 08:45 PM
The Democratic Party was actually against the Civil Rights movement.

No, southern democrats were against the civil right movement. Northern dems and republicans were for it. This was an issue founded in regionalism more than party.

Battleshort
02-25-2011, 10:32 AM
Wonder why Seon hasn't visited this thread yet. Guess he hasn't found any google references to your questions yet.

+1 :becky

....and VW, great thread.:clap2

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-25-2011, 10:55 AM
BTW, I do not necessarily believe or subscribe to Becks idea that there is a secret society aimed at overthrowing our government within the Obama administration. However, he did get Van Jones outed and showed Valerie Jarrets admiration of Mao and a lot of the wacky ideas of progressives within the administration. He pressed the Rev Wright issue which was valid and talked about Black Liberation Theology (an obviously racist ideology within the progressive movement).

LOAL-D gives me grief for calling Obama a Stalinist from time to time, and I will admit that my opinion of Obama is ever changing. At the moment I think I confused Obamas megalomaniacal tendancies for something more insidious. I think that his elitist attitude stems from the fact that he cannot deal with the fact that his ideology is called into question. He wants things one way, and that I can see as easily coming across as autocratic.
You added this after I read it the first time.

Not all of what Beck says I listen to, but you got to admit, all these union protests around the world, along side their written plans to unite the world workers under unions, and then supported by different countries unions, goes along way to say there is an international conglomerate bent on making the unions the primary ruling class for may governments. Then when you have socialist and communists and Muslim Brother hood all marching along side the unions, you gotta see that Beck has been saying this for a few weeks now.

I don't buy gold and I don't have more than 2 weeks worth of food in my house, but what he says, he says with the foundation of research. Now if you want to say with that research, one person can say "potato" while someone else can say "Tomato", then I guess the later just hasn't gotten anything right about it being spontaneous protest for workers rights. On the surface you think people are just calling out for marches on every single state capitol this weekend, or you can go back to 2006 and see that the union bosses have been trying to unite the world for unions (not the people, majority of "the people" don't work in a union). Unions are trying to be the world government, in Indiana, to work for the state, you must give Union dues even if you don't want to be in the Union. That sounds like taxes to me. This is not the only instance this happens.

Obama is complicit in the Unions power strugle, it shows when he is listening to Trumka everyday and hasn't listen to some of his political advisors in 2 years. Now Trumka is becoming an advisor to some jobs commity in D.C. YHGTBFSM if you want to claim there is nothing going on between Obama and the Unions, and the unions around the world.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-25-2011, 12:17 PM
2) You are against capital punishment but for abortion on demand.

Just a question on this one. Does it offend anyone when you hear the statistic;


“An African American baby is three times more likely to be aborted from the womb as a white baby,“ and ”Twice as many African Americans have died from abortion than the combined tolls of violent crimes, cancer, heart disease, accidents, and AIDS.”


Do the liberals know who started planned parenthood, the organization that sets up shop in parts of the inner-city where the community is prodominatly black?

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-25-2011, 12:55 PM
Did we already cover the liberal mind set of "We have to pass the bill to see what is in it." But when Republicans are passing laws, the liberals pack a bag and run and cower in another state because they will loose in a vote. They claim that it is just to draw attention to the bill so that way the public can have a chance to know what is in the bill, but now that everyone that is interested in politics knows, they still won't come back to vote.

Why are liberals such cowards and only pick a fight they know they can win?

Measure Man
02-25-2011, 03:17 PM
This is always strange to me. How can one be against killing folks (criminals), but all for a woman killing a newborn in her belly which has done no wrong.

...because they don't view the termination of a fetus (not a newborn) as killing. (Newborns are not still in her belly)

I'm not against the death penalty, necessarily, but I do think there should higher burden of proof than required for a normal conviction...as in "beyond any shadow of doubt" (i.e. caught in the act etc.) rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt"...which is really just a recognition that our justice system, awesome as it may be, does make mistakes...and a death can't be overturned on appeal. Look at all the DNA exonerations going on lately.


NOW while i DO feel abortion is ok in event of
Rape,
Incest
Mother's life is at stake
i do not feel it is ok for others. Too often i see it used as a form of birth control (this is from my POV from speaking to those who have had it and why)

Now what does seem VERY strange to me...is how conservatives can say that killing a fetus is the murder of a baby...then also say "but that murder is okay when it's due to rape or incest" Is there a certain cut-off when that murder no longer becomes okay? First Trimester, second trimester, 3 years old? Or if the child is 8 years old before it's learned he is the product of a rape, is it still okay to murder it at that point? Is a first trimester "murder" really a little less than murder then?

That position, to me, seems utterly indefensible...perhaps you could enlighten me.

Measure Man
02-25-2011, 03:46 PM
While I don't consider myself really a liberal...I do agree with some liberal positions...so, here goes:


I desire some insight into some observations concerning liberal/progressive beliefs that seem a bit contradictory to me. I am going to list some of these contradictions and observations and would like to know what exactly drives the liberal thought process to reach these conclusions.

Id rather not take the easy way out and try to answer these questions by using 8 acid tabs. Please keep in mind that I do not necessarily support either position on a given topic discussed here.

1) the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.

I doubt that's how they characterize it. They may say that the govt. is not funding AIDS prevention enough...and that if it was a disease primarily affecting white, middle class, christians, that a whole lot more funding would be provided and it would be a major concern...but because it affects minorities and homosexuals it's not that big of a concern...


2) You are against capital punishment but for abortion on demand.

I wouldn't say I'm against capital punishment or for "abortion on demand"...well, just see my previous post.


3) When it comes to abortion, a woman has the right to hoose because it is her body, but when it comes to fast food, the govt needs to step in because you can't be trusted to make such an important decision when it comes to your body.

I dont support the fast food deal...


4) The same public school idiot who can't teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

Most 4th graders can read...if they can't, it's likely not the teacher's fault.


5) Trial lawyers are selfless heroes and doctors are overpaid.

I don't believe either of those. There are some good trial lawyers, no doubt....but, I don't find doctors to be overpaid.


6) Guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranians.

I'm pro-gun...


7) Global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the sun, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.

Well...we don't really know which is correct.


8) Gender roles are artificial but being gay is natural.

Not totally sure about the gender roles thing...I don't know if there are any biological factors that make girls want to pay with dolls and cook, and boys want to play sports...there "may" be.

I do think there is biological forces involved in sexual attraction...and as such, those biological forces, be it hormones, pheromones, whatever...can be mixed differently in different people creating a wide variety of sexual attractions that may be affected and directed by upbringing and individual choices, but are not entirely controlled by that upbringing and choice.


9) Businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

Both are capable of both...and both have done both.


10) Self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

...there is a give and take there...self-esteem can become a self-fulfilling prophecy...it you don't feel you can, you can't. If you think you can, you can.

I'm assuming that you feel the opposite is true? Which would be what? No one should feel good about themselves until they accomplish something? Or What you accomplish is more important than how you feel about yourself? What is the "conservative VW" counter-position here?


11) There was no art before federal funding.

You have proof of liberals saying this?


12) The free market that gives us 500+ channels can't deliver the quality that PBS does.

Jersey Shore.


13) The NRA is bad, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.

I'm pro-gun. Perhaps you could enlighten as to why the ACLU is bad because they stand up for the Constitution, but the NRA is good because they stand up for the Constitution?


14) Taxes are too low but ATM fees are too high.

Taxes go back to the community...ATM fees go to a billionaires pockets.


15) Cesar Chavez is more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson.

I guess that's relative


16) Standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't.

Some standardized tests are, or at least have been, indeed racist.


17) Second-hand smoke is more dangerous than HIV.

It probably is for most people.


18) Conservatives are racists but that black people couldn't make it without government help.

I don't believe that.


19) The only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

I'm not a socialist either.


Please address any of the following. You may not subscribe to all of these ideas but please feel free to respond to the ones you do.

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-25-2011, 03:51 PM
I'm not against the death penalty, necessarily, but I do think there should higher burden of proof than required for a normal conviction...as in "beyond any shadow of doubt" (i.e. caught in the act etc.) rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt"...which is really just a recognition that our justice system, awesome as it may be, does make mistakes...and a death can't be overturned on appeal. Look at all the DNA exonerations going on lately.
All convictions are supposed to be "Beyond a shadow of a doubt." But for the death penalty, there is an added level of "proof" needed before that sentence of death can be passed. And then the 30 years of appeal is just even more of an added "proof". Yes, there are wrongly convicted death penalties, but it is a man made system, it will never be perfect.


Now what does seem VERY strange to me...is how conservatives can say that killing a fetus is the murder of a baby...then also say "but that murder is okay when it's due to rape or incest" Is there a certain cut-off when that murder no longer becomes okay? First Trimester, second trimester, 3 years old? Or if the child is 8 years old before it's learned he is the product of a rape, is it still okay to murder it at that point? Is a first trimester "murder" really a little less than murder then?

That position, to me, seems utterly indefensible...perhaps you could enlighten me.
The strongest conservatives think all abortions are murder. I feel it comes to a womans right to choose after such traumatic events to see weather they can put up with having their bodies go through the experience of pregnancies. For the ones that say rape and incest are ok reasons for abortion, it is when the baby can live outside the womb is when they believe it is considered murder. If we could just work on an ability to extract the babies at any time of the pregnancy and grow it in a tube is when we will have the "perfect" solotuion to the rape/incest abortions.

Measure Man
02-25-2011, 04:01 PM
All convictions are supposed to be "Beyond a shadow of a doubt." But for the death penalty, there is an added level of "proof" needed before that sentence of death can be passed. And then the 30 years of appeal is just even more of an added "proof". Yes, there are wrongly convicted death penalties, but it is a man made system, it will never be perfect.

Quite incorrect.

Convictions are based on the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt"...

What "added level of proof" is needed in a death penalty case?


The strongest conservatives think all abortions are murder.

Some say abortion is murder...but that it's okay during rape and incest. Those are the one's I was addressing, which appeared to be garkhal's position, but maybe I read between the lines.


I feel it comes to a womans right to choose after such traumatic events to see weather they can put up with having their bodies go through the experience of pregnancies. For the ones that say rape and incest are ok reasons for abortion, it is when the baby can live outside the womb is when they believe it is considered murder.

OK...so then a first trimester abortion wouldn't be a murder, in your opinion, then. I get that.


If we could just work on an ability to extract the babies at any time of the pregnancy and grow it in a tube is when we will have the "perfect" solotuion to the rape/incest abortions.

Really? You still that baby should be carrried to term...does it then become the woman's baby whether she wants it or not? Or does it become a ward of the state? Put up for adoption? What is the "perfect solution" for a baby conceived out of incest with a father who has since been imprisioned and his 12 year old daughter?

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-25-2011, 04:25 PM
I doubt that's how they characterize it. They may say that the govt. is not funding AIDS prevention enough...and that if it was a disease primarily affecting white, middle class, christians, that a whole lot more funding would be provided and it would be a major concern...but because it affects minorities and homosexuals it's not that big of a concern...There will never be enough funding in the eyes of those being most effected by a certain ailment. The bigger question to your statement of "and that if it was a disease primarily affecting white, middle class, Christians, that a whole lot more funding would be provided and it would be a major concern...but because it affects minorities and homosexuals it's not that big of a concern" is what group is mostly engaging in the actions that lead to the contraction of HIV/AIDS? Once the behavior is curtailed, they the disease will diminish. Even homosexuals can prevent the disease from spreading by staying with a single partner that they already know doesn't have the disease. AIDS doesn't just spontaneously happen. Why should the government put more money into curing the disease when the best way not to contract it is to be commited to one person? Everyone is educated in this fact, all humans have to do is resist their urges until they know for sure about their partners. One night stands is their own actions and people need to start taking responisbility for what they do.



Well...we don't really know which is correct. We know the earth has gone through heating and cooling cycles before, we don't know if the CO2 level is directly responsible from something that is happening on the global scale. This could just be coincedental.



...there is a give and take there...self-esteem can become a self-fulfilling prophecy...it you don't feel you can, you can't. If you think you can, you can.

I'm assuming that you feel the opposite is true? Which would be what? No one should feel good about themselves until they accomplish something? Or What you accomplish is more important than how you feel about yourself? What is the "conservative VW" counter-position here? The parents can instill confidence into thier kids to get them going. But to reward failure instead of "lets work harder for next year" by giving out trophies negates any motive to work harder. Just like in the military, giving everyone a firewall 5 in the AF on the EPR as soon as they come in says they don't always have to work hard. Average EPR score for SrA is 132 out of 135, are you really telling me that 9 out of 10 airmen are "5s"? After "tee-ball" age, you should start keeping score and the winners get the trophies and the loosers can try again next year.



Jersey Shore.
That is a free market show. What about educational shows on history channel, discovery channel, Nick JR, animal planet? There are more channels with educational purposes that give a much better lesson than what PBS does.



Taxes go back to the community...ATM fees go to a billionaires pockets.Taxes don't always go back to the community. Some goes to billionaires for the contracts they are going to do for the community. Some of the taxes go to union leaders that are becoming million/billionaires off of union dues and giving nothing really substantial to their members and non-members that are forced to pay dues. I do agree that ATM fees are to high though. But without billionares, you have no fiscal backing for others to get a loan and start-up business. The government has no money, they are just the people who regulates a paper form of exchange for services. None of that money is theirs in a republic, it is the peoples that give it to someone to have public services like cops.

This is where people think that these questions might sound like conservative believe the opposite is true, but really, both in my mind are bad, so why do liberal think to former is good?




I guess that's relative relative how? Founder of the country that is 200+ y/o. The other is a person that created a union that could bring down the country. Don't see how that is "relative." Or are you saying liberals really do want to bring down the country?



Some standardized tests are, or at least have been, indeed racist. Any specific modern day test come to mind and would you like to explain how it is racist?

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-25-2011, 04:33 PM
Quite incorrect.

Convictions are based on the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt"...

What "added level of proof" is needed in a death penalty case? "Beyond ALL reasonable doubt". Can't have one person having doubt to convict someone. That is why Balgo got away with trying to sell Obama's senate seat. There was 1 person that had reasonable doubt.

I apologize when I can't really remember the added level needed to be sentence to death, I think most states/cities have their own added measures to warrent a death sentence.


Really? You still that baby should be carrried to term...does it then become the woman's baby whether she wants it or not? Or does it become a ward of the state? Put up for adoption? What is the "perfect solution" for a baby conceived out of incest with a father who has since been imprisioned and his 12 year old daughter?No, not carried by the mother. If we had a way to extract the baby from the mother when she feels that she can no longer carry the baby inside her and then "incubate" the baby till full term then give it up for adoption. Once the mother wants the baby out of her, she gives up parental rights.

Measure Man
02-25-2011, 04:44 PM
There will never be enough funding in the eyes of those being most effected by a certain ailment. The bigger question to your statement of "and that if it was a disease primarily affecting white, middle class, Christians, that a whole lot more funding would be provided and it would be a major concern...but because it affects minorities and homosexuals it's not that big of a concern" is what group is mostly engaging in the actions that lead to the contraction of HIV/AIDS? Once the behavior is curtailed, they the disease will diminish. Even homosexuals can prevent the disease from spreading by staying with a single partner that they already know doesn't have the disease. AIDS doesn't just spontaneously happen. Why should the government put more money into curing the disease when the best way not to contract it is to be commited to one person? Everyone is educated in this fact, all humans have to do is resist their urges until they know for sure about their partners. One night stands is their own actions and people need to start taking responisbility for what they do.

Like I said...if it was a disease affecting you..then you'd be wanting federal government funding.


We know the earth has gone through heating and cooling cycles before, we don't know if the CO2 level is directly responsible from something that is happening on the global scale. This could just be coincedental.

Ok, so since it "could just be coincidental" we should ignore it and hope everything works out?

I'm not really a big global warming believer...I tend to go with the cyclical change theory myself...though I can't say I have looked at any of the actual data...and if I have probably wouldn't know what to do with it. My guess is the same can be said for you and VW...we're all just relying on someone else's interpretation, for the most part.


The parents can instill confidence into thier kids to get them going. But to reward failure instead of "lets work harder for next year" by giving out trophies negates any motive to work harder. Just like in the military, giving everyone a firewall 5 in the AF on the EPR as soon as they come in says they don't always have to work hard. Average EPR score for SrA is 132 out of 135, are you really telling me that 9 out of 10 airmen are "5s"? After "tee-ball" age, you should start keeping score and the winners get the trophies and the loosers can try again next year.

Wow...that's a lot out of what I said. So, where do you stand on the OP? Is self-esteem more important than accomplishment, or accomplishment more important than self-esteem?


That is a free market show. What about educational shows on history channel, discovery channel, Nick JR, animal planet? There are more channels with educational purposes that give a much better lesson than what PBS does.

I honestly don't think I've watched PBS in years...don't really have a strong position on it.


Taxes don't always go back to the community. Some goes to billionaires for the contracts they are going to do for the community. Some of the taxes go to union leaders that are becoming million/billionaires off of union dues and giving nothing really substantial to their members and non-members that are forced to pay dues. I do agree that ATM fees are to high though. But without billionares, you have no fiscal backing for others to get a loan and start-up business. The government has no money, they are just the people who regulates a paper form of exchange for services. None of that money is theirs in a republic, it is the peoples that give it to someone to have public services like cops.

Right. Then again...if we had a pure free-market economy, we'd all be slaves of some super corporation by now.


This is where people think that these questions might sound like conservative believe the opposite is true, but really, both in my mind are bad, so why do liberal think to former is good?

I don't know what you are referring to here.


relative how? Founder of the country that is 200+ y/o. The other is a person that created a union that could bring down the country. Don't see how that is "relative." Or are you saying liberals really do want to bring down the country?

Well...I guess before we get into this...perhaps you or the OP can post an article or something from a liberal stating that Chavez is "more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson." and maybe we can read it in context.

Overall, I wouldn't say that myself. I can certainly see how some African Americans might see how Martin Luther King was more important to them than Thomas Jefferson. I mean, slaves were still slaves after the Revolution.


Any specific modern day test come to mind and would you like to explain how it is racist?

Nothing off the top of my head...would have to look something up

Measure Man
02-25-2011, 05:02 PM
"Beyond ALL reasonable doubt". Can't have one person having doubt to convict someone.

Beyond A... Beyond ALL... you'll see it both ways, meaning is the same. Beyond a shadow of a doubt is something entirely different.


That is why Balgo got away with trying to sell Obama's senate seat. There was 1 person that had reasonable doubt.

So,...you think he should have been convicted if there was a reasonable doubt?? Wha'ts your point here? Don't like the justice system if it lets a Democrat off?


I apologize when I can't really remember the added level needed to be sentence to death,

Probably because there isn't any. Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest level of proof in the US Justice system. Again, I personally feel it should be higher for a death penalty case. Sounds to me like you don't disagree with that, you just don't know what the standard of proof really is.

Take for example the Scott Peterson case...remember, convicted of killing his pregnant wife, Lacey Peterson. He was given the death penalty. That was a case that, In my opinion, he should have been convicted, but I don't think the evidence, from what I've seen, is one where we should give him the death penalty...he wasn't caught basically 'red-handed'...yes, I think he did it, but there is a possibility that a werid set of circumstances happened and he didn't do it...not reasonable doubt, but a shadow of doubt....unreasonable things happen sometimes. But, if the cops had busted into the house and saw him stabbing her, apprehended him at that time and kept him in custody...then I'm all for the death penalty when warranted.


I think most states/cities have their own added measures to warrent a death sentence.

Well, certainly only certain crimes are eligible, certain circumstances...but the burden of proof is the same.


No, not carried by the mother. If we had a way to extract the baby from the mother when she feels that she can no longer carry the baby inside her and then "incubate" the baby till full term then give it up for adoption. Once the mother wants the baby out of her, she gives up parental rights.

And us taxpayers foot the bill, no doubt.
..and so if this incest-conceived baby is going to have severe medical issues...who gets to play god?

Variable Wind
02-25-2011, 07:27 PM
Like I said...if it was a disease affecting you..then you'd be wanting federal government funding.

That is a huge load of *mouthing curse word*

Shrike
02-25-2011, 07:32 PM
...because they don't view the termination of a fetus (not a newborn) as killing. (Newborns are not still in her belly)

I'm not against the death penalty, necessarily, but I do think there should higher burden of proof than required for a normal conviction...as in "beyond any shadow of doubt" (i.e. caught in the act etc.) rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt"...which is really just a recognition that our justice system, awesome as it may be, does make mistakes...and a death can't be overturned on appeal. Look at all the DNA exonerations going on lately.



Now what does seem VERY strange to me...is how conservatives can say that killing a fetus is the murder of a baby...then also say "but that murder is okay when it's due to rape or incest" Is there a certain cut-off when that murder no longer becomes okay? First Trimester, second trimester, 3 years old? Or if the child is 8 years old before it's learned he is the product of a rape, is it still okay to murder it at that point? Is a first trimester "murder" really a little less than murder then?

That position, to me, seems utterly indefensible...perhaps you could enlighten me.

What I don't understand is Christians who are all fired up about abortion. Read the OT and you'll see that their god LOVES killing babies, both born and unborn. We were supposedly made in his image, so...

Measure Man
02-25-2011, 07:39 PM
That is a huge load of *mouthing curse word*

??? I was replying to WJ's statement:


There will never be enough funding in the eyes of those being most effected by a certain ailment.


VW, Do you have an example of a liberal claiming that AIDS was spread by a lack of govt funding?

Variable Wind
02-25-2011, 07:59 PM
??? I was replying to WJ's statement:

VW, Do you have an example of a liberal claiming that AIDS was spread by a lack of govt funding?

I have heard this from liberals in the media many times. I will look into showing you an example.

If I suffered from an illness, I might WANT federal funding...maybe, but I most certainly would not demand it or expect it and certainly not feel entitled to it unless it was directly CAUSED by government.

I guess I should be demanding federal funding from the government for migraines then.

Variable Wind
02-25-2011, 08:01 PM
What I don't understand is Christians who are all fired up about abortion. Read the OT and you'll see that their god LOVES killing babies, both born and unborn. We were supposedly made in his image, so...

WHAT? WHAT?!? Oh you really ARE A SUPER BUTTHEAD LIBERAL!

who am I?

Measure Man
02-25-2011, 08:05 PM
I have heard this from liberals in the media many times. I will look into showing you an example.

Okay, I'll wait.


If I suffered from an illness, I might WANT federal funding...maybe, but I most certainly would not demand it or expect it and certainly not feel entitled to it unless it was directly CAUSED by government.

I see the value in government-funded medical research.

1) It helps early-research when a profitable resolution is not within easy site...something private companies may have a very difficult time funding.

2) If and when a treatment is identified, it can help control costs to the end-user.

I don't imagine finding myself in a position of feeling 'entitled' to it really...but I can see some justification in demanding that our government serves the people. If that service is in the way of medical research...why not? I mean, they do work for us, right?


I guess I should be demanding federal funding from the government for migraines then.

There are several federal grants for migraine research.

http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PA-07-305.html

Measure Man
02-25-2011, 08:07 PM
I have heard this from liberals in the media many times. I will look into showing you an example.

If I suffered from an illness, I might WANT federal funding...maybe, but I most certainly would not demand it or expect it and certainly not feel entitled to it unless it was directly CAUSED by government.

I guess I should be demanding federal funding from the government for migraines then.

My reply has to reviewed by an administrator :-(

Variable Wind
02-25-2011, 08:19 PM
My reply has to reviewed by an administrator :-(

Thats why I mouthed the words ;)

Measure Man
02-25-2011, 08:31 PM
Pending my reviewable reply


I have heard this from liberals in the media many times. I will look into showing you an example.

Okay, I'll wait...betting a quarter they didn't phrase it like that.


If I suffered from an illness, I might WANT federal funding...maybe, but I most certainly would not demand it or expect it and certainly not feel entitled to it unless it was directly CAUSED by government.

So, you might WANT it but would not ask for it, request it, vote for it?


I guess I should be demanding federal funding from the government for migraines then.

I posted a link for federal grants for migraine research...hence the admin review.

Shrike
02-25-2011, 09:11 PM
WHAT? WHAT?!? Oh you really ARE A SUPER BUTTHEAD LIBERAL!

who am I?A follower of a certain West Coast football team, perchance?

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-26-2011, 12:07 AM
Like I said...if it was a disease affecting you..then you'd be wanting federal government funding. Afraid not. If there is a disease that I caused myself to get, I will take responsibility for my actions.



Ok, so since it "could just be coincidental" we should ignore it and hope everything works out?

I'm not really a big global warming believer...I tend to go with the cyclical change theory myself...though I can't say I have looked at any of the actual data...and if I have probably wouldn't know what to do with it. My guess is the same can be said for you and VW...we're all just relying on someone else's interpretation, for the most part. But too many times (again) we see scientist and "celebrities" (Al Gore) falsifying and playing puppet to the claims that will make them famous.



Wow...that's a lot out of what I said. So, where do you stand on the OP? Is self-esteem more important than accomplishment, or accomplishment more important than self-esteem? As I said, self-esteem can start from parents before the kid does something. After the ball is rolling per-sea, the kids should have their self-esteem built upon accomplishments. When they are old enough to understand the difference between winners and losers, they should be rewarded for being winners and NOT awarded for loosing.


Right. Then again...if we had a pure free-market economy, we'd all be slaves of some super corporation by now. To an extent, sure. There will always be someone there to take advantage of a situation. There is a delicate "checks and balance" between government and private business. And we have already tipped the scale to government about 1940's with FDR. Teddy started the scale coming back from business.



I don't know what you are referring to here. Just because conservatives wonder why liberal think one is better than the other, doesn't mean conservatives think the other is better. Taxes vs ATM charges, Both are too high, but Liberals only think ATM fees are to high because they target specific groups like the rich. This is call persecution of a minority. And I challenge you to find a "minority" that has less of a vote % than the wealthy 1%.



Well...I guess before we get into this...perhaps you or the OP can post an article or something from a liberal stating that Chavez is "more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson." and maybe we can read it in context.

Overall, I wouldn't say that myself. I can certainly see how some African Americans might see how Martin Luther King was more important to them than Thomas Jefferson. I mean, slaves were still slaves after the Revolution. But if you know history, they would know that wasn't because of Jefferson. But I was going off you comment about it being relative seeming how conservatives look at the debt as being a spending problem and liberals look at the debt as being a revenue problem. Conservatives feel that with liberals, no matter how much taxes come into the government, they will spend that much plus 10% more. So it would never be ending. I am not sure what liberals see is wrong with cutting spending before you try to gain revenue. Remember, none of the money the government has is because they worked for it, it is because they took it from peoples paychecks.



Nothing off the top of my head...would have to look something upAnd that is usually what happens when people make general statements about something ambiguous. The only test lately I know someone calling it racist was the NY fire department test. But the plaintiff said that was because reading is too hard for minorities so a written test is in general racially biased. I don't know if you want to go that route of saying minorities are too stupid to take written test, that is like a white guy saying he deserves to be in the NBA even though he is 5 foot 6 and can't jump past 6 inches off the ground, and his defense is that being white, he never had to work for anything in his life and he could stay inside watching TV a because his family had cable.

garhkal
02-26-2011, 01:15 AM
Did we already cover the liberal mind set of "We have to pass the bill to see what is in it." But when Republicans are passing laws, the liberals pack a bag and run and cower in another state because they will loose in a vote. They claim that it is just to draw attention to the bill so that way the public can have a chance to know what is in the bill, but now that everyone that is interested in politics knows, they still won't come back to vote.

Why are liberals such cowards and only pick a fight they know they can win?


Cause they are a bunch of liberall nanny pussies...



I'm not against the death penalty, necessarily, but I do think there should higher burden of proof than required for a normal conviction...as in "beyond any shadow of doubt" (i.e. caught in the act etc.) rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt"...which is really just a recognition that our justice system, awesome as it may be, does make mistakes...and a death can't be overturned on appeal. Look at all the DNA exonerations going on lately.



Most definitely in agreement there. Heck to me
To be sentenced to death row.
Conviction with at least 3 of the following
1) caught in the act
2) Dna at scene
3) witnesses (MORE THAN 1)
4) other forensic evicence
5) Confession

THEN when you are convicted and sentenced to death, you get 5 yrs from date of sentencing to carrying out of that sentence. WHICH is to me more than adequate for carrying out 1 appeal.


Now what does seem VERY strange to me...is how conservatives can say that killing a fetus is the murder of a baby...then also say "but that murder is okay when it's due to rape or incest" Is there a certain cut-off when that murder no longer becomes okay? First Trimester, second trimester, 3 years old? Or if the child is 8 years old before it's learned he is the product of a rape, is it still okay to murder it at that point? Is a first trimester "murder" really a little less than murder then?


To me it is choice.
A woman who got pregnant cause she went out and got drunk, then slept with guy x cause he was cute and she was inebriated made the choice to put herself in a situation to get preg/laid. Where as with rape/incest/pedific instances, they usually DON'T.


Some say abortion is murder...but that it's okay during rape and incest. Those are the one's I was addressing, which appeared to be garkhal's position, but maybe I read between the lines.


I never said its murder. I just think it is wrong.


The parents can instill confidence into thier kids to get them going. But to reward failure instead of "lets work harder for next year" by giving out trophies negates any motive to work harder. Just like in the military, giving everyone a firewall 5 in the AF on the EPR as soon as they come in says they don't always have to work hard. Average EPR score for SrA is 132 out of 135, are you really telling me that 9 out of 10 airmen are "5s"? After "tee-ball" age, you should start keeping score and the winners get the trophies and the loosers can try again next year.

Exactly joker. Why try to succeed when you can just get by and be given the rest..


Like I said...if it was a disease affecting you..then you'd be wanting federal government funding.


Thats cause we as humans are generally selfish. we care not till it happens to us, then bloody hell, you better do something.

Measure Man
02-26-2011, 01:48 AM
Afraid not. If there is a disease that I caused myself to get, I will take responsibility for my actions.

If you say so.

So, you think the Federal govt should not fund any medical research? Or only those diseases that can not be as a result of any "fault" of the afflicted...i.e. no funding for many cancers, liver disease, back/joint injuries?



But too many times (again) we see scientist and "celebrities" (Al Gore) falsifying and playing puppet to the claims that will make them famous.

oookkkayyyy...


As I said, self-esteem can start from parents before the kid does something. After the ball is rolling per-sea, the kids should have their self-esteem built upon accomplishments. When they are old enough to understand the difference between winners and losers, they should be rewarded for being winners and NOT awarded for loosing.

I take it your not a parent...but okay, I'm not arguing that we should give trophies to every kid in world and reward them the same as kids who excel, etc. I DO recognize the value of high self esteem however...I was asking what VW's point was in the initial question and what his position was?

So, in your mind...say a kid runs a 6:00 minute mile...if he runs it against a bunch of kids who run 6:30-7:00, then he is a winner and deserves praise....but if he runs that same mile against a bunch of kids that run 5:00-5:30, then he is a loser and should hang his head in shame until he actually wins something, right?


To an extent, sure. There will always be someone there to take advantage of a situation. There is a delicate "checks and balance" between government and private business. And we have already tipped the scale to government about 1940's with FDR. Teddy started the scale coming back from business.

Sure, okay. Some government regulation of business is appropriate, yeah?


Just because conservatives wonder why liberal think one is better than the other, doesn't mean conservatives think the other is better. Taxes vs ATM charges, Both are too high, but Liberals only think ATM fees are to high because they target specific groups like the rich. This is call persecution of a minority. And I challenge you to find a "minority" that has less of a vote % than the wealthy 1%.

Perhaps then you could explain why Conservatives love America...but don't wanna give up any of their money for it?


But if you know history, they would know that wasn't because of Jefferson.

However, neither would he be their greatest hero...


But I was going off you comment about it being relative seeming how conservatives look at the debt as being a spending problem and liberals look at the debt as being a revenue problem. Conservatives feel that with liberals, no matter how much taxes come into the government, they will spend that much plus 10% more. So it would never be ending. I am not sure what liberals see is wrong with cutting spending before you try to gain revenue. Remember, none of the money the government has is because they worked for it, it is because they took it from peoples paychecks.

Wow, that's a helluva leap from a comment made about Chavez vs. Jefferson.

The state I live in is considered very liberal and is currently undergoing massive spending cuts with our new Democratic governor replacing a Republican governor...

I feel very lucky and fortunate to be an American...I have thrived financially and personally...i don't mind paying taxes one bit. Sure, I'd like them to be lower and all...but the concept of taxes doesn't bother me...in fact, I see it as a bit of a duty.

Gonna cost me $1,000 a year for every kid in American to have medical coverage? Where do I send the check??


And that is usually what happens when people make general statements about something ambiguous. The only test lately I know someone calling it racist was the NY fire department test. But the plaintiff said that was because reading is too hard for minorities so a written test is in general racially biased. I don't know if you want to go that route of saying minorities are too stupid to take written test, that is like a white guy saying he deserves to be in the NBA even though he is 5 foot 6 and can't jump past 6 inches off the ground, and his defense is that being white, he never had to work for anything in his life and he could stay inside watching TV a because his family had cable.

There have been MANY tests that have been racially biased...and it's not because the minorities can't read. It is usually something like...well, there is a reading comprehension portion of the test...and the paragraph has to do with a scenario that is common in white America, say the rules of hockey...but not in black America. So, the frame of reference is much easier for whites than blacks...this kind of stuff happens all the time. Look back 50 years and you'll probably find many tests that have been challenged and determined to be racially biased...although, in reality, it's not so much racially as economically perhaps. There are several good articles on it that I easily googled, just don't have time to post today...was arguing with an idiot over basic forms of government and now it's Friday night and time for drinking...

Measure Man
02-26-2011, 02:21 AM
Most definitely in agreement there. Heck to me
To be sentenced to death row.
Conviction with at least 3 of the following
1) caught in the act
2) Dna at scene
3) witnesses (MORE THAN 1)
4) other forensic evicence
5) Confession

3 out of 5 of those sounds good to me. I could probably settle for #1 by itself.


THEN when you are convicted and sentenced to death, you get 5 yrs from date of sentencing to carrying out of that sentence. WHICH is to me more than adequate for carrying out 1 appeal.

I"m okay with 5 years...


To me it is choice.
A woman who got pregnant cause she went out and got drunk, then slept with guy x cause he was cute and she was inebriated made the choice to put herself in a situation to get preg/laid. Where as with rape/incest/pedific instances, they usually DON'T.
I never said its murder. I just think it is wrong.

Okay, I misread your comments then.


Thats cause we as humans are generally selfish. we care not till it happens to us, then bloody hell, you better do something.

yeah...

imported_WILDJOKER5
02-26-2011, 03:18 AM
If you say so.

So, you think the Federal govt should not fund any medical research? Or only those diseases that can not be as a result of any "fault" of the afflicted...i.e. no funding for many cancers, liver disease, back/joint injuries? Lung cancer? no, we know what primarily causes it. Liver disease, not really when you find out the person wrecked their own body. Back and joint, now that leaves some room for discussion. But the main focus was on HIV/AIDS. What is the % of new HIV patients from accidental needles or unsanitary dental equipment? There isn't much other ways of getting a disease other than unprotected sexual encounters with unfamiliar partners.

I take it your not a parent...but okay, I'm not arguing that we should give trophies to every kid in world and reward them the same as kids who excel, etc. I DO recognize the value of high self esteem however...I was asking what VW's point was in the initial question and what his position was? I am a parent of 2 and treat them with the attitude that I am typing now. My son, when he does something "smart" when he was a 2 y/o, I backed up that action up with positive emphasis. I have put him in sports with actually little encouragement other than to go have fun, after he does something good, I give him the praise it deserves.

So, in your mind...say a kid runs a 6:00 minute mile...if he runs it against a bunch of kids who run 6:30-7:00, then he is a winner and deserves praise....but if he runs that same mile against a bunch of kids that run 5:00-5:30, then he is a loser and should hang his head in shame until he actually wins something, right?Never hang your head, but understand that they were not the winner and will need to work harder to run faster so they can be competitive to be the winner. America didn't become the best nation in innovation and production because everyone was given a job that they didn't deserve, we got here because strived to be better than not only every other country, but everyone in this country too.



Sure, okay. Some government regulation of business is appropriate, yeah? not sure if this is sarcasm or agreement? There is an ability to have a very minimal amount of regulation with out babysitting the entire private sector. The anti-monopoly ruling is good because it allows for free market competition. The mandating McDs take toys out of Happy Meals because parents in nanny state CA can't tell their kids "NO" is about 50 miles past the line of acceptable gov regulation.



Perhaps then you could explain why Conservatives love America...but don't wanna give up any of their money for it? They feel the private sector could do it better for less the price and better the quality. I think there are somethings that should be government controlled, like cops and firefighters.


Wow, that's a helluva leap from a comment made about Chavez vs. Jefferson. it was about your statement about liberal perception of things versus conservative perception is "relative". People see the laws in Wis. that gov Walker is trying to pass as Union busting and other see it as balancing the budget while protecting the government from future attacks from the unions.

The state I live in is considered very liberal and is currently undergoing massive spending cuts with our new Democratic governor replacing a Republican governor...The key word you said was Republican. Not the same as conservative. G.W. Bush was Republican, but he wasn't close to being fiscally conservative. Some Dem governors might be waking up to the financial melt down facing their state, and although you may blame the republican that was in office before the democrat, look farther into history and see if there wasn't many other dems bowing to unions giving out massive benefits just so they could be reelected. That is the story in places like Cal, NY, Ill, Wis, all major liberal/progressive state that gave too much to their public workers that are now making more that private sector folks when you add in their benefits packages.

I feel very lucky and fortunate to be an American...I have thrived financially and personally...i don't mind paying taxes one bit. Sure, I'd like them to be lower and all...but the concept of taxes doesn't bother me...in fact, I see it as a bit of a duty. Good, I agree with you. I am happy to allow my property taxes to go up $300 last year to pay for more higher educated teachers for my area. 90% of the public school teachers here have a Masters degree, so we are not just throwing money at the same teachers that only have the BA sitting behind the desk showing movies all day long, we have people that are actually dedicated to education.

Gonna cost me $1,000 a year for every kid in American to have medical coverage? Where do I send the check??You know, if getting your kid some life insurance isn't enough of a motivator to get a better education and job, I doubt anything is going to do it short of cutting off the welfare checks to people that have hit 3rd generation dependance on the government cheese.

If you are in favor of just giving $1,000 to kids so they can have healthcare, are you willing to go back to what Social security was originally meant for? A government hand out to those who from birth or due to a traumatic event in their life before they hit the age of retirement, were paid through government assistance. This included the mentally/physically handicapped from birth and the widows of WWI vets who in that time were never allowed to have a job and make money for themselves. Not having everyone that turns 65 y/o get a check from the government, but to help those that could not help themselves. Now that social security I could get behind. Not only that, the mandatory payments for SS would go dramatically down because there would be less people that could qualify, and people could use the extra money in their paychecks to put away for their own retirement. I know this is a wild concept for liberals, but that would promote self responsibility and self reliance.



There have been MANY tests that have been racially biased...and it's not because the minorities can't read. It is usually something like...well, there is a reading comprehension portion of the test...and the paragraph has to do with a scenario that is common in white America, say the rules of hockey...but not in black America. So, the frame of reference is much easier for whites than blacks...this kind of stuff happens all the time. Look back 50 years and you'll probably find many tests that have been challenged and determined to be racially biased...although, in reality, it's not so much racially as economically perhaps. There are several good articles on it that I easily googled, just don't have time to post today...was arguing with an idiot over basic forms of government and now it's Friday night and time for drinking...Though I took a lot of standard tests when I was going through school, not once do I remember one thing about hockey. Seeming that I was in the south, that really wouldn't apply to me either. And there was never anything about NASCAR either. I think I remember maybe a baseball paragraph, but wouldn't that interest the latinos as well as the whites? My point is, there is nothing that will exclusively cover all the certain race someone is trying to claim is the target of a question, and to say there needs to be scenarios written specifically for 12% of the population to make it "fair" is just ludicrous.

Anyways, I am off for the next 2 weeks, and I may pop my head back in here from time to time. Enjoy your Friday night.

imported_MSGDay
02-26-2011, 02:12 PM
Well, I've held of weighing in on this but have reached the point where I think I must ---

I consider myself as conservative as they come.
I believe in our Constitution as the Founders wrote it - that the Federal government has a limited power that CANNOT overcome those of the states. It is there to defend this nation and its people from "enemies, domestic and foreign."
I also believe that when the government becomes unjust, the people have the right - and duty - to act to correct or replace the onus placed upon them.
I BELIEVE YOU CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT LEGISLATE MORALITY!!!!!!!!!
Individual responsibility is the cornerstone of this nation and efforts to weaken it are only drawing us towards tyranny.
The idea that government is the end-all for our problems not only belittle me but you.
I DO NOT believe that government should pay for abortions. If a woman wants one, that is HER responsibility to decide - and pay for.
I believe that the false premise "Separation of Church and State" which DOES NOT appear in the constitution, is just another attempt to dilute individual rights and responsibilities. I do not belong to any organized church but feel every one of them has the right to practice their beliefs without any government entity stepping in.
I believe government should not spend more than it takes in.
I do not believe that government employees, at any level, should have the right to be members of unions. If they feel they have to have what they believe to be union protections, seek employment in the private sector. I do not want my tax money going to pay union organizers and thugs. And, if unions exist, I believe they should be PROHIBITED from taking part in any political campaign or contributing to candidates or issues.

Won't that stir things up?!

Variable Wind
02-28-2011, 05:14 PM
Okay, I'll wait...betting a quarter they didn't phrase it like that.
I would give you the quarter out of sheer honesty. There are some fringe groups that indeed say this almost verbatim, but we are talking about groups like La Raza and the NBP. To an extent that is beyond the scope of my reference. No they do not phrase it like that but many mouthpieces (U2 for example) have said that the disease has spread because of the government not funding research enough, and when cuts in funding have been made, they have said that it will make things worse. Thats gaining political points. The reference I made in my OP was mostly tongue-in-cheek but so was most of the OP anyway, it was meant to spark this discussion.


So, you might WANT it but would not ask for it, request it, vote for it?
Depends, if we had a decent budget surplus? Quite possibly. Right now? Not on my life, literally. Especially if I caught the disease from my own irresponsibility. Yes there are other ways to get it, but I am talking about the usual way that the disease is spread.


I posted a link for federal grants for migraine research...hence the admin review.
**facepalm**

TJMAC77SP
02-28-2011, 06:21 PM
I have heard this from liberals in the media many times. I will look into showing you an example.

If I suffered from an illness, I might WANT federal funding...maybe, but I most certainly would not demand it or expect it and certainly not feel entitled to it unless it was directly CAUSED by government.

I guess I should be demanding federal funding from the government for migraines then.

I watched Eugene Jarecki's "Regan" recently and more than once the film referred to Reagan's 'silence' on HIV and AIDS followed immediately by referrences to the rising rate of infection. There is a strong implied cause and effect relationship, which I am sure was the desired outcome.

garhkal
03-01-2011, 12:57 AM
3 out of 5 of those sounds good to me. I could probably settle for #1 by itself.

At least we are back to seeing eye to eye.



I"m okay with 5 years...

I still feel 5 yrs on death row is long, but since in much of the country the ave time it takes to get an appeal in and seen to is 3.4 yrs, it gives them a little more leway.



Okay, I misread your comments then.


No sweat.


Never hang your head, but understand that they were not the winner and will need to work harder to run faster so they can be competitive to be the winner. America didn't become the best nation in innovation and production because everyone was given a job that they didn't deserve, we got here because strived to be better than not only every other country, but everyone in this country too.


Very true. Just cause you may not have won, does not mean doing your best is something to hang your head over. BUT just cause you did good, does not to me, make it praise worthy to the level that some schools seem to take it (giving out ribbons for just participating)...


The mandating McDs take toys out of Happy Meals because parents in nanny state CA can't tell their kids "NO" is about 50 miles past the line of acceptable gov regulation.


Or telling a business owner that he/she can't allow smoking (A LEGAL PASSTIME OF A LEGAL PRODUCT) on his or her own property.


You know, if getting your kid some life insurance isn't enough of a motivator to get a better education and job, I doubt anything is going to do it short of cutting off the welfare checks to people that have hit 3rd generation dependance on the government cheese.


Thats a lot more lienient than i would be. 2 generations is imo enough. NO reason a son/daughter of mine should live off welfare just cause i had to (assuming i had to). BUT then again i feel welfare should NOT be lived off of.. 4 yrs or so MAX.. should be more than sufficient imo.


If you are in favor of just giving $1,000 to kids so they can have healthcare,


Heck, what of those who don't have kids or can't? Why should they pay for those who just pop them out?



Well, I've held of weighing in on this but have reached the point where I think I must ---


Cabbie.. welcome to the discussion. Have not seen you in a while...


I BELIEVE YOU CANNOT AND SHOULD NOT LEGISLATE MORALITY!!!!!!!!!


Ok, so laws on rape, murder, and the like (which are only wrong cause we morally say so) should not be? Many of our current laws are there cause they 'violate morality' (eg religion of some sorts)..


Individual responsibility is the cornerstone of this nation and efforts to weaken it are only drawing us towards tyranny.


Well said. Personally i feel we need to stop nannying the people, and do away with all thse BS lawsuits, such as someone hurting themselves breaking into a place then suing the owner. Or someone not bothering to read/follow safety precautions and injuring themselves.


The idea that government is the end-all for our problems not only belittle me but you.

Plus you then open it up to where the govt feels it NEEDS to dictate to you what you can/can't do.. like it is starting in a lot of situations (NO SALT)


I DO NOT believe that government should pay for abortions. If a woman wants one, that is HER responsibility to decide - and pay for.

Agreed. heck i feel the govt should not pay for anything elective (such as prisoners getting lipo, plastic surgery etc)...


I believe that the false premise "Separation of Church and State" which DOES NOT appear in the constitution, is just another attempt to dilute individual rights and responsibilities. I do not belong to any organized church but feel every one of them has the right to practice their beliefs without any government entity stepping in.


Would that also count for taxes?? if govt is not involved then do religious exemptions for taxes get repealed?


I believe government should not spend more than it takes in.


Good luck with that:peace


I do not believe that government employees, at any level, should have the right to be members of unions. If they feel they have to have what they believe to be union protections, seek employment in the private sector. I do not want my tax money going to pay union organizers and thugs.

Agreed. Work for govt, no right to be in a union. And if already in a union and get govt work.. got to choose. govt work or union membership.

[QUOTE=LV Cabbie;423144] And, if unions exist, I believe they should be PROHIBITED from taking part in any political campaign or contributing to candidates or issues.

Definite agreement here.. But then again a lot of those "PACs/lobyiests i feel need to go.

Measure Man
03-01-2011, 03:37 PM
Lung cancer? no, we know what primarily causes it. Liver disease, not really when you find out the person wrecked their own body. Back and joint, now that leaves some room for discussion. But the main focus was on HIV/AIDS. What is the % of new HIV patients from accidental needles or unsanitary dental equipment? There isn't much other ways of getting a disease other than unprotected sexual encounters with unfamiliar partners.

I'm not really digging your "Big Brother" medical research policy, to tell you the truth. Federal funding only for diseases that are not caused by "undesirable" conduct on the part of the majority of sufferers?


I am a parent of 2 and treat them with the attitude that I am typing now. My son, when he does something "smart" when he was a 2 y/o, I backed up that action up with positive emphasis. I have put him in sports with actually little encouragement other than to go have fun, after he does something good, I give him the praise it deserves.

Never hang your head, but understand that they were not the winner and will need to work harder to run faster so they can be competitive to be the winner. America didn't become the best nation in innovation and production because everyone was given a job that they didn't deserve, we got here because strived to be better than not only every other country, but everyone in this country too.

Well, I'm not going to tell you how to raise your kids...


not sure if this is sarcasm or agreement? There is an ability to have a very minimal amount of regulation with out babysitting the entire private sector. The anti-monopoly ruling is good because it allows for free market competition. The mandating McDs take toys out of Happy Meals because parents in nanny state CA can't tell their kids "NO" is about 50 miles past the line of acceptable gov regulation.

It was agreement. I'm not in favor of the Happy Meal deal either...or a drinking age of 21...or anti-smoking laws.


They feel the private sector could do it better for less the price and better the quality. I think there are somethings that should be government controlled, like cops and firefighters.

Why is it so many people on think board this the private sector does everything better...except in the DOD, then contractors are money-grubbing scum?


it was about your statement about liberal perception of things versus conservative perception is "relative". People see the laws in Wis. that gov Walker is trying to pass as Union busting and other see it as balancing the budget while protecting the government from future attacks from the unions.

"attacks"? They are just working people trying to get a decent standard of living. I do think, however, that many of the benefits provided are over-the-top, and it is the PROCESS that allows that. Having been through a union negotiation myself (as a management rep)...the process is set up to pretty much always result in an increase for the union...if your starting point is zero increase, and you don't budge, they then file a suit or grievance that you are not negotiating in good faith, which is a requirement. So, the only way for management to maintain the status quo is to start the negotiations proposing a pay cut and decrease in benefits....the longer the union is in place, the more and more they get.


The key word you said was Republican. Not the same as conservative. G.W. Bush was Republican, but he wasn't close to being fiscally conservative. Some Dem governors might be waking up to the financial melt down facing their state, and although you may blame the republican that was in office before the democrat, look farther into history and see if there wasn't many other dems bowing to unions giving out massive benefits just so they could be reelected. That is the story in places like Cal, NY, Ill, Wis, all major liberal/progressive state that gave too much to their public workers that are now making more that private sector folks when you add in their benefits packages.

Yeah, public service used to mean you worked for less money...not so anymore, not even in the military.


Good, I agree with you. I am happy to allow my property taxes to go up $300 last year to pay for more higher educated teachers for my area. 90% of the public school teachers here have a Masters degree, so we are not just throwing money at the same teachers that only have the BA sitting behind the desk showing movies all day long, we have people that are actually dedicated to education.

I have no problem paying teachers well, good ones deserve it. The biggest problem with teachers is the idea of giving tenure to K-12 teachers. Tenure was orignally a concept for University professors to allow them the academic freedom to put forth unpopular ideas and research unpopular topics. That has no place in K-12 where they teach the curriculum. Do away with tenure!


You know, if getting your kid some life insurance isn't enough of a motivator to get a better education and job, I doubt anything is going to do it short of cutting off the welfare checks to people that have hit 3rd generation dependance on the government cheese.

Yeah...but then do we allow kids to suffer because they have sucky parents? To some degree, maybe, I mean I spend good money to make sure I live in an area with a good school district, and my kids should benefit from that...but there is certainly a line there somewhere.


If you are in favor of just giving $1,000 to kids so they can have healthcare, are you willing to go back to what Social security was originally meant for? A government hand out to those who from birth or due to a traumatic event in their life before they hit the age of retirement, were paid through government assistance. This included the mentally/physically handicapped from birth and the widows of WWI vets who in that time were never allowed to have a job and make money for themselves. Not having everyone that turns 65 y/o get a check from the government, but to help those that could not help themselves. Now that social security I could get behind. Not only that, the mandatory payments for SS would go dramatically down because there would be less people that could qualify, and people could use the extra money in their paychecks to put away for their own retirement. I know this is a wild concept for liberals, but that would promote self responsibility and self reliance.

When was this? To my knowledge social security has always been used for retirements. In fact, the very first payments were to retirees and were mere cents, based on what they had contributed to the new program back in the 30s.


Though I took a lot of standard tests when I was going through school, not once do I remember one thing about hockey. Seeming that I was in the south, that really wouldn't apply to me either. And there was never anything about NASCAR either. I think I remember maybe a baseball paragraph, but wouldn't that interest the latinos as well as the whites?

Hockey was not a literal example, just the first thing that came to my mind...the topic is pretty complex to get into here...


My point is, there is nothing that will exclusively cover all the certain race someone is trying to claim is the target of a question, and to say there needs to be scenarios written specifically for 12% of the population to make it "fair" is just ludicrous.

I don't find anything ludicrous about that.

So, all the questions should advantage the other 88%? What's ludicrous is taking those 12% you are talking about and systematically placing more of them into "special ed" based off of tests that target the majority.


Anyways, I am off for the next 2 weeks, and I may pop my head back in here from time to time. Enjoy your Friday night.

Cheers

Measure Man
03-01-2011, 03:43 PM
Nickymaz--Thanks for the correction. I amend my statement, but still say nicknack's reason that Jews tend to be liberal because of their support for the Civil Rights movement is weak.

Jews tend to be liberal, this is a fact. Obama received 75% of the Jewish vote, as do most Democrats.

Why do you think that is?


As to MM's suggestion that blacks are at a disadvantage because of a hockey example, well so am I. That's a regional thing in addition to being a race thing.

Yes, you are correct, it is actually more regional and/or economic. I think I even stated as much, well economically at least. However the races do tend to be divided regionally.

I'm not suggesting that the test writers INTEND to write biased tests in an effort to keep the minority students down...they do it without realizing it. Not as much anymore, but in the 60s and 70s this was a big deal, with a relatively large percentage of minority kids being placed in special ed programs, which at that time were segregated from the regular classes and basically did coloring and puzzles.

garhkal
03-02-2011, 08:18 AM
It was agreement. I'm not in favor of the Happy Meal deal either...or a drinking age of 21...or anti-smoking laws.

Egads, we see eye to eye once again,,



.if your starting point is zero increase, and you don't budge, they then file a suit or grievance that you are not negotiating in good faith, which is a requirement. So, the only way for management to maintain the status quo is to start the negotiations proposing a pay cut and decrease in benefits....the longer the union is in place, the more and more they get.


Sounds thuggish to me...



Yeah, public service used to mean you worked for less money...not so anymore, not even in the military.

Yup.. Pity we can't go back to those days.



I have no problem paying teachers well, good ones deserve it. The biggest problem with teachers is the idea of giving tenure to K-12 teachers. Tenure was orignally a concept for University professors to allow them the academic freedom to put forth unpopular ideas and research unpopular topics. That has no place in K-12 where they teach the curriculum. Do away with tenure!


Personally i feel deans/heads ad all those other administrators are paid too much, and that is part of the issue for why teachers pay is so low..



Yeah...but then do we allow kids to suffer because they have sucky parents? To some degree, maybe, I mean I spend good money to make sure I live in an area with a good school district, and my kids should benefit from that...but there is certainly a line there somewhere.

Why shouldn't they suffer? If daddy/mommy can't afford X, they don't get it. So why health care?

Measure Man
03-02-2011, 03:24 PM
I admitted it was a fact. I was challenging his implied "Democrats=good; Republicans=bad" rationale, as applied to the Civil Rights movement. (Historically, it's inaccuate, and it pains me to defend Republicans.) In fact, I asked him why Jews as a block tended to be liberal. If you want a shot at it, here's the question in its entirety from post #15:

I don't know why...and my wife is Jewish.

But, he answered you and you said his reply was weak...so just wondering what you thought the reason was.


As to your question: First, I never said anything about DOD contractors. I say it because I have been self-employed, and I know that businesses try to keep their costs down.

That was not directed at you personally so much...but if you look into some of the other threads people say that Contractors are basically Satan...and then come to this thread and it's all "private sector is utopia" stuff...so I find that interesting.


I have also worked for the government and have seen fraud, waste, and abuse in biblical proportions. Name something the government has done well.

FDIC, FDA, CDC, Armed Forces...

Now is when you point out a few things that are wrong with those organizations while conveniently ingnoring the fact that...

In the last banking crisis...there was rush to the banks by everyone withdrawing thier money like in the Great Depression.

You feel pretty darn safe buying food in America...and taking approved medicine.

We don't have polio or small pox anymore, not much Hep B to speak of, diptheria, etc...mainly because of a national vaccination programs.

Interstate highways are pretty good...Air Traffic Control does a pretty good job.

Still a pretty good deal to send a letter across the country for less than $0.50, IMO.

We could play the same game and I could ask you a name a sector of the economy that private companies "do well" and then point out any corruption, negligence, theivery that takes place in that sector...but what would that prove?


Have you been to the Social Security office lately?

No, what's that like?


How about the DMV? Have you seen how governments wastes money? And we want to put these people in charge of healthcare?

Last time I went to the DMV, it was awesome...I even left them a positive comment card. I had an appointment though.


As for Social Security, 65 was higher than the average life expectancy when SS came on board. The first thing we need to do to save it is jack the retirement age up to about 80.

I don't know about 80...but yeah, a little higher maybe. I was just asking about the other poster's assertion that is was originally for orphans and widows...

I'm not saying Social Security is perfect...but it's not too bad either.


We'd be stupid to not consider the costs associated with free government anything. We're broke as a country. Many states are broke. Yet we're paying people for 3 years to NOT work. We have to finish paying for years of entitlements and wars that we never had any intention of winning before we look for more ways to spend dollars borrowed from China.

Of course we need to consider the costs of anything these days...some of those costs are worth it, IMO.

- Strong military
- Public schools

And, I'm not fundamentally opposed to some type of government healthcare...my friends in England and France love it. Healthcare is a basic human necessity, like protection from bad guys, emergency response and national defense. To be honest, I have not read the full law on Obamacare...and so far, I haven't seen it impact me...so not really wanting to talk about line items pulled out of that law...but, in concept, I don't see what the outrage is over "socialized medicine"...you think there'd be a much bigger fear over "socialized education of our children", but haven't seen anyone saying that public schools are unconstitutional...except maybe VW, he hates everything :dance

We've come to expect a Free and Appropriate Public Education as a right for children...don't see how a Free and Appropriate Health Care is so much different a concept, especially for children. I could get behind not offering it up to adults who've had every opportunity...but I can't think of a good reason to deny a 9-year old available health care. Now some will say, "Emergency rooms must treat everyone, so if it's life or death, the healthcare is there"...an ER doesn't do much good for a child with cancer or muscular dystrophy, etc.

Measure Man
03-02-2011, 03:32 PM
Why shouldn't they suffer? If daddy/mommy can't afford X, they don't get it. So why health care?

Why shouldn't children suffer? Did you really just ask that?

I think the conservative movement has just hit a new all-time low.

Variable Wind
03-02-2011, 05:05 PM
FDIC, FDA, CDC, Armed Forces...
I would not consider the FDA or the CDC to be well run government operations. I am pretty sure the FDIC is run by the FED (which is not a government institution) and even then, its only a small buffer against depression. Its okay, but certainly not as great as a lot of people hope that it is.


You feel pretty darn safe buying food in America...and taking approved medicine.
Hardly. I feel almost comfortable, but still cautious.


Interstate highways are pretty good...Air Traffic Control does a pretty good job.
Interstate 95 in VA is pothole central, most of 64 is too. Not to mention all the rest of the roads in here that dont get the same attention that those two do...oh and toll roads are going up to keep up with all of the maintenance NOT being done.


Still a pretty good deal to send a letter across the country for less than $0.50, IMO.
True, but that happens when you address the letter just down the street. The "tracking number" only tells you when it gets delivered. Ill put it to you this way, when I was working at the vette shop, even if we were shipping a $10 part to a customer out of area or state, we had a NO USPS policy because of all the stuff that gets lost in the mail. Thats a heavy union and heavy lobby protected outfit and completely run aweful.


We could play the same game and I could ask you a name a sector of the economy that private companies "do well" and then point out any corruption, negligence, theivery that takes place in that sector...but what would that prove?
That I still trust Wal-Mart better than I trust AAFES. That I trust Wells Fargo better than I trust Freddie or Fannie, that UPS is better than USPS (and email is free).


No, what's that like?
Full of brand new cars in the customer lot. My wife works next door with Social Services and we car pool. She concurs with the amount of waste.


Last time I went to the DMV, it was awesome...I even left them a positive comment card. I had an appointment though.
The good thing about DMV is that now you can do things online. Other than that, it still if full of people who dont care.


I'm not saying Social Security is perfect...but it's not too bad either.
It is bad, because the government has spent much of that money on other stuff. When peoples 401Ks were getting ruined, they STILL had more money to their retirement than Social Security does.


And, I'm not fundamentally opposed to some type of government healthcare...my friends in England and France love it.
And those countries can no longer afford it. England especially is starting to move away from socialized medicine...and the level of care is lower as well.


Healthcare is a basic human necessity, like protection from bad guys, emergency response and national defense.
Yeah, when have you NOT recieved healthcare in the US?


To be honest, I have not read the full law on Obamacare...and so far, I haven't seen it impact me...so not really wanting to talk about line items pulled out of that law...but, in concept, I don't see what the outrage is over "socialized medicine"...
Most states have only barely started instituting the laws (my wife works closely with this stuff actually) and many states cannot afford to implement the law. Some are fighting it and the rest are unsure to change infrastructure for something that might not even exist in a few months.


you think there'd be a much bigger fear over "socialized education of our children", but haven't seen anyone saying that public schools are unconstitutional...except maybe VW, he hates everything :dance
yeah, yeah :P


We've come to expect a Free and Appropriate Public Education as a right for children...don't see how a Free and Appropriate Health Care is so much different a concept, especially for children. I could get behind not offering it up to adults who've had every opportunity...but I can't think of a good reason to deny a 9-year old available health care. Now some will say, "Emergency rooms must treat everyone, so if it's life or death, the healthcare is there"...an ER doesn't do much good for a child with cancer or muscular dystrophy, etc.
Can you tell me when someone has BILLED a child under the age of 18? This law also considers 26 year olds as children too. To put that into perspective, thats 8 years after I started paying for my own healthcare insurance. You get care in this country whether you can afford it or not, Hosptials DO work with you on cost arrangements. If you have to go bankrupt in order to have your life saved, I think its a fair trade. I shouldnt have to pay FOR YOU and screw the system up so bad that now when something does happen to me I get crappier service because the doctors dont care anymore.

Measure Man
03-02-2011, 05:28 PM
I would not consider the FDA or the CDC to be well run government operations.

I think they both have very difficult jobs that are done pretty darn well.


I am pretty sure the FDIC is run by the FED (which is not a government institution) and even then, its only a small buffer against depression. Its okay, but certainly not as great as a lot of people hope that it is.

Hardly. I feel almost comfortable, but still cautious.

Interstate 95 in VA is pothole central, most of 64 is too. Not to mention all the rest of the roads in here that dont get the same attention that those two do...oh and toll roads are going up to keep up with all of the maintenance NOT being done.

True, but that happens when you address the letter just down the street. The "tracking number" only tells you when it gets delivered. Ill put it to you this way, when I was working at the vette shop, even if we were shipping a $10 part to a customer out of area or state, we had a NO USPS policy because of all the stuff that gets lost in the mail. Thats a heavy union and heavy lobby protected outfit and completely run aweful.

That I still trust Wal-Mart better than I trust AAFES. That I trust Wells Fargo better than I trust Freddie or Fannie, that UPS is better than USPS (and email is free).

Full of brand new cars in the customer lot. My wife works next door with Social Services and we car pool. She concurs with the amount of waste.

The good thing about DMV is that now you can do things online. Other than that, it still if full of people who dont care.

It is bad, because the government has spent much of that money on other stuff. When peoples 401Ks were getting ruined, they STILL had more money to their retirement than Social Security does.

Like I said, VW hates everything. BTW, email is not free, you just pay for it indirectly.


And those countries can no longer afford it. England especially is starting to move away from socialized medicine...and the level of care is lower as well.

Yeah, when have you NOT recieved healthcare in the US?

Most states have only barely started instituting the laws (my wife works closely with this stuff actually) and many states cannot afford to implement the law. Some are fighting it and the rest are unsure to change infrastructure for something that might not even exist in a few months.

yeah, yeah :P

Can you tell me when someone has BILLED a child under the age of 18? This law also considers 26 year olds as children too. To put that into perspective, thats 8 years after I started paying for my own healthcare insurance. You get care in this country whether you can afford it or not, Hosptials DO work with you on cost arrangements. If you have to go bankrupt in order to have your life saved, I think its a fair trade. I shouldnt have to pay FOR YOU and screw the system up so bad that now when something does happen to me I get crappier service because the doctors dont care anymore.

The number 1 cause of bankruptcy in the U.S. is medical care. If you have to go bankrupt in order to have your life saved...you made the right choice, not sure if I'd call it "fair" though, necessarily. Seems like there could be a better system out there.

Variable Wind
03-02-2011, 05:56 PM
I think they both have very difficult jobs that are done pretty darn well.
Difficult jobs that they have done ADEQUATELY.


Like I said, VW hates everything. BTW, email is not free, you just pay for it indirectly.
Free enough. And dont get upset that I can point out all of the crap that you describe as gold.


The number 1 cause of bankruptcy in the U.S. is medical care. If you have to go bankrupt in order to have your life saved...you made the right choice, not sure if I'd call it "fair" though, necessarily. Seems like there could be a better system out there.
I think its more fair that we get great care now and some people go bankrupt getting great care than everyone getting the same crappy care because we have to make sure nobody goes bankrupt.

Children will suffer worse because they will get substandard care and have to wait forever to get it.

Measure Man
03-02-2011, 06:06 PM
Difficult jobs that they have done ADEQUATELY.


Free enough. And dont get upset that I can point out all of the crap that you describe as gold.

I don't think I described them as gold...and all you "pointed out" was "I don't think they do good." Hardly what I'd call riveting points. I have no doubt you can do some research and point out failures of any organization.

...and yes, I could probably dig in to all the evils of Wal-Mart and have some personal experience dealing with the incompetence of Wells Fargo and will never do business with them again...but again, what would be the point?

We could go back and forth, each raising another point or simply saying "Wal-Mart HA! those guys are incompetent buffons!!...why one time I went in there and sales "associate" (translate: minimum wage HS dropout) didn't know the difference between a laptop and netbook!...IDIOTS all of them!"


I think its more fair that we get great care now and some people go bankrupt getting great care than everyone getting the same crappy care because we have to make sure nobody goes bankrupt.

Children will suffer worse because they will get substandard care and have to wait forever to get it.

So...how do we play this one? Dig up statistical data from biased websites or trade anectdotal stories? I had good friend of mine who recently traveled across France for the summer...she is a medical doctor...her husband got sick over there and all she could do was rave on the quality of care he received, really, she put it on Facebook!! In Germany, I knew quite a few locals and Brits...and all that I knew loved their healthcare. They didn't love their taxes of course, LOL

Been to a wonderful private hospital ER, or HMO, in the US lately? It's not exactly a beaming light of quality service.

Variable Wind
03-02-2011, 06:31 PM
I don't think I described them as gold...and all you "pointed out" was "I don't think they do good." Hardly what I'd call riveting points. I have no doubt you can do some research and point out failures of any organization.
Reread, I made many points elluding to the ineptitude of those organizations. DOT for the roads, SS for the fraud...and DOT for the fraud, the USPS for being undependable for delivering the mail (their ONE job). ect....ect....ect.


...and yes, I could probably dig in to all the evils of Wal-Mart and have some personal experience dealing with the incompetence of Wells Fargo and will never do business with them again...but again, what would be the point?
The point being that Wells Fargo didnt take a bailout, and isnt STILL asking for money. Freddie and Fannie are. The point being that as bad as some private sector companies are, the public ones are even more screwed up.


We could go back and forth, each raising another point or simply saying "Wal-Mart HA! those guys are incompetent buffons!!...why one time I went in there and sales "associate" (translate: minimum wage HS dropout) didn't know the difference between a laptop and netbook!...IDIOTS all of them!"
AAFES...I win.



So...how do we play this one? Dig up statistical data or trade anectdotal stories? I had good friend of mine who recently traveled across France for the summer...she is a medical doctor...her husband got sick over there and all she could do was rave on the quality of care he received. In Germany, I knew quite a few locals, Brits...and all that I knew loved their healthcare.
Avg wait time in an ER room in the UK is 12 hours. It got so bad that they passed a law saying that Ambulance would be required for patients requiring over 4 hours wait time. People routinely die waiting for care, both in waiting rooms and at home in the UK and in France and in Canada. Thats why so many come here for care.


Been to a wonderful private hospital ER, or HMO, in the US lately? It's not exactly a beaming light of quality service.
Actually spent a week in one last September for MRSA. I love the hospital care I got and my Insurance and Supplemental Insurance companies took care of me too. It actually is a beaming light of quality service as compared to my hospital experience at McGuire VA Hospital...a state run hospital. It was filthy, and employed by ragged folks who gave poor customer service and exuded little confidence winning professionalism.

TJMAC77SP
03-02-2011, 06:39 PM
What is the difference between a laptop and a notebook ?????????

Measure Man
03-02-2011, 06:39 PM
Reread, I made many points elluding to the ineptitude of those organizations. DOT for the roads, SS for the fraud...and DOT for the fraud, the USPS for being undependable for delivering the mail (their ONE job). ect....ect....ect.

I use USPS to mail all my bills...never lost one in 27 years. Do you use UPS or FEDEX to mail in your water bill?


The point being that Wells Fargo didnt take a bailout, and isnt STILL asking for money. Freddie and Fannie are. The point being that as bad as some private sector companies are, the public ones are even more screwed up.

Uhm...Wells Fargo was one of the first banks to get a bailout...and their $25B bailout was one of the largest single sums paid.

Shortley afterward, they planned and defended a lavish Las Vegas retreat for their employees, which they only cancelled after public pressure.


AAFES...I win.

Unless you are in Afghanistan.


Avg wait time in an ER room in the UK is 12 hours. It got so bad that they passed a law saying that Ambulance would be required for patients requiring over 4 hours wait time. People routinely die waiting for care, both in waiting rooms and at home in the UK and in France and in Canada. Thats why so many come here for care.

I would tend to agree that we have better high-end care...so if you someone has money, they come here.

You don't see too many poor Canadians coming to the US for care though.


Actually spent a week in one last September for MRSA. I love the hospital care I got and my Insurance and Supplemental Insurance companies took care of me too. It actually is a beaming light of quality service as compared to my hospital experience at McGuire VA Hospital...a state run hospital. It was filthy, and employed by ragged folks who gave poor customer service and exuded little confidence winning professionalism.

Hope you're feeling better

Variable Wind
03-02-2011, 07:00 PM
I use USPS to mail all my bills...never lost one in 27 years. Do you use UPS or FEDEX to mail in your water bill?
I pay online.


Uhm...Wells Fargo was one of the first banks to get a bailout...and their $25B bailout was one of the largest single sums paid.
Shortley afterward, they planned and defended a lavish Las Vegas retreat for their employees, which they only cancelled after public pressure.

No they were FORCED to take that TARP money, which I believe they repaid within the year. Sucks for Las Vegas though. I dont bank through Well Fargo, but I have my mortgage with them...I have never had one single issue with them.


Unless you are in Afghanistan.
If they were anything like Iraq, I would have preferred to deal with the locals, better prices (I like to haggle sometimes).


I would tend to agree that we have better high-end care...so if you someone has money, they come here.
You don't see too many poor Canadians coming to the US for care though.
Hope you're feeling better
I learned my lesson: Dont scratch poison ivy or you will get a superbug.

Measure Man
03-02-2011, 07:45 PM
I pay online.

I do also for most of mine...my water company does not have online billing, so I mail that one.


No they were FORCED to take that TARP money, which I believe they repaid within the year. Sucks for Las Vegas though. I dont bank through Well Fargo, but I have my mortgage with them...I have never had one single issue with them.

So, they didn't take it or they paid it back...which is it?


If they were anything like Iraq, I would have preferred to deal with the locals, better prices (I like to haggle sometimes).

Well, I'm not arguing that the government does EVERYTHING great...and certainly retail is not something I'm going to defend as government superiority.


I learned my lesson: Dont scratch poison ivy or you will get a superbug.

Oh, and I don't know what's wrong with I-64, drove that road many times and I seem to remember it being pretty sweet...unless it took a drastic nosedive in the last year or so. I-95 maybe not as much, but it sure gets a lot of traffic... overall, I've driven across the country quite a few times on interstates...and sure some parts are better than others...but overall pretty good I think...again, not as simple a job as one might think.

I guess until there is a private network of highways across the country, we won't know...probably wouldn't service outlying areas, and of course, would charge a higher toll...I know Tolls are a big thing out East, but once you get past Pennsylvania, there aren't hardly any toll roads.

Variable Wind
03-02-2011, 07:56 PM
So, they didn't take it or they paid it back...which is it?
They did take it, I remembered incorrectly...they did not NEED it, they aquired Wackovia in the middle of the whole mess with their own funds...the legislation of TARP required that they take it. They repaid it.


Oh, and I don't know what's wrong with I-64, drove that road many times and I seem to remember it being pretty sweet...unless it took a drastic nosedive in the last year or so. I-95 maybe not as much, but it sure gets a lot of traffic... overall, I've driven across the country quite a few times on interstates...and sure some parts are better than others...but overall pretty good I think...again, not as simple a job as one might think.
In 2007-2008 I drove from Hampton Roads to Richmond everyday, Hampton Roads was getting a pave job...but once you got past Toano towards Richmond, it was (and still is) in pretty poor shape. The roads you saw in HR (where 64 goes from 2 lanes to 4)were the product of almost 20 years of work down there because they wanted concrete and they didnt apply it right the first time or the second. Up until about 2005 they literally had been working on that road for as since I was old enough to enjoy a beach vacation. They did do one thing right (finally) during the recent pave project, they started work at 6pm and worked through the night so there was minimal traffic interference.


I guess until there is a private network of highways across the country, we won't know...probably wouldn't service outlying areas, and of course, would charge a higher toll...I know Tolls are a big thing out East, but once you get past Pennsylvania, there aren't hardly any toll roads.
My brother just moved up to Philly, he rented a two axle UHaul trailer and paid $40.00 in tolls coming up from Richmond. They arent very popular in VA, I think they Powhite and NoVa are the only places that require tolls.

Measure Man
03-02-2011, 07:57 PM
What is the difference between a laptop and a notebook ?????????

NETbook.

They are small computers pretty much just designed for surfing the net...not as much RAM, don't come with CD/DVD-drives or large screens, they come with Windows 7 "starter"' instead of the full Windows 7, few other things. You can buy one for about $150 or so.

Measure Man
03-02-2011, 08:01 PM
My brother just moved up to Philly, he rented a two axle UHaul trailer and paid $40.00 in tolls coming up from Richmond. They arent very popular in VA, I think they Powhite and NoVa are the only places that require tolls.

I grew up in NJ...tolls were an everyday fact of life. It was $7 just to cross the bridge into NY...I think now it's like $9, but you didn't get charged coming back (always free to get into NJ, but you gotta pay to get out). Of course the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel in VA is like $12...can't recall if the HRBT was toll or not.

Variable Wind
03-02-2011, 08:19 PM
I grew up in NJ...tolls were an everyday fact of life. It was $7 just to cross the bridge into NY...I think now it's like $9, but you didn't get charged coming back (always free to get into NJ, but you gotta pay to get out). Of course the Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel in VA is like $12...can't recall if the HRBT was toll or not.

Ah, I forgot about that one. HRBT isnt a toll and neither is Monitor-Merrimack.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-03-2011, 12:05 AM
And, I'm not fundamentally opposed to some type of government healthcare...my friends in England and France love it. Healthcare is a basic human necessity, like protection from bad guys, emergency response and national defense. To be honest, I have not read the full law on Obamacare...and so far, I haven't seen it impact me...so not really wanting to talk about line items pulled out of that law...but, in concept, I don't see what the outrage is over "socialized medicine"...you think there'd be a much bigger fear over "socialized education of our children", but haven't seen anyone saying that public schools are unconstitutional...except maybe VW, he hates everything You should talk to the parents in Canada that are being forced by the government ran health care Dr.s to take their son off life support before the parents are done fighting to keep him alive. Why is it the governments decision? At least with Terry Shivo the family was fighting on both side, the government was only the enforcer of removing life support after the Judge made the decision.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-03-2011, 12:23 AM
it was about your statement about liberal perception of things versus conservative perception is "relative". People see the laws in Wis. that gov Walker is trying to pass as Union busting and other see it as balancing the budget while protecting the government from future attacks from the unions.
"attacks"? They are just working people trying to get a decent standard of living. I do think, however, that many of the benefits provided are over-the-top, and it is the PROCESS that allows that. Having been through a union negotiation myself (as a management rep)...the process is set up to pretty much always result in an increase for the union...if your starting point is zero increase, and you don't budge, they then file a suit or grievance that you are not negotiating in good faith, which is a requirement. So, the only way for management to maintain the status quo is to start the negotiations proposing a pay cut and decrease in benefits....the longer the union is in place, the more and more they get.
So, Scott Walker is only taking collective bargaining away from the gov unions in Wis for rules on tenure and other regulations that are not tied to ones pay or benefits. The Unions, (not to be confused with the average working man), are cornering and verbally attacking the officials of Wis, the ones that stayed in the state anyways, and you don't call that an attack from unions? These people get to keep the collective bargaining for their pay and benefits, just not the stuff everyone else doesn't get in the private sector.

Your union talks, were they private or public workings? Private Unions keep the bosses in-line, we the consumer keep the unions in-line. GM should have failed because that would have been the way the consumer dealt with their over paid, under quality work, we didn't buy that crap they tried to sell. The public unions have no such enforcer. No matter how crappy of a product they produce in contrast to their pay, they still will ALWAYS get paid. We, the taxpayer/consumer, can't decide not to purchase their crap. Even if we choose to send the kids to private school, we still pay for the crap they "produce". This is what Scott Walker is trying to get rid of.

Voiceofsanity
03-03-2011, 12:34 AM
Three super easy points:

- France doesn't have "socialized" medicine. They have a mix of private insurance with a safety net of sorts at the bottom end. We could probably find some agreement based on the French model. But since the left is never interested in ideas that aren't their own that discussion will never happen. Instead people like me will be shouted down and called names which detracts sufficiently from the discussion and thus mitigates the possibility that a non-leftist idea will be heard. Cue the name calling in 4, 3, 2...

- I lived in western Europe myself not to long ago. In the countries I lived in the locals hated their "socialized" medicine. And yes, they sought every coat tail they could ride to get treated on base through some distant relation to an American. Yep, ole Granny turns up at the base ER to be seen because her grand-daughter was married to an American and Granny just happened to be visiting - and was never able to be seen by the gubmint clinic for her ailment. Loopholes in SOFAs are amazing things.

- Ever look at the grill an average British citizen's got? Find the hottest English person you can (not a celeb, an actual person) and look at their smile. That alone should tell you "no" on any and all concepts of "socialized" medicine. If it doesn't then tell me where English celebs go when they need medical treatment...or why many of them bailed on the island kingdom ages ago.

Last point, if we're going to cite Germany as an example of what to do or not to do how about we reduce our corporate tax rate by 10% to match the German standard. Then, we eliminate export taxes on US made products as the Europeans have done. That way, when a Ford goes overseas to compete against Puegots the Ford doesn't bring a couple thousand additional dollars/euros/dirham/etc in tax charges to the sales floor. (Gotta remember, no corporation in this world pays taxes...their customers do via the price). Let's face it, if you're Granny headed down to the American base or the 19 year old Brit with a 53 year old's grill living it up expat in Oman you'll want to spend less when you purchase that vehicle right? Thus you'll buy Puegot over an American ride.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-03-2011, 12:39 AM
We've come to expect a Free and Appropriate Public Education as a right for children...don't see how a Free and Appropriate Health Care is so much different a concept, especially for children. I could get behind not offering it up to adults who've had every opportunity...but I can't think of a good reason to deny a 9-year old available health care. Now some will say, "Emergency rooms must treat everyone, so if it's life or death, the healthcare is there"...an ER doesn't do much good for a child with cancer or muscular dystrophy, etc. So would you be in favor for putting this line of thought to social security? Believe me, it was for those who could not and still can not provide for themselves. The mental/physically disabled that are unable to produce a viable income that could support a person retirement account should be the only ones that should get social security anymore. I alone could really like to use that $200 to put into my personal IRA and I know it will be there waiting for me when I retire cause it is handled by a private organization. That same $200 more than likely not last past 2 months from now before another government agency takes it out of the SS account and puts in an IOU in its place. It is like Lloyd Christmas and Harry Dunn putting in IOUs into the Samsonite briefcase thinking they could replace the money they took even with no job.

If you are going to work from 15 y/o to 65 y/o, 50 years, you should be putting money into your own retirement account. If you don't, then you better be working till the day you die.

Voiceofsanity
03-03-2011, 12:45 AM
Simple point is this...states like Wisconsin are going broke. Broke. Not just $0.00 in the account broke but negative numbers broke. If you gave any number of states $10,000,000 right now instantly they'd still be short. Unlike the federal side states do not have the option of running in the red. That's why in CA when state tax "refunds" are issued instead of checks we get "IOUs" that may not even be paid until the following year. Gov Walker - despite the left's civil discourse complete with his image being depicted in crosshairs (sound familiar?) and suggestions of assault against his supporters (why am I thinking of Tucson?) - is simply asking the public unions in Wisconsin to actually contribute to their benefits packages because right now they don't. Those unions do absorb a lot "donations" via mandated - that's mandate as in public employees don't have a choice though I thought pro-choice was part of someone's agenda - payroll deductions. Those mandated deductions fund things like $300,000 salaries for state union presidents who work out of 200,000 square foot office buildings yet somehow aren't greedy and represent the "little guy". Is it to drastic to ask that employees be given a yes or no choice on whether or not they donate to the union? Is it to big a deal to ask that, if they want pensions that in some cases pay more in retirement than in employment (check out CalPers as one of 50 examples) that they contribute maybe $2500 based on a $50,000 a year salary?

Entitlement programs are coming due. There ain't no more money folks. Something's gotta give somewhere. If not via the unions then where?

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-03-2011, 12:53 AM
The number 1 cause of bankruptcy in the U.S. is medical care. If you have to go bankrupt in order to have your life saved...you made the right choice, not sure if I'd call it "fair" though, necessarily. Seems like there could be a better system out there. The better system is to not have the insurance companies on both ends of the system. You pay insurance companies, insurance pay the majority of the bill, the Dr. gets paid, but the majority of the bill goes to the Dr.s' insurance. So, what really needs fixing is the insurance practices.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-03-2011, 12:58 AM
We could go back and forth, each raising another point or simply saying "Wal-Mart HA! those guys are incompetent buffons!!...why one time I went in there and sales "associate" (translate: minimum wage HS dropout) didn't know the difference between a laptop and netbook!...IDIOTS all of them!" But he can be fired for not knowing the difference. Now how about my 10th grade English teacher that said he could make a true/false quiz have a 1 in 3 chance of guessing the right answer, can you fire that buffoon?

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-03-2011, 01:02 AM
Been to a wonderful private hospital ER, or HMO, in the US lately? It's not exactly a beaming light of quality service. I was quite pleased the past few weeks and last night. Was in and out in about 1 hour for a broken nose last night. The quality of care my wife and I got for the birth of our latest kid was phenomenal compared to when we had our first one on Eglin AFB.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-03-2011, 01:06 AM
I use USPS to mail all my bills...never lost one in 27 years. Do you use UPS or FEDEX to mail in your water bill?
We in the military use FedEx or DHL for our secret/TS mail. Seems that the military leadership even knows that the private sector is the better route for mailing something securely and ensuring it will make it to the destination.

garhkal
03-03-2011, 03:57 AM
Last time I went to the DMV, it was awesome...I even left them a positive comment card. I had an appointment though.



I have had some great visits myself. And ones that positively sucked balls.



And, I'm not fundamentally opposed to some type of government healthcare...my friends in England and France love it. Healthcare is a basic human necessity

I disagree it is a right/necessity. All your other examples are protection of everyone, not just self. which is what i see health care as.
And as for england. Being english by birth i an say our NHS has its good qualities (technically free, but paid for by high as heck taxes), but it has a heck of a lot more bad parts. If your area does not have X specialty, you have to foot the bill to travel to another area.
You consistently get pushed to the "back of te list" in favor of illegals, asylum seekers, welfare degenerates (had it happen twice to my mother).
You have to deal with substandard care at times with little recourse.
You have to deal with massive waiting lists.


We've come to expect a Free and Appropriate Public Education as a right for children...don't see how a Free and Appropriate Health Care is so much different a concept, especially for children

And perhaps that is the issue. We have come to expect it as a right when it is not. Heck to me, public education is/should not be a right. More of a requirement.

As to the have healthcare for kids only, parents got to get their own. How will you make a cut off determination? Does a 'child' who graduates 3 yrs early still get it? What of the 22 yr old who due to being stupid/lazy got sent back 5 times? Does he still get it? Does it stick as long as they are in education (college)?? For how long?


Why shouldn't children suffer? Did you really just ask that?

I think the conservative movement has just hit a new all-time low.

Yes i did. If i can't afford to get my kids X, they don't get it/ They suffer by not having it.
So why should it be considered wrong to make them suffer not having health care cause mommy/daddy can't afford it?


That I still trust Wal-Mart better than I trust AAFES. That I trust Wells Fargo better than I trust Freddie or Fannie, that UPS is better than USPS (and email is free).



I know many people who feel the same on aafes there VW..


I think its more fair that we get great care now and some people go bankrupt getting great care than everyone getting the same crappy care because we have to make sure nobody goes bankrupt.

Children will suffer worse because they will get substandard care and have to wait forever to get it.


and all that I knew loved their healthcare. They didn't love their taxes of course, LOL

Been to a wonderful private hospital ER, or HMO, in the US lately? It's not exactly a beaming light of quality service.

And its cause of those high taxes they have that health care. How many here do you you think would be all happy to get it, by having the same level of taxation?


The point being that Wells Fargo didnt take a bailout, and isnt STILL asking for money. Freddie and Fannie are. The point being that as bad as some private sector companies are, the public ones are even more screwed up.


I am trying to remember which of the auto companies was the one who didn't get a bail out.. look how well they are doing compared to those who did get it.


Avg wait time in an ER room in the UK is 12 hours. It got so bad that they passed a law saying that Ambulance would be required for patients requiring over 4 hours wait time. People routinely die waiting for care, both in waiting rooms and at home in the UK and in France and in Canada. Thats why so many come here for care.


Combined with things like patients dying/getting limbs amputated cause of that MRSA bacterial strain they had from so few "WORKING staff" cause all the money went to pen pushers..


Uhm...Wells Fargo was one of the first banks to get a bailout...and their $25B bailout was one of the largest single sums paid.

Shortley afterward, they planned and defended a lavish Las Vegas retreat for their employees, which they only cancelled after public pressure.

Yea.. i remember hearing about that..


You should talk to the parents in Canada that are being forced by the government ran health care Dr.s to take their son off life support before the parents are done fighting to keep him alive. Why is it the governments decision? At least with Terry Shivo the family was fighting on both side, the government was only the enforcer of removing life support after the Judge made the decision.

Though i do not know of any thing similar that has happened in England, i know some people who got denyed health care cause of funding issues..


That's why in CA when state tax "refunds" are issued instead of checks we get "IOUs" that may not even be paid until the following year.

And people wonder why i am Happy to keep CA as my "Home of residence" when they don't require mil out of state to pay taxes...Or to do tax returns.


Gov Walker - despite the left's civil discourse complete with his image being depicted in crosshairs (sound familiar?) and suggestions of assault against his supporters (why am I thinking of Tucson?)

I find it interesting we lambasted that shooter in AZ, but there is little outrage at all those leftists/unions who have had several people make on line posting calling for someone to DO an AZ on walkers ass, or end this with a bullet in his head.


Is it to drastic to ask that employees be given a yes or no choice on whether or not they donate to the union? Is it to big a deal to ask that, if they want pensions that in some cases pay more in retirement than in employment (check out CalPers as one of 50 examples) that they contribute maybe $2500 based on a $50,000 a year salary?


Not to me. BUT then i have a lot of common sense.


Entitlement programs are coming due. There ain't no more money folks. Something's gotta give somewhere. If not via the unions then where?

Perhaps by doing away with a lot of those entitlement programs..


But he can be fired for not knowing the difference. Now how about my 10th grade English teacher that said he could make a true/false quiz have a 1 in 3 chance of guessing the right answer, can you fire that buffoon?


True. These days, unless its something sexual/racial (or they were just stupid and posted something truthful about the spoilt brats we call kids these days) it seems hard as hell to fire them.

Measure Man
03-03-2011, 03:02 PM
We could go back and forth trading anectdotal evidence and talking about who's friends love or hate their system.


World Health Organization rankings of World Healthcare systems:

Rank Country

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
40 Brunei
41 New Zealand
42 Bahrain
43 Croatia
44 Qatar
45 Kuwait
46 Barbados
47 Thailand
48 Czech Republic
49 Malaysia
50 Poland
51 Dominican Republic
52 Tunisia
53 Jamaica
54 Venezuela
55 Albania
56 Seychelles
57 Paraguay
58 South Korea
59 Senegal
60 Philippines
61 Mexico
62 Slovakia
63 Egypt
64 Kazakhstan
65 Uruguay
66 Hungary
67 Trinidad and Tobago
68 Saint Lucia
69 Belize
70 Turkey
71 Nicaragua
72 Belarus
73 Lithuania
74 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
75 Argentina
76 Sri Lanka
77 Estonia
78 Guatemala
79 Ukraine
80 Solomon Islands
81 Algeria
82 Palau
83 Jordan
84 Mauritius
85 Grenada
86 Antigua and Barbuda
87 Libya
88 Bangladesh
89 Macedonia
90 Bosnia-Herzegovina
91 Lebanon
92 Indonesia
93 Iran
94 Bahamas
95 Panama
96 Fiji
97 Benin
98 Nauru
99 Romania
100 Saint Kitts and Nevis
101 Moldova
102 Bulgaria
103 Iraq
104 Armenia
105 Latvia
106 Yugoslavia
107 Cook Islands
108 Syria
109 Azerbaijan
110 Suriname
111 Ecuador
112 India
113 Cape Verde
114 Georgia
115 El Salvador
116 Tonga
117 Uzbekistan
118 Comoros
119 Samoa
120 Yemen
121 Niue
122 Pakistan
123 Micronesia
124 Bhutan
125 Brazil
126 Bolivia
127 Vanuatu
128 Guyana
129 Peru
130 Russia
131 Honduras
132 Burkina Faso
133 Sao Tome and Principe
134 Sudan
135 Ghana
136 Tuvalu
137 Ivory Coast
138 Haiti
139 Gabon
140 Kenya
141 Marshall Islands
142 Kiribati
143 Burundi
144 China
145 Mongolia
146 Gambia
147 Maldives
148 Papua New Guinea
149 Uganda
150 Nepal
151 Kyrgystan
152 Togo
153 Turkmenistan
154 Tajikistan
155 Zimbabwe
156 Tanzania
157 Djibouti
158 Eritrea
159 Madagascar
160 Vietnam
161 Guinea
162 Mauritania
163 Mali
164 Cameroon
165 Laos
166 Congo
167 North Korea
168 Namibia
169 Botswana
170 Niger
171 Equatorial Guinea
172 Rwanda
173 Afghanistan
174 Cambodia
175 South Africa
176 Guinea-Bissau
177 Swaziland
178 Chad
179 Somalia
180 Ethiopia
181 Angola
182 Zambia
183 Lesotho
184 Mozambique
185 Malawi
186 Liberia
187 Nigeria
188 Democratic Republic of the Congo
189 Central African Republic
190 Myanmar


Accusations that the WHO is a politically-biased liberal organization in 4...3....2..

Variable Wind
03-03-2011, 03:19 PM
Accusations that the WHO is a politically-biased liberal organization in 4...3....2..

I dont know of a single World X Group that ISNT politically biased. At that point it goes a little beyond liberal/conservative it goes to diplomacy and a plethora of other dumb factors that result in things like the UN giving Libya a Human Rights award. I dont know much about the WHO except that they make great music, but I do know that their handling of the swine-flu was pretty aweful.

Almost as aweful as their performance during last years Superbowl. Retire already!

Measure Man
03-03-2011, 03:57 PM
Almost as aweful as their performance during last years Superbowl. Retire already!

Still better than the crap they had on this year...

Variable Wind
03-03-2011, 04:36 PM
Still better than the crap they had on this year...

I honestly said last year "There is no way the halftime show could get any worse..."

Gross miscalculation.

garhkal
03-04-2011, 01:27 AM
I dont know of a single World X Group that ISNT politically biased. At that point it goes a little beyond liberal/conservative it goes to diplomacy and a plethora of other dumb factors that result in things like the UN giving Libya a Human Rights award. I dont know much about the WHO except that they make great music, but I do know that their handling of the swine-flu was pretty aweful.

Almost as aweful as their performance during last years Superbowl. Retire already!

Plus by what criteria are they using to rate those countries??

HLOOMIS
03-04-2011, 02:11 PM
Liberalism sucks
(pithy)

HLOOMIS
03-04-2011, 02:12 PM
LIBERAL = Pure evil, hate filled, malcontent, loser in life
CONSERVATIVE = Normal.
Liberalism really is a mental illness, it never works yet liberals keep trying it over and over expecting a different result.

HLOOMIS
03-04-2011, 02:13 PM
Thank God liberals are only the bottom 20 percent of Americans.
Conservatives are the top 40 percent.

HLOOMIS
03-04-2011, 02:13 PM
Liberals really are more evil than Muslims.

HLOOMIS
03-04-2011, 02:14 PM
Thank God Obama destroyed the Democrats faster than he could destroy America. Obama has been stopped, in 2012 he will be reversed. Thank God for Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, the truth is getting out.

USAF-Controller
03-24-2011, 12:56 AM
I desire some insight into some observations concerning liberal/progressive beliefs that seem a bit contradictory to me. I am going to list some of these contradictions and observations and would like to know what exactly drives the liberal thought process to reach these conclusions.

Id rather not take the easy way out and try to answer these questions by using 8 acid tabs. Please keep in mind that I do not necessarily support either position on a given topic discussed here.

1) the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
The AIS virus is spread through unprotected sex and drug use. Those are choices made by the individual and require no money from the government
2) You are against capital punishment but for abortion on demand.
I fully support capital punishment. Abortion should only used as a last resort or for cases like rape on incest
3) When it comes to abortion, a woman has the right to hoose because it is her body, but when it comes to fast food, the govt needs to step in because you can't be trusted to make such an important decision when it comes to your body.
I believe people should make informed choices. If you don't know what youre eating, dont eat it. I believe that fast food companies should be made to disclose more nutritional information about the products they serve.
4) The same public school idiot who can't teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
I think sex ed in school should be up to the parent. If they want to teach their children themselves then they should be able to have their kids "opt out" of sex ed classes.
5) Trial lawyers are selfless heroes and doctors are overpaid.
I really dont have an opinion about this one.
6) Guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranians.
I think ALL guns except those held by police and military are unnecessary. Guns in the hands of law abiding Americans have killed far more people than Iranian nuclear weapons though....
7) Global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the sun, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.
Global warming is a myth.
8) Gender roles are artificial but being gay is natural.
You are born a man or a woman, you are born gay or straight. Only you should decide your role in your life within those parameters
9) Businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
Both can be true
10) Self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
No but self esteem leads to confidence which can improve your performance.
11) There was no art before federal funding.
False
12) The free market that gives us 500+ channels can't deliver the quality that PBS does.
I don't watch much PBS so I cannot intelligently comment on that.
13) The NRA is bad, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.
The NRA stands for one part of the Constitution, the ACLS stands up for the constitution as a whole. I believe that some amendments are outdated and should be changed, the 2nd amendment is one of those.
14) Taxes are too low but ATM fees are too high.
I think we should have a flat tax: 10% for EVERYONE. How is that not fair?
15) Cesar Chavez is more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson.
I dont think so.
16) Standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't.
Standerdized test are fine, affirmative action and "mandatory minority hiring" are racist
17) Second-hand smoke is more dangerous than HIV.
It certianly affects more people
18) Conservatives are racists but that black people couldn't make it without government help.
I think most conservatives are racist and sexist. I think black people need to be treated the same as everyone else.
19) The only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.
I dont agree with that. Socalism is great on paper but people are far too greedy to ever make it happen in reality
Please address any of the following. You may not subscribe to all of these ideas but please feel free to respond to the ones you do.

I don't know if I'm a liberal but most of my friends think so. I know 10 years ago I was a diehard republican....

Variable Wind
03-24-2011, 11:29 AM
I don't know if I'm a liberal but most of my friends think so. I know 10 years ago I was a diehard republican....

No you are just a racially overly sensitive boob. You see racism where there isnt any racism, and you do not see racism where it does exist. Flat tax = conservative principle. Anti Affirmative Action = conservative principle. Capital Punishment = conservative principle. Making your own informed choices instead of the government = conservative principle. Parental responsibility = conservative principle. Global Warming is a Myth...common sense principle.

I will point out that there is a miniscule amount of people commit murder or attempted murder with a firearm that legally own one. The fact that firearms in America have been around for over 200 years (over 400 if you include colonial times) means that we have a bit of a head start on a nation that just obtained nuclear technology and has not even weaponized it. Put into account that a nuclear device used once can eclipse the amount of people murdered by folks legally owning a gun and things should be put into proper focus. I will also point out that some of the most violent cities include cities that ban handguns (DC and Chicago). Not to mention the 2nd ammendment was also there to insure that we didnt end up like a libya or an iraq. I have no illusions about our current administration turning us into one but history has shown that no single nation is immune to dictatorship. And when you take the power of self defense out of the hands of law abiding citizens, all you have left are the criminals with one less thing to worry about.

And being a republican has nothing to do with being conservative or liberal.

DarkHeart
03-24-2011, 04:41 PM
And being a republican has nothing to do with being conservative or liberal.

Aww come on! "Liberal Republican" has been such a funny oxymoron for so long. YOU RUIN EVERYTHING! I'm going home and taking my basketball (made with Halliburton petroleum by Thai children) home with me!

Measure Man
03-24-2011, 05:03 PM
Question for Conservatives:

Why is it that you think conservatives are the majority of Americans, but the...Republicans are liberals, Democrats are liberals, media are liberals, academics are liberals, government are liberals, schools are liberals, union workers are liberals, scientists are liberals...and well, just about everything else?

AJBIGJ
03-24-2011, 05:06 PM
I think the majority of Americans probably aren't even sure themselves what they are, who can blame them, they're fed a whole lot of crap information on a daily basis.

Variable Wind
03-24-2011, 05:19 PM
Question for Conservatives:

Why is it that you think conservatives are the majority of Americans, but the...Republicans are liberals, Democrats are liberals, media are liberals, academics are liberals, government are liberals, schools are liberals, union workers are liberals, scientists are liberals...and well, just about everything else?

Because nobody likes the system.

DarkHeart
03-24-2011, 08:40 PM
Because nobody likes the system.

That's why we're trying to give it to the middle east.

Variable Wind
03-25-2011, 09:57 AM
That's why we're trying to give it to the middle east.

Its like that original star trek episode, trouble with tribbles.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-25-2011, 10:06 AM
Here is a crazy question for liberals

Why is a power like nuclear power so demonized that they don't want any power plants to be built? Or should it be why are liberals such wussied, what is happening in Japan was beacuse of a 8.9 EARTHQUAKE tha shifted the earth? Or maybe the question is, why are they so scared of a form of energy that has killed ZERO people in over 50 years and costs less than coal, oil, solar, wind or natural gas, and produces no CO2 (harmful green house gasp *gasp*)?

I mean seriously, Colmbs is talking about how what is happening in Japan as "Gods way" of saying we need to stop nuke power.

1 more question. Why is it ok for Obama to get Brazil to drill in our waters before we get our own drilling platforms with American workers and American businesses drilling in the gulf? Seriously, if liberals are so mad at the big bad manufacturing corps taking their plants overseas to get away from the over regulation here in America, why is it ok for Obama to give labor jobs to Brazil over Americans?

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-25-2011, 11:19 AM
Question for Liberals. Do you know what is in the Obamacare law that will affect you personally? The taxes that Obama is raising to pay for some of it falls on the shoulders of those he doesn't consider "Rich"?

1. Did you know that . . . since Jan. 1 of this year (2011), you cannot use your flex-account at work (FSA) or health savings account (HSA) to purchase over-the-counter medicines?

2. Did you know that . . . since July 1 of last year (2010), Americans have been paying a 10 percent excise tax on all indoor tanning services?

3. Did you know that . . . starting in 2018, if your health insurance is “too good” or considered a “Cadillac” plan, then you will incur a new 40 percent tax on your health plan?

4. Did you know that . . . Obamacare has 21 new or higher taxes in it, totaling over $500 billion in increased taxes going to the government over 10 years?

5. Did you know that . . . beginning in 2014, individuals and families that do not purchase “qualifying” – as defined by federal bureaucrats — health insurance will be forced to pay a yearly tax penalty?

6. Did you know that . . . 7 tax hikes in Obamacare directly break President Obama’s “firm pledge” not to raise any form of taxes on individuals making less than $200,000 per year and families making less than $250,000 per year?

7. Did you know that . . . the capital gains tax rate under Obamacare will rise to 23.8 percent starting in 2012? That is a 59 percent increase from its current rate.

8. Did you know that . . . in 2013, those Americans facing the highest medical bills and the least ability to pay for them will find their ability to deduct medical expenses is further limited (medical expenses must be reduced by 10 percent of income under Obamacare, rather than current law’s 7.5 percent)

9. Did you know that . . . beginning in 2014, businesses with over 50 employees will be forced to offer health coverage for everyone, or pay a hefty tax for each employee?

10. Did you know that . . . in 2013, Obamacare caps the amount individuals and families can put in their flexible savings accounts at $2500? Currently there is no cap and these accounts are used for a myriad of health expenses including paying upwards of $14,000 in tuition to special needs schools for some parents?

imported_MSGDay
03-25-2011, 01:42 PM
I think the majority of Americans probably aren't even sure themselves what they are, who can blame them, they're fed a whole lot of crap information on a daily basis.

I completely agree! I'm neither a conservative nor a liberal but a combination of both. I believe that our Constitution protects citizens from government, a point where I differ completely from OBaby and his ilk.

My main belief is that people should be responsible for themselves and their own actions. We don't need Big Brother.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-25-2011, 01:53 PM
I completely agree! I'm neither a conservative nor a liberal but a combination of both. I believe that our Constitution protects citizens from government, a point where I differ completely from OBaby and his ilk.

My main belief is that people should be responsible for themselves and their own actions. We don't need Big Brother.

So, where does your liberal side come into play?

I am a liberal from the paper view, I call this the dreamer side of me. It will never work in the society because of how humans work, this is my actual conservatist side, I like to call this the reality side of me.

USAF-Controller
03-26-2011, 05:16 AM
No you are just a racially overly sensitive boob. You see racism where there isnt any racism, and you do not see racism where it does exist. Flat tax = conservative principle. Anti Affirmative Action = conservative principle. Capital Punishment = conservative principle. Making your own informed choices instead of the government = conservative principle. Parental responsibility = conservative principle. Global Warming is a Myth...common sense principle.

I will point out that there is a miniscule amount of people commit murder or attempted murder with a firearm that legally own one. The fact that firearms in America have been around for over 200 years (over 400 if you include colonial times) means that we have a bit of a head start on a nation that just obtained nuclear technology and has not even weaponized it. Put into account that a nuclear device used once can eclipse the amount of people murdered by folks legally owning a gun and things should be put into proper focus. I will also point out that some of the most violent cities include cities that ban handguns (DC and Chicago). Not to mention the 2nd ammendment was also there to insure that we didnt end up like a libya or an iraq. I have no illusions about our current administration turning us into one but history has shown that no single nation is immune to dictatorship. And when you take the power of self defense out of the hands of law abiding citizens, all you have left are the criminals with one less thing to worry about.

And being a republican has nothing to do with being conservative or liberal.

Now why do you have to take your bashing of me into this thread too? We're on a totally different subject here and no one has even mentioned racisim. I really dont care if you bash and red dot me just keep it in the topic it occurs in but I do respect that you at least had the guts to sign your name to the bad rep unlike the other spineless members. I like the majority of your posts and I won't let our disagreement on the tea party subject cause me to be prejudice towards your future posts. All I ask is the same courtesy.

ChiefB
03-26-2011, 12:06 PM
We in the military use FedEx or DHL for our secret/TS mail. Seems that the military leadership even knows that the private sector is the better route for mailing something securely and ensuring it will make it to the destination.

No one in the military/Gov't can use any method but personal transport or the Defense Courier Service or Diplomatic Pouch Registered for delivery of TS material. Secret may be sent by Registered USPS or other Commercial carriers. Registered USPS delivery is the preferred method of delivery for Conf/Secret material.

Variable Wind
03-27-2011, 05:30 AM
Now why do you have to take your bashing of me into this thread too? We're on a totally different subject here and no one has even mentioned racisim. I really dont care if you bash and red dot me just keep it in the topic it occurs in but I do respect that you at least had the guts to sign your name to the bad rep unlike the other spineless members. I like the majority of your posts and I won't let our disagreement on the tea party subject cause me to be prejudice towards your future posts. All I ask is the same courtesy.

My mostly negative attitude comes mostly from CorneliusSeon and INGUARD along with several media personalities who have made it their business to discuss exactly how racist I and others like me are. It has driven me absolutely bonkers.

USAF-Controller
03-27-2011, 05:59 AM
My mostly negative attitude comes mostly from CorneliusSeon and INGUARD along with several media personalities who have made it their business to discuss exactly how racist I and others like me are. It has driven me absolutely bonkers.

I understand being fed up but don't take it out on me. I have not, not will I attack you personally. I made a general statement in a completely different thread.

imported_INGUARD
03-27-2011, 08:53 AM
My mostly negative attitude comes mostly from CorneliusSeon and INGUARD along with several media personalities who have made it their business to discuss exactly how racist I and others like me are. It has driven me absolutely bonkers.

Wow VW dont let any stranger on the internet drive you bonkers ok.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-27-2011, 06:41 PM
No one in the military/Gov't can use any method but personal transport or the Defense Courier Service or Diplomatic Pouch Registered for delivery of TS material. Secret may be sent by Registered USPS or other Commercial carriers. Registered USPS delivery is the preferred method of delivery for Conf/Secret material.

Well, then my SQ I used to belong to must have been doing it wrong, cause we did use those modes of transportation for TS material.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-27-2011, 06:51 PM
I understand being fed up but don't take it out on me. I have not, not will I attack you personally. I made a general statement in a completely different thread.

Ok, here is a completely new question, why is it ok for code pink, CAIR, muslim brotherhood, Black panthers, NAACP and other such leftist progressive organizations to spout off obvious racist rants like "String up Clearance Thomas and his wife", or "Send (Clearance Thomas) back out to the fields", or "Jews are controlling Obama" or "Kill cracker babies", but they aren't considered racist, or as racist, or get a pass for their remarks compared to the TEA party?

These groups are entirely racist with many members spouting off these remarks, while the TEA party has one or two members that may show up at a rally with a sign that aren't out and out meant to be racist, but only looked upon through tinted lenses and are called racist. Not to mention if there is a TEA partier that is racist, the group clears them out and expels said person from the rally/group. If the left organization is out screaming racist remarks towards whites, blacks, asians, latinos, christians, Jews, that member is backed up.

garhkal
03-27-2011, 07:18 PM
Ok, here is a completely new question, why is it ok for code pink, CAIR, muslim brotherhood, Black panthers, NAACP and other such leftist progressive organizations to spout off obvious racist rants like "String up Clearance Thomas and his wife", or "Send (Clearance Thomas) back out to the fields", or "Jews are controlling Obama" or "Kill cracker babies", but they aren't considered racist, or as racist, or get a pass for their remarks compared to the TEA party?.

Cause to the leftist liberal way of thought, its ok to bad mouth/racially remark about whity, or any other ethnicity, just as long as its NOT a white guy saying it

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-27-2011, 07:35 PM
Cause to the leftist liberal way of thought, its ok to bad mouth/racially remark about whity, or any other ethnicity, just as long as its NOT a white guy saying it
Not true, code pink talking about Clearance Thomas were ALL white people talking about a black person saying "Send him back to the fields".

ChiefB
03-27-2011, 10:37 PM
Well, then my SQ I used to belong to must have been doing it wrong, cause we did use those modes of transportation for TS material.

Sorry, Joker...never happened...Your SQ TS Control Officer would now be in USDB if that was a fact. Secret Via Registered USPS, UPS, FEDEX..but never, ever, Top Secret. See: DOD Regulation 5200.1-R, Information Security Program, & AFI 31-401, Chap. 8.

USAF-Controller
03-28-2011, 10:52 AM
Ok, here is a completely new question, why is it ok for code pink, CAIR, muslim brotherhood, Black panthers, NAACP and other such leftist progressive organizations to spout off obvious racist rants like "String up Clearance Thomas and his wife", or "Send (Clearance Thomas) back out to the fields", or "Jews are controlling Obama" or "Kill cracker babies", but they aren't considered racist, or as racist, or get a pass for their remarks compared to the TEA party?

These groups are entirely racist with many members spouting off these remarks, while the TEA party has one or two members that may show up at a rally with a sign that aren't out and out meant to be racist, but only looked upon through tinted lenses and are called racist. Not to mention if there is a TEA partier that is racist, the group clears them out and expels said person from the rally/group. If the left organization is out screaming racist remarks towards whites, blacks, asians, latinos, christians, Jews, that member is backed up.

I don't know because I have not really paid attention to any of those other groups. I suspect though that the answer is because none of those other groups is trying to put a president in office next election.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-28-2011, 11:02 AM
I don't know because I have not really paid attention to any of those other groups. I suspect though that the answer is because none of those other groups is trying to put a president in office next election.

Huh, they are trying to put Obama in as president. The question is, how did you hear the TEA party is racist? And is the way you hear about the TEA party, is probably the same reason you DIDN'T hear about the lefts blaintant racism, because you listen to MSNBC or the other Left wing media.

USAF-Controller
03-28-2011, 11:46 AM
Huh, they are trying to put Obama in as president. The question is, how did you hear the TEA party is racist? And is the way you hear about the TEA party, is probably the same reason you DIDN'T hear about the lefts blaintant racism, because you listen to MSNBC or the other Left wing media.

First of all, that is a lost cause. I think Obama has lost the confidence and support of the American people and I doubt he will be re-elected. Second, there you go assuming again. I do not listen nor do I watch MSNBC. Neither MSNBC or Fox News has any credability in my book. I like to think for myself and do my own research.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-28-2011, 12:25 PM
First of all, that is a lost cause. I think Obama has lost the confidence and support of the American people and I doubt he will be re-elected. Second, there you go assuming again. I do not listen nor do I watch MSNBC. Neither MSNBC or Fox News has any credability in my book. I like to think for myself and do my own research.

Then where is your own research into the TEA party racist element? You stated the NAACP, who has years of racism under its belt. So they really aren't the greatest source to rely on. Even when they say a black congressman was spit on and called racial names, there was no evidence behind it. Even the NYT retracted that story. Show the evidence that you have gathered of the racist TEA party.

Banned
03-29-2011, 10:43 AM
Just noticed this thread, and I just HAD to see what monkey business was up in this place.


Ok, here is a completely new question, why is it ok for code pink, CAIR, muslim brotherhood, Black panthers, NAACP and other such leftist progressive organizations to spout off obvious racist rants like "String up Clearance Thomas and his wife", or "Send (Clearance Thomas) back out to the fields", or "Jews are controlling Obama" or "Kill cracker babies", but they aren't considered racist, or as racist, or get a pass for their remarks compared to the TEA party?

These groups are entirely racist with many members spouting off these remarks, while the TEA party has one or two members that may show up at a rally with a sign that aren't out and out meant to be racist, but only looked upon through tinted lenses and are called racist. Not to mention if there is a TEA partier that is racist, the group clears them out and expels said person from the rally/group. If the left organization is out screaming racist remarks towards whites, blacks, asians, latinos, christians, Jews, that member is backed up.

I would be very interested to know who it is you are referring to here. What mainstream liberal has said "New Black Panthers are less racist than the Tea Party"?

I also find it interesting that you apparently didn't know that the racist comments about white babies came from the NEW Black Panther party, not the old one. Actually the leaders of the former BP party have denounced the new one as bigots and hate mongers.

But there actually is a major difference between the Tea Party and the various lunatics you listed off. A guy wearing a beret and a leather jacket trying to get attention on a street corner is nothing to lose sleep over. These guys are attention whores. They say outrageous things because they KNOW Fox News is going to run a hysterical news story about it the next day. If everybody just ignored them they'd slink back into the shadows and go back to stealing televisions.

The Tea Party on the other hand IS dangerous. Why? Because they have political power. As disturbing as it is, people actually support the war/hate mongering idiots the Tea Party brings to the plate, and vote for them. Palin as president is pretty unlikely, but still an alarming possibility.

But never mind the actual facts. Don't let me spoil your liberal bashing parade.

Banned
03-29-2011, 10:49 AM
You should talk to the parents in Canada that are being forced by the government ran health care Dr.s to take their son off life support before the parents are done fighting to keep him alive. Why is it the governments decision? At least with Terry Shivo the family was fighting on both side, the government was only the enforcer of removing life support after the Judge made the decision.

So far two people have died in Arizona because of Medicare cuts. What's your point?

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-29-2011, 12:02 PM
So far two people have died in Arizona because of Medicare cuts. What's your point?

Government health care is unsustainable as the highest quality medical provider. And if it was medicare, then guess what, they were going to die anyways do to the FACT that we all die and they were old.

Banned
03-29-2011, 12:19 PM
But that's the point, it's NOT intended to be the highest quality medical provider. Public Healthcare = Public Education. If you can afford a private provider, no one is stopping you. However, that 30% of Americans who can't afford their own program now at least have SOMETHING.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-29-2011, 12:22 PM
Just noticed this thread, and I just HAD to see what monkey business was up in this place.

I would be very interested to know who it is you are referring to here. What mainstream liberal has said "New Black Panthers are less racist than the Tea Party"?The ones that DO NOT condemn the rantings. The media that never brings up the hate filled speach of the lefts groups. The fact the Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton haven't held a press conference denouncing the NBPs as a legit black movement group as the demanded the TEA party to denouce any racist person in their group (which they always did even before NAACP spoke out). Silience on the major racist groups of the left from the left is their way of accepting the racist rhetoic that comes forth. Everyone on the right in the mainstream denouces the KKK, Neo-nazis (even though these 2 were started by the left) and the hate malitias like the one that wanted to kill cops.


I also find it interesting that you apparently didn't know that the racist comments about white babies came from the NEW Black Panther party, not the old one. Actually the leaders of the former BP party have denounced the new one as bigots and hate mongers.I didn't, and what are the names of these old leaders that denouced it? Are these people part of the mainstream? Please educate along with arguing.


But there actually is a major difference between the Tea Party and the various lunatics you listed off. A guy wearing a beret and a leather jacket trying to get attention on a street corner is nothing to lose sleep over. These guys are attention whores. They say outrageous things because they KNOW Fox News is going to run a hysterical news story about it the next day. If everybody just ignored them they'd slink back into the shadows and go back to stealing televisions.Sure, that is why all the left scream racist terms, just to be a troll for FNC. And the left wing media has to make up stories to run a hysterical news story. And they know if they ignored the TEA party, that the TEA party would grow uncontrolably into a massive force against overspending in the government. The only thing stiffeling it is left wing media like MSNBC calling them racist.


The Tea Party on the other hand IS dangerous. Why? Because they have political power. As disturbing as it is, people actually support the war/hate mongering idiots the Tea Party brings to the plate, and vote for them. Palin as president is pretty unlikely, but still an alarming possibility.See, there you go bashing Palin, and why? What brings the left to hate her soooo much? She was and is much more qualified as a POTUS than Obama was or is. She knows there are only 50 states in the union, NOT 58. She has her missteps in speach, but so does all public figures. Just that the left wing media decided to bash on everything she said and make up even more stuff or take things out of context.

You seem to think that there are not fringe people in every organization(out in the open or in the closet), the thing about the TEA party is that they expel those that are out in the open as being racist or bigotted.


But never mind the actual facts. Don't let me spoil your liberal bashing parade.Yes, nevermind facts and stay in your bubble that white conservatives are racist.

Variable Wind
03-29-2011, 12:22 PM
So far two people have died in Arizona because of Medicare cuts. What's your point?

People do die you know, probably not from a lack of funding but from some health reason. Better just two for lack of funding, than more because the funding bankrupts the system so then it cant pay for ANYONE, added to the fact that everyone will eventually get less skillful care because a minority of the population cannot afford the best care. By not affording, I mean they cannot afford it AFTER they get the care. Bankruptcy is an easy choice over death. In America we have that choice, thats why canadians come across the border when they want good healthcare.

Variable Wind
03-29-2011, 12:26 PM
But that's the point, it's NOT intended to be the highest quality medical provider. Public Healthcare = Public Education. If you can afford a private provider, no one is stopping you. However, that 30% of Americans who can't afford their own program now at least have SOMETHING.

If they cant afford it, then they dont have it. Insurance companies dont cover things when they arent getting their premiums. I think the correct statistic is 10% and that includes folks who voluntarily do not have healthcare coverage, whether because they are not worried enough to buy in, or wealthy enough to afford the stuff on their own.

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-29-2011, 12:27 PM
But that's the point, it's NOT intended to be the highest quality medical provider. Public Healthcare = Public Education. If you can afford a private provider, no one is stopping you. However, that 30% of Americans who can't afford their own program now at least have SOMETHING.
They always have "Something". No one that goes to the emergency room will be denied life saving care, even at the expence of the hospital. But not everyone deserves higher end care that costs millions to provide on the backs of working people to cover it.

USAF-Controller
03-29-2011, 10:29 PM
The ones that DO NOT condemn the rantings. The media that never brings up the hate filled speach of the lefts groups. The fact the Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton haven't held a press conference denouncing the NBPs as a legit black movement group as the demanded the TEA party to denouce any racist person in their group (which they always did even before NAACP spoke out). Silience on the major racist groups of the left from the left is their way of accepting the racist rhetoic that comes forth. Everyone on the right in the mainstream denouces the KKK, Neo-nazis (even though these 2 were started by the left) and the hate malitias like the one that wanted to kill cops.

I didn't, and what are the names of these old leaders that denouced it? Are these people part of the mainstream? Please educate along with arguing.

Sure, that is why all the left scream racist terms, just to be a troll for FNC. And the left wing media has to make up stories to run a hysterical news story. And they know if they ignored the TEA party, that the TEA party would grow uncontrolably into a massive force against overspending in the government. The only thing stiffeling it is left wing media like MSNBC calling them racist.

See, there you go bashing Palin, and why? What brings the left to hate her soooo much? She was and is much more qualified as a POTUS than Obama was or is. She knows there are only 50 states in the union, NOT 58. She has her missteps in speach, but so does all public figures. Just that the left wing media decided to bash on everything she said and make up even more stuff or take things out of context.

You seem to think that there are not fringe people in every organization(out in the open or in the closet), the thing about the TEA party is that they expel those that are out in the open as being racist or bigotted.

Yes, nevermind facts and stay in your bubble that white conservatives are racist.

Youre going to have to enlighten me on this one. How is Sarah Palin more qualified to be President than Barack Obama? I'm not a fan of him but he is better educated and has more time in politics and government than Palin.

JD2780
03-30-2011, 01:17 AM
I like the TEA party for the same reason why a large number of people voted for Obama. They're different and I'm uninformed.

USAF-Controller
03-30-2011, 01:25 AM
Voting "PRESENT" while in the Senate may give him more time in politics.....,

I bet one could say Obama could see the yes and no votes from his Senate Seat too!

He still has far more time in public office than Palin.

TJMAC77SP
03-30-2011, 10:59 AM
Youre going to have to enlighten me on this one. How is Sarah Palin more qualified to be President than Barack Obama? I'm not a fan of him but he is better educated and has more time in politics and government than Palin.

Well, using that measuring stick as a judge of Presidential qualification, Obama is more qualified than Ronald Reagan.

I also might argue that an unsuccessful House primary run and two years in the Senate aren't exactly a full political resume

TJMAC77SP
03-30-2011, 11:04 AM
He still has far more time in public office than Palin.

If you mean national public office than yes, although I argue that a total of four years is hardly 'far more time'

If you mean public office as in elected office than that goes to Palin who was elected to her first office in 1992.

EDIT: I neglected to count Obama's stint as IL State Senator. The numbers are still in Palin's favor however (by four years)

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-30-2011, 11:55 AM
If you mean national public office than yes, although I argue that a total of four years is hardly 'far more time'

If you mean public office as in elected office than that goes to Palin who was elected to her first office in 1992.

Exactly, and that was to be city council. In 1996 she was elected to be Mayor, a leadership role, of Wasilla for 2 terms. Then Governor in 2006.

Obama got his first election win for state senate after he had 3 of his opponents thrown out of the race in 1997. He has only been in the legislator before being president, absolutely no leadership position.

When you bring up education, well, at least we know Palin graduated cause she released her transcripts, Obama has not. But we can see how crappy education with no experience gets us, I would prefer the person with some leadership experience over the snobby Harvard attendee.

Variable Wind
03-30-2011, 12:22 PM
Youre going to have to enlighten me on this one. How is Sarah Palin more qualified to be President than Barack Obama? I'm not a fan of him but he is better educated and has more time in politics and government than Palin.

Some notes

1) Better educated does not mean someone is smarter or more enlightened.
2) Being a legislator does not qualify someone to be an executive. The two jobs are very different.
3) Why is it a + to have been the part of a decietful and sycophantic political system longer than the other person.

TJMAC77SP
03-30-2011, 12:25 PM
Exactly, and that was to be city council. In 1996 she was elected to be Mayor, a leadership role, of Wasilla for 2 terms. Then Governor in 2006.

Obama got his first election win for state senate after he had 3 of his opponents thrown out of the race in 1997. He has only been in the legislator before being president, absolutely no leadership position.

When you bring up education, well, at least we know Palin graduated cause she released her transcripts, Obama has not. But we can see how crappy education with no experience gets us, I would prefer the person with some leadership experience over the snobby Harvard attendee.

Well, in truth I will probably not vote for Palin were she to run but I did have issue with the education/political experience statement

Variable Wind
03-30-2011, 12:55 PM
Well, in truth I will probably not vote for Palin were she to run but I did have issue with the education/political experience statement

I would really like to see a Cristie/Rubio ticket. I think that would do well in an election.

Banned
03-30-2011, 05:20 PM
The ones that DO NOT condemn the rantings. The media that never brings up the hate filled speach of the lefts groups. The fact the Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton haven't held a press conference denouncing the NBPs as a legit black movement group as the demanded the TEA party to denouce any racist person in their group (which they always did even before NAACP spoke out). Silience on the major racist groups of the left from the left is their way of accepting the racist rhetoic that comes forth. Everyone on the right in the mainstream denouces the KKK, Neo-nazis (even though these 2 were started by the left) and the hate malitias like the one that wanted to kill cops.

Glenn Beck... Ann Coulter... Pat Buccanan... The O'Reilly factor... just to name a few. For every nutjob on the left I can name a nutjob on the right. The concept you can't seem to wrap your head around is that both the left and the right have nutjobs. But most of these nutjobs have no real actual power. They just say dumb shit on TV and write a bunch of dumb books. We only need to get worried when one of them becomes electable.


I didn't, and what are the names of these old leaders that denouced it? Are these people part of the mainstream? Please educate along with arguing.

Please educate YOURSELF before you throw around wild accusations.

In response from numerous requests from individual's seeking information on the "New Black Panthers," the Dr. Huey P. Newton Foundation issues this public statement to correct the distorted record being made in the media by a small band of African Americans calling themselves the New Black Panthers. As guardian of the true history of the Black Panther Party, the Foundation, which includes former leading members of the Party, denounces this group's exploitation of the Party's name and history. Failing to find its own legitimacy in the black community, this band would graft the Party's name upon itself, which we condemn.

Firstly, the people in the New Black Panthers were never members of the Black Panther Party and have no legitimate claim on the Party's name. On the contrary, they would steal the names and pretend to walk in the footsteps of the Party's true heroes, such as Black Panther founder Huey P. Newton, George Jackson and Jonathan Jackson, Bunchy Carter, John Huggins, Fred Hampton, Mark Cark, and so many others who gave their very lives to the black liberation struggle under the Party's banner.

Secondly, they denigrate the Party's name by promoting concepts absolutely counter to the revolutionary principles on which the Party was founded. Their alleged media assault on the Ku Klux Klan serves to incite hatred rather than resolve it. The Party's fundamental principle, as best articulated by the great revolutionary Ernesto "Che" Guevara, was: "A true revolutionary is guided by great feelings of love." The Black Panthers were never a group of angry young militants full of fury toward the "white establishment." The Party operated on love for black people, not hatred of white people.

Furthermore, this group claims it would "teach" the black community about armed self-defense. The arrogance of this claim is overwhelmed by its reactionary nature. Blacks, especially in the South, have been armed in self-defense for a very long time; indeed, the spiritual parent of the Party itself was the Louisiana-based Deacons for Defense. However, the Party understood that the gun was not necessarily revolutionary, for the police and all other oppressive forces had guns. It was the ideology behind the gun that determined its nature.

Because the Party believed that only the masses of people would make the revolution, the Party never presumed itself to be above the people. The Party considered itself a servant of the people and taught by example. Given massive black hunger, the Party provided free breakfast for children and other free food programs. In the absence of decent medical facilities in the black community, the Party operated free medical clinics. In the face of police brutality, the Party stood up and resisted. Considering the overwhelming number of blacks facing trials and long prison terms, the Party developed free legal aids and bussing-to-prison programs.

The question the Foundation raises, then, is who are these people laying claim to the Party's history and name? Are they reactionary provocateurs, who would instigate activities counterproductive to the people's interests, causing mayhem and death? Are they entertainers, who would posture themselves before the media, and, according to numerous sources, with empty guns, to spin gold for themselves? Are they, given the history of their late-leader Khalid Muhammad, a group of anti-Semites like the very Ku Klux Klan they allegedly oppose? What is their agenda?

Conditions for blacks in America today are worse than when the Black Panther Party was formed in 1966. Blacks in the main continue to live in poverty; disproportionate percentages of blacks die from AIDS and cancer, as the black infant mortality rate continues to be double that of whites. There is a desperate need for liberation agenda. The Black Panther Party unarguably set the example, espousing principles and a history that certainly should be embraced by all those still struggling for freedom. Rather than appropriating the Party's name, however, groups that purport to represent African Americans ought to follow the Party's true historical example. In the absence of such commitment, the Foundation denounces the usurpation of the Black Panther Party name by this questionable band of self-appointed leaders.

For further reading on the Black Panther Party, please visit our website at www.blackpanther.org. Books by and about the Black Panthers can also be purchased online through this site. Suggested reading includes Revolutionary Suicide, To Die for the People, War Against the Panthers, This Side of Glory, and A Taste of Power.

http://www.blackpanther.org/newsalert.htm


Sure, that is why all the left scream racist terms, just to be a troll for FNC. And the left wing media has to make up stories to run a hysterical news story. And they know if they ignored the TEA party, that the TEA party would grow uncontrolably into a massive force against overspending in the government. The only thing stiffeling it is left wing media like MSNBC calling them racist.

Oh please. There are two paths the Tea Party might take: 1) Take over the Republican leadership, making them too radical to be electable, or 2) splitting the Republican vote so they are STILL unelectable. While there's enough of a chance of the Tea Party doing some serious damage to our country, the chances are still slim.


See, there you go bashing Palin, and why? What brings the left to hate her soooo much? She was and is much more qualified as a POTUS than Obama was or is. She knows there are only 50 states in the union, NOT 58. She has her missteps in speach, but so does all public figures. Just that the left wing media decided to bash on everything she said and make up even more stuff or take things out of context.

Umm... because she's a complete idiot maybe?

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-30-2011, 05:41 PM
Glenn Beck... Ann Coulter... Pat Buccanan... The O'Reilly factor... just to name a few. For every nutjob on the left I can name a nutjob on the right. The concept you can't seem to wrap your head around is that both the left and the right have nutjobs. But most of these nutjobs have no real actual power. They just say dumb shit on TV and write a bunch of dumb books. We only need to get worried when one of them becomes electable.What does this have to do with condemning the hate filled rhetoric that is not covered by the left and mainstream figure heads? The 4 you mentined condemns every single racist remarks brought out by a person on the right. You ignored the fact that the people I named do not say anything about the groups that are on the left.




Please educate YOURSELF before you throw around wild accusations.
And what I asked you was not for the letter of condemntion, but for the names that condemned the NBPs, and if they were figure heads in the lefts mainstream machine?



Oh please. There are two paths the Tea Party might take: 1) Take over the Republican leadership, making them too radical to be electable, or 2) splitting the Republican vote so they are STILL unelectable. While there's enough of a chance of the Tea Party doing some serious damage to our country, the chances are still slim.Riiiiight, that is why the left has done so much to discredit them by calling them racist, to keep the republican party electable. What "serious damage" are you thinking they will cause? Will it be keeping the government from over spending the US to the brink of bankruptcy? You ignored the part where I said the left makes up stories of the TEA party to keep the ignorant from joining.




Umm... because she's a complete idiot maybe?How so? Just like a liberal to keep out all forms of facts and just claim idiocy. Show your proof she is an idiot.

Variable Wind
03-30-2011, 05:49 PM
Glenn Beck... Ann Coulter... Pat Buccanan... The O'Reilly factor... just to name a few. For every nutjob on the left I can name a nutjob on the right. The concept you can't seem to wrap your head around is that both the left and the right have nutjobs. But most of these nutjobs have no real actual power. They just say dumb shit on TV and write a bunch of dumb books. We only need to get worried when one of them becomes electable.
I would nix Beck and OReilly out of that group but I definitely give you Coulter and Buccanan.


Please educate YOURSELF before you throw around wild accusations.
What you say is true, but also remember the original Black Panthers were incredibly violent.


Oh please. There are two paths the Tea Party might take: 1) Take over the Republican leadership, making them too radical to be electable, or 2) splitting the Republican vote so they are STILL unelectable. While there's enough of a chance of the Tea Party doing some serious damage to our country, the chances are still slim.
What are the radical aspects of the tea party?


Umm... because she's a complete idiot maybe?
I have seen MUCH dumber politicians, one of which sits in the oval office of the white house. Does this excuse her? Of course not, but it show exactly how inverted the standards are.

USAF-Controller
03-31-2011, 03:12 AM
Some notes

1) Better educated does not mean someone is smarter or more enlightened.
2) Being a legislator does not qualify someone to be an executive. The two jobs are very different.
3) Why is it a + to have been the part of a decietful and sycophantic political system longer than the other person.

1) That is true
2) True also
3) Because our whole system is decietful.


I would nix Beck and OReilly out of that group but I definitely give you Coulter and Buccanan.


I'm trying to take you seriously but for the love of all that is holy please don't tell me youre defending Glenn Beck!!!! I agree that Oreilly isnt a horses ass but Beck!?!? Glenn freaking Beck!!!!!! I would say he is a retarded monkey but that would be an insult to retarded monkeys everywhere. Come on VW, tell me that Aston Kutcher is behind my mirror and I'm being punked or something.

AJBIGJ
03-31-2011, 02:39 PM
The world has grown so sarcastic during this wonderful age of information. I wonder what internet forums would have looked like if the old www existed in the 1960's/70's

imported_WILDJOKER5
03-31-2011, 02:45 PM
I'm trying to take you seriously but for the love of all that is holy please don't tell me youre defending Glenn Beck!!!! I agree that Oreilly isnt a horses ass but Beck!?!? Glenn freaking Beck!!!!!! I would say he is a retarded monkey but that would be an insult to retarded monkeys everywhere. Come on VW, tell me that Aston Kutcher is behind my mirror and I'm being punked or something.So, other than just saying he has been "proven wrong", what are you saying he is crazy about? Seriously cause I googled "Glenn Beck Proven Wrong" yesterday and stopped after the 3rd page of nothing but, "He is wrong" and no proof. Seriously, are you mad because he shown Piven to be the same as she was 30 years ago when she wanted to topple the US? Or that Soros is behind much of Obamas decissions?

Variable Wind
03-31-2011, 03:01 PM
1) That is true
2) True also
3) Because our whole system is decietful.
Thats a big reason why I am such a Cristie supporter.


I'm trying to take you seriously but for the love of all that is holy please don't tell me youre defending Glenn Beck!!!! I agree that Oreilly isnt a horses ass but Beck!?!? Glenn freaking Beck!!!!!! I would say he is a retarded monkey but that would be an insult to retarded monkeys everywhere. Come on VW, tell me that Aston Kutcher is behind my mirror and I'm being punked or something.
I dont buy into to all of the apocalyptic worries, but they are worries that many people have. As far as the conspiracy theories, he has the right information but reads it wrong...at least I think he is reading it wrong. We wouldnt be the first nation to get duped into a collective plan of overthrow. Think of the ones just last century that went that way. But like I said, I dont buy that. But if you move past that, hes brings a pretty intelligent model for constitutional conservative ideology. I like him for that. If you read "An Inconvenient Book" or "Arguing with Idiots" or watch "Unelectable" you can see that hes not as off balance as you might get the impression. My read is that he is just scared, and the information concerning our debt IS scary. But he hasnt let fear drive him towards violence, on the contrary he has specifically condemned anything approaching that.

I have read Ann Coulters books, and they tell a very different story. She IS an ideological nightmare, in an ideology that prides itself on the freedom it offers people she is decidedly ANTI-freedom of people who dont toe the line of the old testament. If you look at the REAL nutjobs on the right, you can see how much of an overreaction the left gives what Beck says...its because THEY are scared that he actually speaks what a lot of people are thinking. I can listen to my dad talk, or my boss, or many other folks and they are saying exactly the same thing that he is, but they arent watching his program or listening to his radio show. He isnt convincing others what hes saying, hes reiterating sentiments they already have.

MitchellJD1969
03-31-2011, 09:47 PM
The world has grown so sarcastic during this wonderful age of information. I wonder what internet forums would have looked like if the old www existed in the 1960's/70's

That would be interesting....maybe Bill Ayers would have been a troll instead of trying to hurt people

imported_WILDJOKER5
04-01-2011, 01:59 PM
If they cant afford it, then they dont have it. Insurance companies dont cover things when they arent getting their premiums. I think the correct statistic is 10% and that includes folks who voluntarily do not have healthcare coverage, whether because they are not worried enough to buy in, or wealthy enough to afford the stuff on their own.

Here to back up an argument with that little thing liberals hate, FACTS!!! (http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/58971)


The same health systems held up as models by those interested in overhauling America’s are held in very poor regard by the very people who live under them.

imported_WILDJOKER5
04-05-2011, 01:46 PM
So, other than just saying he has been "proven wrong", what are you saying he is crazy about? Seriously cause I googled "Glenn Beck Proven Wrong" yesterday and stopped after the 3rd page of nothing but, "He is wrong" and no proof. Seriously, are you mad because he shown Piven to be the same as she was 30 years ago when she wanted to topple the US? Or that Soros is behind much of Obamas decissions?

:bump

So, is that a "no", you can't find something he has been prooven wrong about, or are you still looking?

imported_WILDJOKER5
04-05-2011, 05:08 PM
So, Obama is going to run for office again. Bush was a Progressive Republican. Obama is a Progressive Liberal. Here are some of his achievements and will you still vote for him?


*They laughed at you during their town hall meetings

*They mocked 300,000+ peaceful Tea Partiers who showed up at the Capitol to pray and left the place cleaner than they found it

*They praised 70,000+ violent SEIOU thugs who invaded WI and did $7 million worth of damage to the Wisconsin Capitol building

*They falsely accused Conservatives of targeting Gabrielle Giffords and murdering innocent people in Arizona

*Obama lied about putting bills on the Internet for 5 days before being voted on so the American People could read those bills

*They told you to “sit down and shut up” while they passed a 2,700 page health care bill that 70% of Americans didn’t want and that most “representatives” hadn’t even read

*Nancy Pelosi told you that you would just have to wait until they passed Obamacare before you could find out what was in it

*They lied and said abortion wasn’t covered under Obamacare, but as soon as the bill was rammed through states were using our federal tax dollars to fund infanticide

*Obama repeatedly told the lie that taxes would not go up to pay for his $1.5 TRILLION dollar socialist healthcare plan, but Obamacare includes over $667 Billion in tax hikes and 14 different increases on citizens earning less than $250,000 a year

*Almost immediately after Obamacare passed, we learned that there actually are death panels under his plan (euphemistically referred to as “beginning and end of life counseling”)

*When a federal judge ruled that Obamacare is unconstitutional, Obama thumbed his nose at the court and told his administration to continue with its implementation

*He signed a bill that will give him the power to “turn off” the Internet during times of civil unrest

*They called you “stupid” when you demanded they follow the Constitution

*They got one liberal judge to overturn the will of Californians after they said “no” to same sex marriages

*Obama will no longer defend D.O.M.A. in the courts, because HE decided the law is unconstitutional

*They passed bills using parliamentary tricks when they didn’t have the votes

*When they couldn’t legislate something, they would regulate it through the White House

*They took your money and gave it to corrupt companies that should have been allowed to fail

*Obama shut off drilling in the Gulf of Mexico, because he said it is too dangerous to drill in such deep waters, then he gave $2 BILLION of our tax money to Brazil so it can drill in even deeper waters

*Obama twiddled his thumbs for two months while our beaches in the Gulf became covered in oil

*After a federal judge in LA ruled that Obama’s drilling ban in the Gulf is unconstitutional, Obama ignored the ruling and kept the ban in force

*Obama’s Coast Guard shut down oil skimmers in the Gulf, during the BP spill, to check if they had enough life jackets onboard

*They couldn’t get the American People to buy the global warming scam, so now Obama is using the EPA to strangle American businesses while China and India pollute at will

*They want you to pay $10 a gallon for gas while they fly around in their private jets and drive around in their stretch limos

* When Obama took office, the price of gas was $1.81 per gallon, it is now above $3.65 per gallon

*In 2009 Obama said there were almost 100 shovel ready transportation projects that were just waiting for his porkulus bill to pass; in 2010, Obama admitted he lied and said there is no such thing as a shovel ready project

*Over 5.7 million Americans have lost their homes since Obama took office, while banks hold on to our tax money that was given to them under the guise of loosening lending practices

*According to Gallup (the most reliable source on unemployment figures), unemployment in America is at 10.0%

*Nancy Pelosi spent over $1,000 a week of tax payer money for food and booze on her private jet while she told Americans to eat cake

*With Obama’s approval, the Federal Reserve has dumped 3.3 TRILLION DOLLARS into the money supply – WOW, ARE WE IN FOR SOME INFLATION

*They told you the Constitution doesn’t matter anymore

*They called you “racist” when you told them to secure our borders

*They called you “Islamaphobes” when you told them you didn’t want a mosque built on the ruins of the Twin Towers

*They sued Arizonans for trying to protect themselves from the criminal immigrants who have invaded their state

*Instead of enforcing federal immigration laws, they put up signs 120 miles inside the U.S. border telling Americans to beware of drug smugglers travelling at high rates of speed

*They refuse to say the pledge of allegiance

*They demean and scorn our troops every chance they get

*Obama lied when he told the nation that the last combat brigades had left Iraq in August 2009 – he changed the name of “Combat” brigade to “Advise and Assist” brigades (there are still many Advise and Assist brigades in Iraq)

*Obama humiliated Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu by leaving him in the Roosevelt Room while Obama left the meeting to go have dinner in his private quarters

*Obama insulted our British allies by returning a bust of Winston Churchill that was a gift to the American People

*When pro-American students took to the streets in Iran, Obama said he didn’t want to get involved and let them get slaughtered

*When anti-American protestors took to the streets in Egypt, Obama went on Egyptian national TV to encourage the little thugs

*When Al Qaeda started an uprising in Libya, Obama provided air support for them and is now heading the NATO war to protect them

*They threatened to impeach President Bush if he sent to Iran, but ignore Obama’s unauthorized and unconstitutional war in Libya

*Obama said he was going to have the most transparent, incorruptible administration in history, but his administration has been the most secretive since Nixon and the most corrupt since Grant

*When the ACORN scandal broke, Obama said he barely knew of ACORN, then a video surfaced that showed Obama saying to ACORN leaders, “I’ve been fighting with ACORN, alongside ACORN, on issues you care about my entire career”

*Obama had to stop running his cabinet appointees before the Senate for confirmation and appointed a record number of Czars, because none of his nominees had paid their taxes

*THEY HAVE ADDED 3 TRILLION DOLLARS TO OUR NATIONAL DEBT IN LESS THAN TWO YEARS

garhkal
04-05-2011, 07:01 PM
Its a wonder someone hasn't offed this bum.

imported_MSGDay
04-06-2011, 02:08 PM
Wow! What a great post. I'm gonna share it on the Review/Journal eforum to go in the face of the liberals there who can't see anything but what a great guy The Annointed One is!

Banned
04-10-2011, 09:43 AM
What does this have to do with condemning the hate filled rhetoric that is not covered by the left and mainstream figure heads? The 4 you mentined condemns every single racist remarks brought out by a person on the right. You ignored the fact that the people I named do not say anything about the groups that are on the left.

Fascinating. And I take it Conservatives are always quick to condemn the fascists in their extremist fringes? Who cares? Seems to me you are quick to condemn the evil *progressives* for their plots to destroy America and the free market, yet yourself ignore the radical elements of YOUR OWN party. Pot calling the kettle black perhaps?

Not necessarily you specifically, but I also notice that so many of these self appointed opponents of the war were completely silent when W. Bush was president. Why was there no tea party then? Where was the "grassroots movement" when Bush stripped away our Constitutional rights in the name of security, handed tax breaks out to his rich corporate buddies putting us another four trillion dollars in the hole, started two wars, endorsed torture camps for accused "terrorists" around the world - not a whimper of protest.

Our economy was booming, but instead of using these good times to cut back on our National debt, instead upped it by trillions of dollars - leaving the current administration with very little to work with when the recession hits.

But there does seem to be one thing conservatives can all agree on - tax cuts for the top 20% of our financial elite. Tax cuts during booms, tax cuts during recessions, tax cuts in war and tax cuts in peace... one has to wonder when the economy DOESN'T call for another massive tax cut. Apparently never.

Perhaps they oppose American spending and wars only now not because of the war itself, but because the current president happens to be a black Democrat.



And what I asked you was not for the letter of condemntion, but for the names that condemned the NBPs, and if they were figure heads in the lefts mainstream machine?

So a public letter from the entire Huey Newton foundation is not enough for you? How about you educate yourself before making absurd claims, then we wouldn't be having these problems in the first place.


Riiiiight, that is why the left has done so much to discredit them by calling them racist, to keep the republican party electable. What "serious damage" are you thinking they will cause? Will it be keeping the government from over spending the US to the brink of bankruptcy? You ignored the part where I said the left makes up stories of the TEA party to keep the ignorant from joining.


Again, what has the right done about its own extremists? Buccanan seems to miss the "good old days" when the inferior races were shoveled into ovens. Nobody seemed to mind when Glenn Beck pretended to poison Nancy Pelosi on National TV.

Hell, the Marine Corps has Orson Scott Card's book ENDER'S GAME on the Commadant's reading list. Never mind that its basically a novel-length adaption of the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, and "Ender Wiggin" is modeled after Adolf Hitler's own personal life. But it's okay, as long as you embrace conservative values and pray to Jesus every night, you can say and do whatever you want.



How so? Just like a liberal to keep out all forms of facts and just claim idiocy. Show your proof she is an idiot.[/QUOTE]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/24/sarah-palin-north-korea_n_788107.html
http://articles.boston.com/2008-09-26/news/29273357_1_sarah-palin-first-term-alaska-governor-foreign-policy
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/sarah-palin/3115002/US-vice-presidential-debate-Sarah-Palin-fails-to-name-a-single-newspaper.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/07/palin-obamas-death-panel_n_254399.html

So we have a lady who claims she is an expert on Russia (when in fact she hadn't even MET a Russian leader until recently), doesn't know the difference between South/North Korea, can't name one newspaper she reads, can't name one American founding father, believes in imaginary omgz "death panels". And not to mention her rare feat of single-handedly destroying an an entire presidential campaign by herself.

So yes, I do think it is a safe assumption to say she is an idiot.

imported_WILDJOKER5
04-10-2011, 12:07 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/24/sarah-palin-north-korea_n_788107.html
http://articles.boston.com/2008-09-26/news/29273357_1_sarah-palin-first-term-alaska-governor-foreign-policy
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/sarah-palin/3115002/US-vice-presidential-debate-Sarah-Palin-fails-to-name-a-single-newspaper.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/07/palin-obamas-death-panel_n_254399.html

So we have a lady who claims she is an expert on Russia (when in fact she hadn't even MET a Russian leader until recently), doesn't know the difference between South/North Korea, can't name one newspaper she reads, can't name one American founding father, believes in imaginary omgz "death panels". And not to mention her rare feat of single-handedly destroying an an entire presidential campaign by herself.

So yes, I do think it is a safe assumption to say she is an idiot.Yeah, the rest is just non-sense. Lets take you crap that you have been fed by the lefts media and show you how completely out of context of the crap you are showing as "proof".

1) She said Russia was her neighbor, as in the neighbor of her state. She is closer to foreign countries than most of the Americans that freaking live in Spangdahlem Germany. I never heard her say she was an expert in Russian Affairs. And some of the CIA "experts" never meet the presidents of the countries they are assigned either. And she NEVER once said she can see Russia from her house, that was Tina Fey, the left wing liberal hack, and the left wing media propaganda machine placed it on Palin to smear her and McCain. But we can't all be born in another country huh? (lol, J/k)

2)She had a Flub with North/south korea, which she corrected with in the speech. If you want to say that is why she is stupid, then look at the crap has come out of Biden and especially Obama. Obama thinks there are 58 states.

3)She didn't name off a newspaper, OMG. If she names a specific one, she was going to ripped for that one over another. But hey, I guess she could have been like Obama that names off the most biased one he could. The HuffPo is by far liberal in nature, why does Obama endorse something so liberal while trying to claim he is center? Obama the liar.

4)OMGZ, there are death panels in Obamacare. There is selective care for the seniors, NOT FULL COVERAGE. Guess maybe you should do you research. The media had time to rip Palin cause it was tough to find that part of the monstrosity bill where it said there would be selective coverage for seniors. But hey, guess that wasn't posted on the HuffPo yet, it has only been found over 6 months ago.

acesfilter
04-10-2011, 12:36 PM
I desire some insight into some observations concerning liberal/progressive beliefs that seem a bit contradictory to me. I am going to list some of these contradictions and observations and would like to know what exactly drives the liberal thought process to reach these conclusions.

Id rather not take the easy way out and try to answer these questions by using 8 acid tabs. Please keep in mind that I do not necessarily support either position on a given topic discussed here.

1) the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.

2) You are against capital punishment but for abortion on demand.

3) When it comes to abortion, a woman has the right to hoose because it is her body, but when it comes to fast food, the govt needs to step in because you can't be trusted to make such an important decision when it comes to your body.

4) The same public school idiot who can't teach 4th graders how to read is qualified to teach those same kids about sex.

5) Trial lawyers are selfless heroes and doctors are overpaid.

6) Guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranians.

7) Global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the sun, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.

8) Gender roles are artificial but being gay is natural.

9) Businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.

10) Self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.

11) There was no art before federal funding.

12) The free market that gives us 500+ channels can't deliver the quality that PBS does.

13) The NRA is bad, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because they stand up for certain parts of the Constitution.

14) Taxes are too low but ATM fees are too high.

15) Cesar Chavez is more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson.

16) Standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren't.

17) Second-hand smoke is more dangerous than HIV.

18) Conservatives are racists but that black people couldn't make it without government help.

19) The only reason socialism hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.

Please address any of the following. You may not subscribe to all of these ideas but please feel free to respond to the ones you do.

This would make an excellent blog post! Can I steal it? :D

Variable Wind
04-11-2011, 12:40 PM
Not necessarily you specifically, but I also notice that so many of these self appointed opponents of the war were completely silent when W. Bush was president. Why was there no tea party then? Where was the "grassroots movement" when Bush stripped away our Constitutional rights in the name of security, handed tax breaks out to his rich corporate buddies putting us another four trillion dollars in the hole, started two wars, endorsed torture camps for accused "terrorists" around the world - not a whimper of protest.
9/11 was still fresh in peoples minds for most of the Bush presidency. But most of the conservative opponents of the war are in opposition of the way it has been fought. I was critical once it became apparent that the administration had no clear understanding of what to do once we beat their collective asses. I still dont have a problem with GITMO and I still say that waterboarding isnt torture, and 95% of the inmates at GITMO havent even had that done to them so I do not understand how you can call it a torture camp. Hell we waterboard our own spec ops folks. He didnt start the war in Afghanistan obviously but he did start the one in Iraq. He lowered taxes for EVERYBODY not just the rich. I just want to be accurate here.
But there does seem to be one thing conservatives can all agree on - tax cuts for the top 20% of our financial elite. Tax cuts during booms, tax cuts during recessions, tax cuts in war and tax cuts in peace... one has to wonder when the economy DOESN'T call for another massive tax cut. Apparently never.


Perhaps they oppose American spending and wars only now not because of the war itself, but because the current president happens to be a black Democrat.
Yeah because we didnt get pissed when Clinton did it with Bosnia, Somalia, or fired missles into iraq whenever he got caught getting a BJ in the oval office. We didnt do it with Carter either. :rolleyes: Danger, you are going to have to do better than that before you say that its because hes black.


believes in imaginary omgz "death panels". And not to mention her rare feat of single-handedly destroying an an entire presidential campaign by herself.

So yes, I do think it is a safe assumption to say she is an idiot.
Again, for accuracys sake, they did end up confirming that there will be boards to decide possible end of life care for some folks.

Also, McCain destroyed his presidential campaign long before Palin ever showed up, she is the only thing that gave him a chance.

Variable Wind
04-11-2011, 12:41 PM
This would make an excellent blog post! Can I steal it? :D
Of course :)

imported_WILDJOKER5
04-12-2011, 12:43 PM
I would hope that these numbers are presented accurately and not blamed on Bush. The change was a democratically controlled congress.
http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/chart1.jpg

Banned
04-18-2011, 03:27 AM
Yeah, the rest is just non-sense. Lets take you crap that you have been fed by the lefts media and show you how completely out of context of the crap you are showing as "proof".

Never mind that all of these stories are accompanied by videos. But hey whatever, didn't mean to insult your high priestess.


1) She said Russia was her neighbor, as in the neighbor of her state. She is closer to foreign countries than most of the Americans that freaking live in Spangdahlem Germany.

Which is nice, but totally irrelevant. Never minding the fact that she doesn't know anything about her OWN COUNTRY, never mind Russia - happening to be the governor of Alaska doesn't make you an expert in anything.

And guess what buddy, if there was an incident involving Russia - guess how much involvment she would have in it? ZERO. You'd have to be out of your mind to believe the Military would allow the governor, especially her, a part in their decision making. Sarah Palin in charge of nuclear weapons? Oh good lord.


I never heard her say she was an expert in Russian Affairs.

Which is interesting because I literally just gave you a link to that effect.


And some of the CIA "experts" never meet the presidents of the countries they are assigned either.

Yes and...?


And she NEVER once said she can see Russia from her house, that was Tina Fey, the left wing liberal hack, and the left wing media propaganda machine placed it on Palin to smear her and McCain. But we can't all be born in another country huh? (lol, J/k)

Oh my lord, I literally feel sorry for you right now. Absolute pity mixed with a bit of contempt. Tina Fey is a very pretty and talented person. And MANY comedians have made fun of politicians, both left and right. Hell, shows like South Park make fun of various politicians all the time. Yet all you can say is OMGZ LEFT WING PROPAGANDA MACHINE OMGZ. You're pathetic.


2)She had a Flub with North/south korea, which she corrected with in the speech. If you want to say that is why she is stupid, then look at the crap has come out of Biden and especially Obama. Obama thinks there are 58 states.

Obama IS stupid. And your point is?

Or did you think that comment was going to make me mad? You forget, I'm not blindly loyal to any particular party, like you are.


3)She didn't name off a newspaper, OMG. If she names a specific one, she was going to ripped for that one over another.

Watch the video. She literally couldn't name one. Now yes, I'm sure she just got flustered and confused for a minute... but do we really want someone totally incapable of keeping her head when someone asks her a basic question as president?


But hey, I guess she could have been like Obama that names off the most biased one he could. The HuffPo is by far liberal in nature, why does Obama endorse something so liberal while trying to claim he is center? Obama the liar.

OMGZ the liberal conspiracy. OMGZ.


4)OMGZ, there are death panels in Obamacare.

Why am I not surprised that you would try to make that claim.


There is selective care for the seniors, NOT FULL COVERAGE.

First you whine and bitch that getting people universal health care is too expensive, then you complain that Obama DIDN'T give them full coverage. Can't have it both ways bud.


Guess maybe you should do you research. The media had time to rip Palin cause it was tough to find that part of the monstrosity bill where it said there would be selective coverage for seniors. But hey, guess that wasn't posted on the HuffPo yet, it has only been found over 6 months ago.

That's not a Death Panel, or anything even remotely close to a death panel. But never mind, don't let me disturb your ignorant hysteria.

Banned
04-18-2011, 04:10 AM
9/11 was still fresh in peoples minds for most of the Bush presidency.

I watched Terri Gilliam's (chief animator from Monty Python) movie BRAZIL recently, and its a pretty disturbing film in the post-911 world. It was made back in 1985 - its basically a dystopian fantasy about a police state, where everyone is kept in a state of fear of the "terrorists". Keep people scared of an external threat, and they won't notice domestic injustice.


But most of the conservative opponents of the war are in opposition of the way it has been fought. I was critical once it became apparent that the administration had no clear understanding of what to do once we beat their collective asses.

On the contrary, I think both the Bush administration and the DOD got exactly what they wanted - a war with an arbritary enemy, and no way to end it. This way, anybody who does want to end it can be accused of "not supporting the troops", and/or being a "defeatist". Meanwhile, the money keeps flowing.


I still dont have a problem with GITMO and I still say that waterboarding isnt torture,

We hanged Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American POWs... now its magially okay because we said so?

And you do realize Water boarding feels like drowning, right? Last time I checked, drowning wasn't fun.



and 95% of the inmates at GITMO havent even had that done to them so I do not understand how you can call it a torture camp.

The CIA runs camps for suspected "terrorists" across the world, including Egypt and Pakistan.


Hell we waterboard our own spec ops folks.

And why do you suppose we do that?


He didnt start the war in Afghanistan obviously

How so?

Afghanistan was not involved in 9/11. The hijackers we believe to be involved were mostly from Saudi Arabia, and were trained in the USA itself. Afghanistan training camps played a minor or non-existent role in the attacks.


but he did start the one in Iraq.

Which was supposed to "pay for itself". LOL


He lowered taxes for EVERYBODY not just the rich. I just want to be accurate here.

But the rich benefitted far more than anyone else. Cutting corporate and capital gain taxes doesn't benefit the average person much if at all. It benefits the rich campaign contributors who got him into office. It was a pay-off.


Yeah because we didnt get pissed when Clinton did it with Bosnia, Somalia, or fired missles into iraq whenever he got caught getting a BJ in the oval office. We didnt do it with Carter either. :rolleyes: Danger, you are going to have to do better than that before you say that its because hes black.

Actually, I said black democrat...

Clinton and Carter, they were both Democrats, right?

When have you ever opposed a REPUBLICAN going to war? Did Republicans oppose Bush Sr. when he went to oil to protect our Kuwaiti oil interests? Or how about when Reagan hopped into the bedsheets with the Iranians to fund the Contras terrorism?

Though as far as race goes, I do believe that plays a huge factor. Republicans hate, fear, and despise Obama to almost unprecedented levels. Why? He's been such a weak, spineless president the Republicans have won virtually every battle they've fought with him. Yet they still hate him. He's an evil coniving Muslim Leftist Socialist Atheist Communist Pagan.



Again, for accuracys sake, they did end up confirming that there will be boards to decide possible end of life care for some folks.

Agree or disagree with the Health care bill but lets not be silly about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/health/policy/14panel.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/07/palin-obamas-death-panel_n_254399.html
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/palin-vs-obama-death-panels/

Obama, Aug. 11: The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for "death panels" that will basically pull the plug on grandma … this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, et cetera. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready, on their own terms. It wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything. This is I guess where the rumor came from.



Also, McCain destroyed his presidential campaign long before Palin ever showed up, she is the only thing that gave him a chance.

He was doing alright until Palin torpedoed herself on the Katie Couric interviews... then Tina Fey came along and we all know how that turned out.

imported_WILDJOKER5
04-18-2011, 04:13 AM
Never mind that all of these stories are accompanied by videos. But hey whatever, didn't mean to insult your high priestess.What part of "out of context" do you not understand?



And guess what buddy, if there was an incident involving Russia - guess how much involvment she would have in it? ZERO. You'd have to be out of your mind to believe the Military would allow the governor, especially her, a part in their decision making. Sarah Palin in charge of nuclear weapons? Oh good lord.And you would prefer some liberal apologist to sit back and let a country like Russia run through us? I would prefer Palin who has more balls than any Liberal to protect this country.


Oh my lord, I literally feel sorry for you right now. Absolute pity mixed with a bit of contempt. Tina Fey is a very pretty and talented person. And MANY comedians have made fun of politicians, both left and right. Hell, shows like South Park make fun of various politicians all the time. Yet all you can say is OMGZ LEFT WING PROPAGANDA MACHINE OMGZ. You're pathetic.Have you seen the documentary from a lefty film maker that was honest in his movie? It is call "Media Malpractice". Just take a look at the enormously one sided coverage of the POTUS election and see how much negative coverage was given to Palin vs Obama, and how things like Feys "I can see Russia from my house" comment was associated with Palin.


Obama IS stupid. And your point is?

Or did you think that comment was going to make me mad? You forget, I'm not blindly loyal to any particular party, like you are.
You seem to really like the liberal ideas even though they can be shown time and time again to be failures.



Watch the video. She literally couldn't name one. Now yes, I'm sure she just got flustered and confused for a minute... but do we really want someone totally incapable of keeping her head when someone asks her a basic question as president?I did, it is on the documentary as well. Take a gander, see how over blown that little statement was by the leftwing media.





Why am I not surprised that you would try to make that claim.Because it is true?



First you whine and bitch that getting people universal health care is too expensive, then you complain that Obama DIDN'T give them full coverage. Can't have it both ways bud.Take out of context much? We are talking about Palin being ridiculed for being right, and how Obama and the left wing media are all a bunch of liars that are giving people like you and other liberals false information. I don't want Obamacare, but when the right said there are death panels in the bill, and shown to be right, then you try to twist my words as trying to make it seem like I want them to have full coverage under Obamacare.



That's not a Death Panel, or anything even remotely close to a death panel. But never mind, don't let me disturb your ignorant hysteria.So, keeping Grandma from getting a triple bypass cause she has lived a long and healthy life, even though she has Obamacare, isn't a death panel presided over by bureaucrats? Or in your mind you just think a death panel as a group of people that will just shoot you when you get to be a certain age? That would clear up your dilemma with SS being under funded.

imported_WILDJOKER5
04-18-2011, 04:17 AM
But the rich benefitted far more than anyone else. Cutting corporate and capital gain taxes doesn't benefit the average person much if at all. It benefits the rich campaign contributors who got him into office. It was a pay-off.

Yes, yes it does for anyone saving for retirement it does. And that means State workers whos 401k is placed in the stock market. But guess they aren't really average joes huh?

Banned
04-18-2011, 04:18 AM
I would hope that these numbers are presented accurately and not blamed on Bush. The change was a democratically controlled congress.
[IMG]

Right. It was the Democrat controlled Congress. NOTHING to do with the recession or the wars.

Oh wow oil is more expensive. Wonder why? Perhaps because we toppled a major oil producer? Maybe?

Oh no our deficit is higher? Pehaps because we put in a stimulus to keep people off the street? Maybe?

No... it was all the evil socialist democrats fault. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to put my tinfoil hat on and crawl under the bed, so Adolf Obamcare bin Hitler can't take over my brain with his evil liberal mind control lasers satellites.

Banned
04-18-2011, 04:54 AM
What part of "out of context" do you not understand?

In the context of her being totally incapable of verbally defending her positions or making an intelligible point?


And you would prefer some liberal apologist to sit back and let a country like Russia run through us?

LOL. You really are a basketcase, aren't you?


I would prefer Palin who has more balls than any Liberal to protect this country.

Really? Every liberal in the entire country? Oh that's right, having left wing views automatically makes a person a "pussy". I guess Putin is a pussy then.

Wait a minute, if the Russians are a bunch of pussies, why are you so scared of them "running right through us"? Or are lefties only pussies if they're American? If they're foreign, then they're scary Communists?


Have you seen the documentary from a lefty film maker that was honest in his movie?[QUOTE]

I don't watch political documentaries, leftie or rightie. I can formulate my own opinions for myself.

[QUOTE]It is call "Media Malpractice".

Right because a COMEDY SHOW is "media malpractice". We should ban comedy. Let's declare Dan Cook "public enemy #1".


Just take a look at the enormously one sided coverage of the POTUS election and see how much negative coverage was given to Palin vs Obama, and how things like Feys "I can see Russia from my house" comment was associated with Palin.

Oh please. The PR damage done to the McCain campaign was self inflicted by sheer stupidity.


You seem to really like the liberal ideas even though they can be shown time and time again to be failures.

I don't see how that comment is relevant at all to my quote above it, but whatever.


I did, it is on the documentary as well. Take a gander, see how over blown that little statement was by the leftwing media.

Sigh... I already told you I can't watch videos on this machine.


Because it is true?

ROFL


Take out of context much? We are talking about Palin being ridiculed for being right,

Umm, except... it turned out to be complete bullshit? There were no "death panels". There was nothing of the sort. What made it even worse was her trying to pull the sympathy card by crying how her disabled son was going to be killed by the scary socialists. Gimme a break.

Look at the links I just gave Variable Wind, and see the facts for yourself.


and how Obama and the left wing media are all a bunch of liars that are giving people like you and other liberals false information. I don't want Obamacare, but when the right said there are death panels in the bill, and shown to be right, then you try to twist my words as trying to make it seem like I want them to have full coverage under Obamacare.

Ummm... no.


So, keeping Grandma from getting a triple bypass cause she has lived a long and healthy life, even though she has Obamacare, isn't a death panel presided over by bureaucrats? Or in your mind you just think a death panel as a group of people that will just shoot you when you get to be a certain age? That would clear up your dilemma with SS being under funded.

There is absolutely nothing of the sort in the bill. But never mind. Keep bullshitting away.

Variable Wind
04-18-2011, 12:49 PM
I watched Terri Gilliam's (chief animator from Monty Python) movie BRAZIL recently, and its a pretty disturbing film in the post-911 world. It was made back in 1985 - its basically a dystopian fantasy about a police state, where everyone is kept in a state of fear of the "terrorists". Keep people scared of an external threat, and they won't notice domestic injustice.
This is the case with open societies too. Even with the patriot act (which I despise) we are one of the most open societies in the world.


On the contrary, I think both the Bush administration and the DOD got exactly what they wanted - a war with an arbritary enemy, and no way to end it. This way, anybody who does want to end it can be accused of "not supporting the troops", and/or being a "defeatist". Meanwhile, the money keeps flowing.
Perhaps, but I think it was really more of a good idea that was carried out in a stupid manner. Far greater mistakes have been made with the best of intentions.


We hanged Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American POWs... now its magially okay because we said so?
We were also segregating our schools at the time. My point being, is that just because we did that does not make it right. There was a lot of anger at Japan by the American people. Kamikaze's, death marches, sneak attacks all gave us an excuse to hate them...and that was not right.


And you do realize Water boarding feels like drowning, right? Last time I checked, drowning wasn't fun.
The CIA runs camps for suspected "terrorists" across the world, including Egypt and Pakistan.
And why do you suppose we do that?
This is not supposed to be camp Onawanna, its a prison camp built to contain people who know information that could prevent harm on our homeland and extract that information. Water boarding feels like drowning...you dont drown though. We arent sawing off limbs or hooking battery cables up to testicles.


How so?
Afghanistan was not involved in 9/11. The hijackers we believe to be involved were mostly from Saudi Arabia, and were trained in the USA itself. Afghanistan training camps played a minor or non-existent role in the attacks.
They were based out of Afghanistan, and helped by the taliban. Our war was IN Afghanistan not with Afghanistan.


Which was supposed to "pay for itself". LOL
Whoever believed that was more foolish than the fool saying it. What was it Obi-Wan said about fools?


But the rich benefitted far more than anyone else. Cutting corporate and capital gain taxes doesn't benefit the average person much if at all. It benefits the rich campaign contributors who got him into office. It was a pay-off.
Can you name a President that DIDNT give payoffs? Hell, Immelt is a great example in this particular administration. Yes the rich benefitted, but so did everyone else who pays taxes.


Actually, I said black democrat...
Clinton and Carter, they were both Democrats, right?
But not black, and they both recieved similar vitriole from the right, just like the left gives the same vitriole to Republican Presidents.


When have you ever opposed a REPUBLICAN going to war? Did Republicans oppose Bush Sr. when he went to oil to protect our Kuwaiti oil interests? Or how about when Reagan hopped into the bedsheets with the Iranians to fund the Contras terrorism?
What was the last war America was in while A republican was president. WW2 was the last "War" and that was FDR. ;). I was for involvement in Afghanistan, and having been to Iraq, I am glad we took out Saddam. Ask me how I like the way the war is handled and I would tell you that I do not like it. Again, good idea but bad execution.


Though as far as race goes, I do believe that plays a huge factor. Republicans hate, fear, and despise Obama to almost unprecedented levels. Why? He's been such a weak, spineless president the Republicans have won virtually every battle they've fought with him. Yet they still hate him. He's an evil coniving Muslim Leftist Socialist Atheist Communist Pagan.
Yes, those same levels that they reached when Clinton was president. Are you old enough to remember the Clinton years? This arguement is specious, because the Democrats did the same thing with GW Bush and Reagan. Racism plays more heavily against democrats given the demographic of blacks and how they vote and the amount of race baiters who are card carrying liberals.


Agree or disagree with the Health care bill but lets not be silly about it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/health/policy/14panel.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/07/palin-obamas-death-panel_n_254399.html
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/palin-vs-obama-death-panels/
Obama, Aug. 11: The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for "death panels" that will basically pull the plug on grandma … this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, et cetera. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready, on their own terms. It wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything. This is I guess where the rumor came from.
This statement from Obama was a red herring from the issue I was referring to, I will get a link but I will get it later.


He was doing alright until Palin torpedoed herself on the Katie Couric interviews... then Tina Fey came along and we all know how that turned out.
He wasnt doing alright until he picked Palin as his running mate...when the media got through trashing her, he went back to his old numbers. She was his only chance. He didnt run a campaign to win the election.

DarkHeart
04-18-2011, 01:38 PM
Quick question for conservatives who watch Fox News.

This got my blood boiling over the weekend, a J Crew ad shows their creative director with her 5 year old son, whose toe nails are painted neon pink. Who cares? Well Fox News seemed to think this sparked a contraversy, saying that parents were in an up roar and psychiatrists were alarmed. Other news outlets of since chimed in but Fox broke this "News."

The "parents" Fox was refering to were barely literate posters from their own Fox Forums, the "Psychiatrist" is on the Fox payroll and the concern Fox had for the child went only so far as to speculate about him growing up to be a freak, deviant, or, god forbid, a homosexual. News casters went on to speculate that J Crew must be trying to push a homosexual agenda because nothing says homo like neon pink nail polish.

So my question is, WTF? All news in America is bent one way or the other, but this is pretty bad.

Fox News basically ridiculed a 5 year old child on National Television for liking the color pink and questioned his sexuality and masculinity as if those things are even qualifiable at that age, all for the sake of pushing an anti-gay agenda and inciting their ignorant viewers.

imported_WILDJOKER5
04-18-2011, 01:55 PM
Quick question for conservatives who watch Fox News.

This got my blood boiling over the weekend, a J Crew ad shows their creative director with her 5 year old son, whose toe nails are painted neon pink. Who cares? Well Fox News seemed to think this sparked a contraversy, saying that parents were in an up roar and psychiatrists were alarmed. Other news outlets of since chimed in but Fox broke this "News."

The "parents" Fox was refering to were barely literate posters from their own Fox Forums, the "Psychiatrist" is on the Fox payroll and the concern Fox had for the child went only so far as to speculate about him growing up to be a freak, deviant, or, god forbid, a homosexual. News casters went on to speculate that J Crew must be trying to push a homosexual agenda because nothing says homo like neon pink nail polish.

So my question is, WTF? All news in America is bent one way or the other, but this is pretty bad.

Fox News basically ridiculed a 5 year old child on National Television for liking the color pink and questioned his sexuality and masculinity as if those things are even qualifiable at that age, all for the sake of pushing an anti-gay agenda and inciting their ignorant viewers.
Now, quit picking a choosing to blast only FNC here. They are rediculous dimwits that I want nothing to do with their social views. Here is what Jon Stewart got right, he had the montage of more than just FNC poking fun at this add.


"Really, what I thought was just a pleasant, sweet little mother-son bondvertising, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and Fox recognized as," Stewart says before flashing the Toemageddon 2011: This Little Piggy Went To Hell graphic.

So, if you are going to hate on one that you know to be a social conservative network, at least blast the networks that claim to be social liberals but display the utter hypocracy.

Variable Wind
04-18-2011, 02:09 PM
Quick question for conservatives who watch Fox News.
This got my blood boiling over the weekend, a J Crew ad shows their creative director with her 5 year old son, whose toe nails are painted neon pink. Who cares? Well Fox News seemed to think this sparked a contraversy, saying that parents were in an up roar and psychiatrists were alarmed. Other news outlets of since chimed in but Fox broke this "News."
Was this "Fox and Friends"? I hate that show. I watch Fox News not because I like Fox news, but because they are less ridiculous than the other news channels. Fox and Friends routinely airs nonesense stories and false outrage at some of the dumbest things. The whole cast from Ducey to Carlson to that moron with no eyebrows irk the crap out of me. I DVR Red Eye and watch that in the morning instead. Its a much better show, and I would recommend it.


The "parents" Fox was refering to were barely literate posters from their own Fox Forums, the "Psychiatrist" is on the Fox payroll and the concern Fox had for the child went only so far as to speculate about him growing up to be a freak, deviant, or, god forbid, a homosexual. News casters went on to speculate that J Crew must be trying to push a homosexual agenda because nothing says homo like neon pink nail polish.So my question is, WTF? All news in America is bent one way or the other, but this is pretty bad.
Fox News basically ridiculed a 5 year old child on National Television for liking the color pink and questioned his sexuality and masculinity as if those things are even qualifiable at that age, all for the sake of pushing an anti-gay agenda and inciting their ignorant viewers.
When I broke my arm in 2nd grade (7 years old) I got a hot pink cast. Look how straight I turned out. Its a non-story spread by busybodies with nothing better to report because good reporting is beyond their reckoning.

DarkHeart
04-18-2011, 03:14 PM
Now, quit picking a choosing to blast only FNC here. They are rediculous dimwits that I want nothing to do with their social views. Here is what Jon Stewart got right, he had the montage of more than just FNC poking fun at this add.


So, if you are going to hate on one that you know to be a social conservative network, at least blast the networks that claim to be social liberals but display the utter hypocracy.

I'm taking issue with Fox because they are the ones that made this a story at all. The other news networks followed. That doesn't make them less culpable in propagating a non-event as news and adding to the grief of the child in question, but I wonder if a "liberal news outlet" would have reported on this at all if it wasn't for Fox creating the controversy in the first place.

DarkHeart
04-18-2011, 03:17 PM
Its a non-story spread by busybodies with nothing better to report because good reporting is beyond their reckoning.

Agreed.

I'll look into which show created this story. I don't watch tv news often so I have no idea if it was one air-head or another that broke this important story of "child abuse" and "5 year old sexual deviants"

Variable Wind
04-18-2011, 04:22 PM
Agreed.

I'll look into which show created this story. I don't watch tv news often so I have no idea if it was one air-head or another that broke this important story of "child abuse" and "5 year old sexual deviants"

Fox Business I find good for information, and Brett Baer and Greta Van Sustern are good journalists on Fox News, aside from that I only watch Fox for commentaries from O'Reilly and Krauthammer and Red Eye.

imported_WILDJOKER5
04-18-2011, 04:42 PM
I'm taking issue with Fox because they are the ones that made this a story at all. The other news networks followed. That doesn't make them less culpable in propagating a non-event as news and adding to the grief of the child in question, but I wonder if a "liberal news outlet" would have reported on this at all if it wasn't for Fox creating the controversy in the first place.
There are many stories the liberal news networks ignore that Fox brings out. Not much coverage of the code pink rally calling for Clearance Thomas to be hung, or sent back out to the fields.

DarkHeart
04-18-2011, 05:24 PM
There are many stories the liberal news networks ignore that Fox brings out. Not much coverage of the code pink rally calling for Clearance Thomas to be hung, or sent back out to the fields.

Yes, this was an important story for Fox break, those spineless bastards at NBC would have never thought to mock a child for liking the color pink if Fox hadn't done it first.

Speaking of Pink, only Fox would cover the important news of a pissant far left liberal group that has next to no political power saying something stupid. Its a good thing we were told about them as if they mattered, obviously they represent Average Joe Democrate.

imported_WILDJOKER5
04-18-2011, 07:18 PM
Speaking of Pink, only Fox would cover the important news of a pissant far left liberal group that has next to no political power saying something stupid. Its a good thing we were told about them as if they mattered, obviously they represent Average Joe Democrate.It isn't the average joe Democrat I am worried about, it is the people in Obamas ear that support Code pink, the people that are his advisors. Guess we will see if a 4th war will be started soon either against Israel or protecting Israel.

Banned
04-19-2011, 03:14 AM
VB - I know I've been missing bits and pieces and sometimes entire posts, my internet isn't what it could be. Sorry.


This is the case with open societies too. Even with the patriot act (which I despise) we are one of the most open societies in the world.

Very true. Also the judicial system, even now, is still alright. The whole "Innocent until proven guilty" concept isn't as common as one would like to hope in the world.

But the trend is deeply disturbing. Rights that were once taken for granted are being eroded away, and we do nothing about it. The majority of us are okay... for now. It's mainly the Muslim Americans getting screwed over for the time being. But how long is it going to be before the rest of us start getting labeled as "terror suspects"? I imagine you wouldn't be too pleased if you traveled abroad to visit your family... then found you couldn't get back home because you were put on the "no-fly list". That is UnConstitutional in the extreme. There is no judicial process, no chance to defend yourself - all it takes is a bureaucrat behind a computer screen to decide you're a terrorist.


Perhaps, but I think it was really more of a good idea that was carried out in a stupid manner. Far greater mistakes have been made with the best of intentions.

That's definitely true.


We were also segregating our schools at the time. My point being, is that just because we did that does not make it right. There was a lot of anger at Japan by the American people. Kamikaze's, death marches, sneak attacks all gave us an excuse to hate them...and that was not right.

True, but as far as the war crimes go - I think the Death Penalty was just. There is absolutely no excuse for torturing, experimenting on, and executing prisoners. And we didn't execute everybody, just the officers deemed to have made the decision.


This is not supposed to be camp Onawanna, its a prison camp built to contain people who know information that could prevent harm on our homeland and extract that information. Water boarding feels like drowning...you dont drown though. We arent sawing off limbs or hooking battery cables up to testicles.

This is the 21st Century, the era of worldwide communication and media. The North Vietamese figured this out 40 years ago. Physically abuse prisoners, and it makes you look bad. You could hardly put a POW missing his hands in front of a camera to read off a speech about how nice the camp is. It goes back further than this. The most successful interogator in the German army in WWII was a corporal - he was offered a commission but he turned it down - he felt a POW was more likely to open up to a fellow enlisted.

In previous centuries torture was about pure physical pain - now its understood that the psychologial element is far more important. If you just physically abuse someone he'll tell whatever lie is necessary to get you to stop. Get inside his head, and you'll get the truth.

Now what does waterboarding have to do with any of this? Absolutely nothing, I was just going off on a tangent. :p

But waterboarding is a pretty hardcore procedure - you're immobile, your oxygen is cut off, you have absolutely no defense against it. Drowning/suffocation will cause brain damage if done for more than a couple of minutes. So you're right, the physical trauma to the flesh may not be as extreme as a knife or a blowtorch, but its still extremely inhumane - especially when you're doing it to people who may not have even done anything wrong.


They were based out of Afghanistan, and helped by the taliban. Our war was IN Afghanistan not with Afghanistan.

You know, I can understand the initial invasion, I cannot however comprehend why it would be a good idea to occupy it for 13 years (going off of the 2014 withdrawal date).


Whoever believed that was more foolish than the fool saying it. What was it Obi-Wan said about fools?

I actually don't remember. My nerd powers failed me.


Can you name a President that DIDNT give payoffs? Hell, Immelt is a great example in this particular administration. Yes the rich benefitted, but so did everyone else who pays taxes.

How much does that $100-300 a typical person gets back in the refund really help him? Pay the electric bill for that month? And the cuts that result from the tax cuts will hurt everyone EXCEPT the rich, both left and right. The majority of the Tea Party are not rich, they're upper middle class yes, but rarely over 250k. They'll suffer from the massive cuts in Medicaid that the GOP is planning.

The government shutdowns in the Clinton years are a demostration that he knew what he was doing and Obama doesn't. Clinton gave in, allowed his opponents to have their little party and shut down the government - the consequences destroyed their credibility with the voters and vindicated Clinton. If the GOP isn't careful this time around, they could potentially repeat history.


But not black, and they both recieved similar vitriole from the right, just like the left gives the same vitriole to Republican Presidents.

Not as a whole - you're not a racist. But how about Billy-Bob in his trailer in Mississippi?


What was the last war America was in while A republican was president. WW2 was the last "War" and that was FDR. ;). I was for involvement in Afghanistan, and having been to Iraq, I am glad we took out Saddam. Ask me how I like the way the war is handled and I would tell you that I do not like it. Again, good idea but bad execution.

I read a book a while back WEIRD HISTORY 101, one chapter in it discussed presidents in the 20th century. The Republicans are supposed to be the war mongerers and the Democrats the big government spenders. Yet most of the major conflicts (Both World Wars, Vietnam) were started by Democrats, and many of the big government and spending expansions were done by Republicans.

The lesson I got from that is "Only Nixon can go to China". If a Republican decides to go to war, naturally his opponents will fight him every inch of the way. But if a Democrat goes to war, these same people will probably cheer him on or just keep quiet, out of fear of splitting the party. If Clinton decides to put warrantless wiretaps on peoples' phones, he's a "Communist". If Bush does it - he'll get applause from the neo-cons, and libertarian types will be uncertain whether to oppose him and split the party, or go along with it.


Yes, those same levels that they reached when Clinton was president. Are you old enough to remember the Clinton years? This arguement is specious, because the Democrats did the same thing with GW Bush and Reagan. Racism plays more heavily against democrats given the demographic of blacks and how they vote and the amount of race baiters who are card carrying liberals.

I'll definitely give you that one. The hate goes both ways. We all know Reagan invented AIDS, right? ;)


This statement from Obama was a red herring from the issue I was referring to, I will get a link but I will get it later.

Okay. We'll put that one on the back burner for now.


He wasnt doing alright until he picked Palin as his running mate...when the media got through trashing her, he went back to his old numbers. She was his only chance. He didnt run a campaign to win the election.

There does seem to be a lot of bad blood between her and his aides, though.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/75097-palin-derided-by-top-mccain-aide-book
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29504.html
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/sarah-palin-angers-mccain-aides-rogue/story?id=9090753

Banned
04-19-2011, 03:27 AM
Well considering how the entire world has condemned Israeli war crimes...

Oh no, I correct myself. Those children were terrorists. They deserved to get their school bulldozed to the ground.

imported_WILDJOKER5
04-19-2011, 10:34 AM
Well considering how the entire world has condemned Israeli war crimes...

Oh no, I correct myself. Those children were terrorists. They deserved to get their school bulldozed to the ground.

Do you even know the history of Israel?

Are they just supposed to keep letting the Palistine terrorist shoot the rockets and bomb the busses left and right with no response? How about the Palistines that went into a Israeli home and murdered a Mom, Dad, 3 Month old, 2 and 3 y/o? Were they terrorist? They might have been, the palistinians sure passed out candy and cake for the "accomplishment" of ridding the world of the evil 3 month old INFANT.

Not once has Israel been the agressor, only the deffender or retaliator. They at least don't have the rose colored hippy glasses on and understand that to get rid of the threat of those that use women and children as human shields, you got to break the shields. Don't condemn the person defending themselves, blame the agressors using kids as shields.

DarkHeart
04-19-2011, 10:42 AM
It isn't the average joe Democrat I am worried about, it is the people in Obamas ear that support Code pink, the people that are his advisors. Guess we will see if a 4th war will be started soon either against Israel or protecting Israel.

Trust me, no one takes Code Pink Seriously but Code Pink and it'll be a cold day in Hell before we act agressively towards Israel, whether they deserve it or not.... well, unless the voting lunatics on the right vote in a Christain nut job who thinks Jesus won't come till the Jews in the middle east are dead.

imported_WILDJOKER5
04-19-2011, 10:48 AM
Trust me, no one takes Code Pink Seriously but Code Pink and it'll be a cold day in Hell before we act agressively towards Israel, whether they deserve it or not.... well, unless the voting lunatics on the right vote in a Christain nut job who thinks Jesus won't come till the Jews in the middle east are dead.

WHAT?!? Is this a troll post?

You do know that is what Amadenjad (Iran's leader) thinks will help their leader to come back for Islam right? And same with the muslim brotherhood (Taking over Egypt as we speak). So I really hope you are saying the Christian thing in gest cause I don't know of a single person that thinks wiping out Israel will bring back Christ.

imported_WILDJOKER5
04-19-2011, 10:53 AM
Trust me, no one takes Code Pink Seriously but Code Pink ...Do you know that Obama's good friend Bill Ayers is planning on trying to bring weapons for the people in the Gaza Strip so they can fight Israel AGAIN. And the reason why we let Egypt and Libya go down was because one of Obama's advisors think Israel is a problem and now there are people that will rip up the treaty between Egypt and Israel as soon as they get into power. It might not be us that stands up to Israel, but we might get on their side if they start to defend theirselves.

Variable Wind
04-19-2011, 12:45 PM
Well considering how the entire world has condemned Israeli war crimes...

Oh no, I correct myself. Those children were terrorists. They deserved to get their school bulldozed to the ground.

What nation is blameless in doing horrible things?

But considering the atrocities of all the nations around them, PLUS the Palestinians actions...Isreals war crimes look like Icelands. Isreal is tough because it has to be, because of who they are surrounded by. How would you like it if all of your neighbors were waving guns at you saying they are going to kill you and your kids one day, and then when you called the police, they took your neighbors side.

Variable Wind
04-19-2011, 12:46 PM
Trust me, no one takes Code Pink Seriously but Code Pink and it'll be a cold day in Hell before we act agressively towards Israel, whether they deserve it or not.... well, unless the voting lunatics on the right vote in a Christain nut job who thinks Jesus won't come till the Jews in the middle east are dead.

Just curious, which right-wing politician has NOT supported Isreal?

imported_WILDJOKER5
04-19-2011, 12:52 PM
What nation is blameless in doing horrible things?

But considering the atrocities of all the nations around them, PLUS the Palestinians actions...Isreals war crimes look like Icelands. Isreal is tough because it has to be, because of who they are surrounded by. How would you like it if all of your neighbors were waving guns at you saying they are going to kill you and your kids one day, and then when you called the police, they took your neighbors side.Not to mention everytime the Israelis respond, they pick their target. Send letters to the target, call the target, and tell them they are about to be attacked and if the people are civilians, they might want to get out. But hey, they are just meanies bent on killing "innocent" civilians.

DarkHeart
04-19-2011, 05:07 PM
Just curious, which right-wing politician has NOT supported Isreal?

I'm mostly trolling, the joke is that the more "wacked out" fundies don't think Jesus will come back till the Jews build some kind of sacred temple in Juruselim, hearlding the end times or some other such nonsense.

I just find it funny how alarmist WJ is being.

AJBIGJ
04-19-2011, 05:43 PM
I'm mostly trolling, the joke is that the more "wacked out" fundies don't think Jesus will come back till the Jews build some kind of sacred temple in Juruselim, hearlding the end times or some other such nonsense.


What's scary to me is this may not be so radical to the thinking of some "Christians" as I may like to believe. Whether they be Athiest, Agnostic, or some other variety no single representative of another ideology poses a larger threat to Christianity than, I hate to say it, Christians. The whole concept of "Love your neighbor" looks pretty hypocritical in the face of most of the garbage I see spewing from the mouths of many of those who allege to love Jesus. I've noticed a whole lot more Non-Christian people today saying they were once Christians than would claim they've never heard about or looked into it. That may be more of a "here in the US" thing but alarming (to me personally) nonetheless. I'm not really that hateful a person in reality, but there are days I would definitely appreciate the capability of sending a little bit of voltage through a few of my "brethren" just about every time they open their mouths.

Banned
04-20-2011, 02:02 AM
Do you even know the history of Israel?

Do you?

No seriously - I'm curious, do you actually know the background and chain of events behind the Israeli state? I'm willing to bet you don't.


Are they just supposed to keep letting the Palistine terrorist shoot the rockets and bomb the busses left and right with no response? How about the Palistines that went into a Israeli home and murdered a Mom, Dad, 3 Month old, 2 and 3 y/o? Were they terrorist? They might have been, the palistinians sure passed out candy and cake for the "accomplishment" of ridding the world of the evil 3 month old INFANT.

[QUOTE]Not once has Israel been the agressor, only the deffender or retaliator.

^Answered my question. You don't.

Leading up to 1948, a number of Zionist terrrorist groups actively targeted British and Arab civilians. Notably the

Stern gang
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/565756/Stern-Gang

Also known as the Lehi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun

Irgun (National Military Organization in the Land of Israel)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun

But that's okay, terrorism is only bad if Muslims do it.


They at least don't have the rose colored hippy glasses on and understand that to get rid of the threat of those that use women and children as human shields, you got to break the shields. Don't condemn the person defending themselves, blame the agressors using kids as shields.

That's actually a very reasonable thing to say. I think you're absolutely right. The Palestinians are only defending themselves against Israeli aggression

...like illegally demolishing Palestinian homes to make way for illegal settlements
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=37739&Cr=israel&Cr1=

Building a wall splitting entire Palestinian communities and grabbing even more land... also all illegal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_West_Bank_barrier

The Palestinian Authority offered the Israelis most of the land of any value in return for peace... but were turned down because the Israelis wanted ALL of it.
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/the-palestine-papers-al-jazeera-trumps-wikileaks-1.338875

Those who attempt to PEACEFULLY protest Israel's war crimes are imprisoned
http://972mag.com/military-court-orders-palestinian-protest-organizer-to-remain-in-jail-indefinitely/

Hmmm... even Israeli citizens are protesting their government's mistreatment of the Palestinians
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/police-clash-with-leftists-at-tel-aviv-rally-over-palestinian-protester-s-death-1.334691

The poor Israelis - with their tanks and F-35s and Apaches, they're just getting so outgunned by the scary Palestinians with their AKs and obsolete mortars. Where'd I put my violin?

imported_WILDJOKER5
04-20-2011, 02:44 AM
Again, obvious troll. You are an idiot if you think israel is using human shields. They must be transporting their military might on their public transportation. Or putting Thier bases in the middle of their residential areas to where when the palistines launch their sneak attacks, they will probably hit civilians. Whatever. Keep looking at Israel as the bad guys for taking a buffer zone after war erupted their due to Egypt and Iran. Sorry that Egypt took the gaza strip and Syria took what was supposed to be palistine. But I guess those actions were israels fault too.

Banned
04-20-2011, 04:22 AM
Where did I say the Israelis used human shields? Try acknowledging the points I actually made.

Battleshort
04-20-2011, 10:34 AM
Do you?

No seriously - I'm curious, do you actually know the background and chain of events behind the Israeli state? I'm willing to bet you don't.

[QUOTE]Are they just supposed to keep letting the Palistine terrorist shoot the rockets and bomb the busses left and right with no response? How about the Palistines that went into a Israeli home and murdered a Mom, Dad, 3 Month old, 2 and 3 y/o? Were they terrorist? They might have been, the palistinians sure passed out candy and cake for the "accomplishment" of ridding the world of the evil 3 month old INFANT.



^Answered my question. You don't.

Leading up to 1948, a number of Zionist terrrorist groups actively targeted British and Arab civilians. Notably the

Stern gang
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/565756/Stern-Gang

Also known as the Lehi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun

Irgun (National Military Organization in the Land of Israel)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irgun

But that's okay, terrorism is only bad if Muslims do it.



That's actually a very reasonable thing to say. I think you're absolutely right. The Palestinians are only defending themselves against Israeli aggression

...like illegally demolishing Palestinian homes to make way for illegal settlements
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=37739&Cr=israel&Cr1=

Building a wall splitting entire Palestinian communities and grabbing even more land... also all illegal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_West_Bank_barrier

The Palestinian Authority offered the Israelis most of the land of any value in return for peace... but were turned down because the Israelis wanted ALL of it.
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/the-palestine-papers-al-jazeera-trumps-wikileaks-1.338875

Those who attempt to PEACEFULLY protest Israel's war crimes are imprisoned
http://972mag.com/military-court-orders-palestinian-protest-organizer-to-remain-in-jail-indefinitely/

Hmmm... even Israeli citizens are protesting their government's mistreatment of the Palestinians
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/police-clash-with-leftists-at-tel-aviv-rally-over-palestinian-protester-s-death-1.334691

The poor Israelis - with their tanks and F-35s and Apaches, they're just getting so outgunned by the scary Palestinians with their AKs and obsolete mortars. Where'd I put my violin?

Wow - an anti-Semetic asshole in real life.

imported_WILDJOKER5
04-20-2011, 11:38 AM
Where did I say the Israelis used human shields? Try acknowledging the points I actually made.You said.



That's actually a very reasonable thing to say. I think you're absolutely right. The Palestinians are only defending themselves against Israeli aggression
In response to my

They at least don't have the rose colored hippy glasses on and understand that to get rid of the threat of those that use women and children as human shields, you got to break the shields. Don't condemn the person defending themselves, blame the agressors using kids as shields. Or were you trying to troll by using this entire quote and trying to turn it around to sound like Palistines are just responding to the Israelis, and that is the reason that Palistine has killed more civilians than military target?

Pullinteeth
04-20-2011, 11:55 AM
Do you even know the history of Israel?

Are they just supposed to keep letting the Palistine terrorist shoot the rockets and bomb the busses left and right with no response? How about the Palistines that went into a Israeli home and murdered a Mom, Dad, 3 Month old, 2 and 3 y/o? Were they terrorist? They might have been, the palistinians sure passed out candy and cake for the "accomplishment" of ridding the world of the evil 3 month old INFANT.

Not once has Israel been the agressor, only the deffender or retaliator. They at least don't have the rose colored hippy glasses on and understand that to get rid of the threat of those that use women and children as human shields, you got to break the shields. Don't condemn the person defending themselves, blame the agressors using kids as shields.

You are right...not once...multiple times;

04/ 6/11 09:08 AM ET
KHARTOUM (Reuters) - Sudan's Foreign Minister Ali Karti on Wednesday accused Israel of carrying out an attack on Tuesday near Port Sudan that killed two people and said Khartoum reserved the right to react to the aggression.
"This is absolutely an Israeli attack," he told reporters.


Israel opened the attack with a surprise air strike against the Gaza Strip on December 27, 2008.


Not to mention everytime the Israelis respond, they pick their target. Send letters to the target, call the target, and tell them they are about to be attacked and if the people are civilians, they might want to get out. But hey, they are just meanies bent on killing "innocent" civilians.

Where in the hell did you get this nonesense?

imported_WILDJOKER5
04-20-2011, 12:13 PM
Leading up to 1948, a number of Zionist terrrorist groups actively targeted British and Arab civilians. Notably the

Stern gang
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/565756/Stern-GangCopy, a fringe group NOT associated with a government or back in any way by the Jewish community. Unlike Hammas.


Also known as the Lehi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IrgunAgain, not state sponsored, and still ended over a half centry ago.


Irgun (National Military Organization in the Land of Israel)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IrgunIt is ok, just post the same page over and over again and make it look like there are many more Jewish terrorist groups than there actually were.


But that's okay, terrorism is only bad if Muslims do it.Well, the Isreali terrorist organizations are not around anymore, but it is ok if Muslims still attack civilians even to this day.




That's actually a very reasonable thing to say. I think you're absolutely right. The Palestinians are only defending themselves against Israeli aggression

...like illegally demolishing Palestinian homes to make way for illegal settlements
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=37739&Cr=israel&Cr1=So, evicting people out of illegally constructed homes is a humans right violation. But attacking busses and Israeli homes through vigilantism and terrorist acts is ok? And the left calls Beck as being anti-semetic.


Building a wall splitting entire Palestinian communities and grabbing even more land... also all illegal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_West_Bank_barrierA strategic wall for defense is illegal? When you are surrounded by that much hostility, what should they do?


The Palestinian Authority offered the Israelis most of the land of any value in return for peace... but were turned down because the Israelis wanted ALL of it.
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/the-palestine-papers-al-jazeera-trumps-wikileaks-1.338875Wow, an opinion piece based on an Al Jazeera report? No bias there.


Those who attempt to PEACEFULLY protest Israel's war crimes are imprisoned
http://972mag.com/military-court-orders-palestinian-protest-organizer-to-remain-in-jail-indefinitely/Peaceful? Is that what you call peaceful when even in the article called it "and largely non-violent"? That means there was some violence. But hey, liberals like to call the TEA party rallies hatefilled and violent. Guess it really is opposite day(s) in liberal world. If you want to see a peacful protest in the middle east, look at Syria or Iran, and you want to side with those governments who shoot into the crowd of peaceful protesters without provocation. I see how you like to judge Israel and ignore the Iranians.


Hmmm... even Israeli citizens are protesting their government's mistreatment of the Palestinians
http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/police-clash-with-leftists-at-tel-aviv-rally-over-palestinian-protester-s-death-1.334691Yes, Israel is not even immuned to the ignorance of liberalism. I am sure their leader of these Youths gave them all the facts and really taught them why they were really there to protest like the kids out in Wisconsin protesting with the Unions, they really know why they are there.


The poor Israelis - with their tanks and F-35s and Apaches, they're just getting so outgunned by the scary Palestinians with their AKs and obsolete mortars. Where'd I put my violin?Yes, cause it takes the most advanced pieces of warfare tech to bring down buildings and kill innocents. *Cough*9/11*cough*

Poor Palistinians being killed for causing unrest through violence and terrorism on civilians, where is my violin?

Pullinteeth
04-20-2011, 01:26 PM
Or were you trying to troll by using this entire quote and trying to turn it around to sound like Palistines are just responding to the Israelis, and that is the reason that Palistine has killed more civilians than military target?

Well, they have been pawns in this whole thing. They were British subjects, then the British gave up and gave the land to form Israel, then various Islamic groups used palistinians as a reason for attacking Israel... Not saying they are ALL innocent-just like not all Israelis are innocent... Saying either side is completely right is an oversimplification (IMHO).

imported_WILDJOKER5
04-20-2011, 01:31 PM
Well, they have been pawns in this whole thing. They were British subjects, then the British gave up and gave the land to form Israel, then various Islamic groups used palistinians as a reason for attacking Israel... Not saying they are ALL innocent-just like not all Israelis are innocent... Saying either side is completely right is an oversimplification (IMHO).
I can take that opinion. This area of the world has been fought over since the Neolithic era and will keep on being fought over for centuries to come. Although I really don't see Israeli extreemist sneaking into a private home and killing 5 or 8 people in a family, then have a celebration for their murdering rampage

Banned
04-21-2011, 01:52 AM
Copy, a fringe group NOT associated with a government or back in any way by the Jewish community.


Again, not state sponsored, and still ended over a half centry ago.

Well at least you finally acknowledged what I actually said, instead of pulling imaginary bullshit out of your posterior region. My whole point was that the Jews used terrorism to get what they wanted - an Israeli state.

Just like Palestinians use terrorism to get what they want - a Palestinian state.

Yet you refuse to acknowledge the similarities.

As for the claim that these militant groups "weren't backed by the Jewish Community" - WTF? These gangs WERE the community. They were militias drawn from various Jewish settlements.


It is ok, just post the same page over and over again and make it look like there are many more Jewish terrorist groups than there actually were.

I actually stated it was another link about the same group. I forgot you're not very good at reading. Sorry. Next time I'll post lots of pictures instead of words, so you won't get confused.


Well, the Isreali terrorist organizations are not around anymore, but it is ok if Muslims still attack civilians even to this day.

I never said Muslim terrorist acts were okay. I'm just pointing out why the Palestinians are angry with the Israelis. Ironically, the state of Israel behaves in a very similar fashion as the Third Reich. History does have a twisted sense of humor.


So, evicting people out of illegally constructed homes is a humans right violation.

Yes. It was illegal for the Palestinians to build homes on their own land. But the Israelis are stronger, and have the tanks and warplanes - so they make the rules.

Might makes right. That seems to be the American Conservative motto.


But attacking busses and Israeli homes through vigilantism and terrorist acts is ok?

I imagine if I bulldozed a few AMERICAN suburbs, and blew up a bunch of children, and tear gassed protesters - there'd be quite a few AMERICANS who'd want to kill me. And I'd bet some of them might use... *gasp*... guerrilla tactics! OMGZ!


And the left calls Beck as being anti-semetic.

What's hilarious is you've whined since your very first post with me about how I pull the "racism card". Yet as soon as I condemn Israel's Fascist oppression of a weaker ethnic group, you immediately jump to call me anti-semetic. You're ridiculous.


A strategic wall for defense is illegal?

When you build it on your own land, no. When you build it on SOMEONE ELSE'S land, yes.

And don't you dare pull the "strategic defense" bullshit. They effectively stole large chunks of Palestinian land with that wall.


When you are surrounded by that much hostility, what should they do?

Stop acting like Nazis would be a good start. Hey, I bet instead of dropping bombs they dropped care packages, instead of destroying housing they BUILT housing, instead of stealing land out from under the Palestinians' feet they GAVE them some land to live on, and helped them develop it... the suicide attacks wouldn't be happening.

You're supposed to be a Christian right, didn't Jesus say something about that? But never mind - I already know your response - OMGZ the evil muslim hordes OMGZ

Here's some food for thought - when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, they sent an army of 500 thousand men... and suffered 50 thousand killed and many more wounded.

We sent a tiny fraction of that number, and our casualties aren't anywhere even close to as bad as what the Soviets suffered. Now I don't support the war by any means, but I do agree that CMO tactics work far better than napalming villages and mowing down crowds with machine gun fire. Our casualties are so light for the simple reason the vast majority of Afghans aren't trying to fight us, they don't mind us being here.

Believe it or not - when you don't act like a complete asshole people don't try to kill you. Imagine that.


Wow, an opinion piece based on an Al Jazeera report? No bias there.

Al Jazeera has been banned in several Muslim countries because it was too pro-American - some of these governments believed Al Jazeera was actually a front for the CIA.

The reason the American government doesn't like Al Jazeera is because they were the only major network to have boots on the ground in the initial Afghanistan invasion feeding live footage... and the coverage they gave wasn't too complimentary.

So the Americans hate Al Jazeera for being pro-Muslim, and radical Muslims hate Al Jazeera for being pro-American. That sounds about as unbiased as you can get.

Way to dodge the original point of the link, BTW.


Peaceful? Is that what you call peaceful when even in the article called it "and largely non-violent"?

Right. And I'm sure the "violence" that did happen had absolutely nothing to do with the soldiers and tanks surrounding them.


That means there was some violence. But hey, liberals like to call the TEA party rallies hatefilled and violent.

By American standards yes. Believe it or not, some people get upset when Palin puts crosshair symbols over democrat politicians and beckons her followers to "reload".


Guess it really is opposite day(s) in liberal world. If you want to see a peacful protest in the middle east, look at Syria or Iran, and you want to side with those governments who shoot into the crowd of peaceful protesters without provocation. I see how you like to judge Israel and ignore the Iranians.

Again, more imaginary bullshit that I never said. But never mind, you live in a land of milk and honey where everybody's white and rich, and the dishes clean themselves.


Yes, Israel is not even immuned to the ignorance of liberalism.

"Immuned"? And you call LIBERALS ignorant? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.


I am sure their leader of these Youths gave them all the facts and really taught them why they were really there to protest like the kids out in Wisconsin protesting with the Unions, they really know why they are there.

Are you going to come up with an actual argument, or just whine some more that the worldwide democracy efforts are still going forward - despite Conservatives' best attempts to stop it.


Yes, cause it takes the most advanced pieces of warfare tech to bring down buildings and kill innocents. *Cough*9/11*cough*

Hmmm... so 12 criminals kill 3,000 Americans. And we retaliate by killing 600,000 Iraqi children. Yup, sounds reasonable to me.


Poor Palistinians being killed for causing unrest through violence and terrorism on civilians, where is my violin?

He who lives by the sword dies by the sword. I'll be very interested to see what happens when the USA stops giving Israel weapons to murder the Palestinians with. I bet the Israelis will think real hard about starting a fight without their daddy Uncle Sam to back them up.

imported_WILDJOKER5
04-21-2011, 03:10 AM
Well at least you finally acknowledged what I actually said, instead of pulling imaginary bullshit out of your posterior region. My whole point was that the Jews used terrorism to get what they wanted - an Israeli state.

Just like Palestinians use terrorism to get what they want - a Palestinian state.

Yet you refuse to acknowledge the similarities.

As for the claim that these militant groups "weren't backed by the Jewish Community" - WTF? These gangs WERE the community. They were militias drawn from various Jewish settlements.
Oh, sorry, I was trying to say Jewish government, leaders, fringe countries looking to push their extremist views, LIKE ALL THE MIDDLE-EASTERN COUNTRIES SUPPLYING HAMAS.

imported_WILDJOKER5
04-21-2011, 03:18 AM
When you build it on your own land, no. When you build it on SOMEONE ELSE'S land, yes.

And don't you dare pull the "strategic defense" bullshit. They effectively stole large chunks of Palestinian land with that wall.Really? There is a "Palestinian State" that owns land? What is their flag? Are they recognized at the UN? Ok, so they have a flag and founded in 1988. Funny thing is, they are saying the land of Israel is Palestine? Wow, guess anyone can make flag and claim territory as their own now huh?

imported_WILDJOKER5
04-21-2011, 03:30 AM
Hmmm... so 12 criminals kill 3,000 Americans. And we retaliate by killing 600,000 Iraqi children. Yup, sounds reasonable to me.Speaking of well placed BS. Got any actual evidence that says we even killed .001% of that number of children?


He who lives by the sword dies by the sword. I'll be very interested to see what happens when the USA stops giving Israel weapons to murder the Palestinians with. I bet the Israelis will think real hard about starting a fight without their daddy Uncle Sam to back them up.As long as Iran, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Saudi, and Code Pink (Weird how an anti-war liberal group is supplying weapons) stop suppling the Palatines with their mortars, rockets, and other types of weapons.


I imagine if I bulldozed a few AMERICAN suburbs, and blew up a bunch of children, and tear gassed protesters - there'd be quite a few AMERICANS who'd want to kill me. And I'd bet some of them might use... *gasp*... guerrilla tactics! OMGZ!So you actually advocate the slaying of the mom, dad, 3 month old, 5 and 6 year olds while they were sleeping? Gotcha, you can be a baby killer only if you are the weaker force. If you think conservatives motto is "Might makes right", then I guess liberals get "Chicken shit 'pansy' baby killers". (I am not good at rhyming, but can call them like I see them)

Banned
04-21-2011, 04:06 AM
Speaking of well placed BS. Got any actual evidence that says we even killed .001% of that number of children?

I apologize, I was thinking of the Unicef report of 1999 (http://www.iraqikids.org/common-myths). Wrong Gulf War. I should have double checked the stat before I posted it.

Combat related deaths in the current boondoggle in Iraq: 100,000 - 150,000, depending which source you believe.

What does intrigue me, and which I"m currently looking for for you - is what are the non combat civilian deaths in Iraq from the current war? If our last war for oil and the sanctions killed more than half a million children - what are the long term effects of this war?

www.fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RS22537.pdf


As long as Iran, Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Saudi, and Code Pink (Weird how an anti-war liberal group is supplying weapons) stop suppling the Palatines with their mortars, rockets, and other types of weapons.

Code Pink? A women's anti-war movement? You have so far mentioned Code Pink at least once in almost every post for the past week. It seems the only thing that scares you more than racial minorities is women.


So you actually advocate the slaying of the mom, dad, 3 month old, 5 and 6 year olds while they were sleeping? Gotcha, you can be a baby killer only if you are the weaker force. If you think conservatives motto is "Might makes right", then I guess liberals get "Chicken shit 'pansy' baby killers". (I am not good at rhyming, but can call them like I see them)

I don't advocate anything in this conflict. I just see two very petty minded tribes squabbling over a piece of land. The only difference is we give one of the tribes modern weapons and vehicles, allowing them to slaughter the other tribe.

Though in a sense you are right. I really wouldn't give a shit if Israel got overran tomorrow. Honestly can't say I'd lose too much sleep over the Israelis setting up Concentration Camps either. Palestinians are kind of annoying, to be blunt. So much dumb shit occurs around the world one really can't get too upset about any one thing.

Banned
04-21-2011, 04:14 AM
Since you're so upset about the Palestinians using terrorism, how about we give them some aircraft, tanks, AT-4s, and nukes? Then let's have them and Israel duke it out on fair terms. Whoever is still alive at the end gets the land.


Really? There is a "Palestinian State" that owns land? What is their flag? Are they recognized at the UN? Ok, so they have a flag and founded in 1988. Funny thing is, they are saying the land of Israel is Palestine? Wow, guess anyone can make flag and claim territory as their own now huh?

I see. So Hitler was perfectly justified in taking away the Jews property and later murdering them in the Holocaust, since they didn't own land or have a flag back then either. Gotta love your logic.

(And no, I'm not "condoning" the holocaust. Don't go and have a stroke on me)

Didn't your hero Reagan call the Contras terrorists "freedom fighters"? Mass murder and terrorism is only bad if its someone we don't like doing it. If its our buddies the Israelis, the Saudis, or right wing militias in Latin America, we're perfectly okay with it.

Banned
04-21-2011, 04:30 AM
I can take that opinion. This area of the world has been fought over since the Neolithic era and will keep on being fought over for centuries to come. Although I really don't see Israeli extreemist sneaking into a private home and killing 5 or 8 people in a family, then have a celebration for their murdering rampage

First off... what the hell is an "extreemist"?


Secondly, the Israelis don't need to sneak into a home to kill a family. That's what 155mm artillery is for, silly.

imported_WILDJOKER5
04-21-2011, 11:26 AM
Code Pink? A women's anti-war movement? You have so far mentioned Code Pink at least once in almost every post for the past week. It seems the only thing that scares you more than racial minorities is women.
Do you ignore events like the Flotilla that was bringing weapons to the west bank? The one that was sponsored by code pink? Why do you not debate the facts and try to divert it into me being a bigot? Is your understanding of current events so sketchy that you have to throw out a red herring?

imported_WILDJOKER5
04-21-2011, 11:36 AM
Since you're so upset about the Palestinians using terrorism, how about we give them some aircraft, tanks, AT-4s, and nukes? Then let's have them and Israel duke it out on fair terms. Whoever is still alive at the end gets the land.
Equal opportunity again? Are you giving the people you are fighting the same weapon you have to make sure it is a fair fight? If you got in a fight with someone who happened to be a foot shorter than you, do you tie a hand behind you back to make it a fair fight, even though they started it?



I see. So Hitler was perfectly justified in taking away the Jews property and later murdering them in the Holocaust, since they didn't own land or have a flag back then either. Gotta love your logic.

(And no, I'm not "condoning" the holocaust. Don't go and have a stroke on me)Were the Jews out and about causing problems, killing "inocent" German families? Where they bombing bus stopps, launching rockets randomly into major cities?

I guess you can argue who shot first, whether it was Israel for moving into the location in 1948, or the other countries for starting a war with Israel because they are Jews? Or the Jews for taking land after they won the war so they can have a better strategic advantage. Or the Palistines that keep randomly killing civilians to get their way.


Didn't your hero Reagan call the Contras terrorists "freedom fighters"? Mass murder and terrorism is only bad if its someone we don't like doing it. If its our buddies the Israelis, the Saudis, or right wing militias in Latin America, we're perfectly okay with it.I don't think I ever claimed Reagan as a hero of mine.

imported_WILDJOKER5
04-21-2011, 11:39 AM
Secondly, the Israelis don't need to sneak into a home to kill a family. That's what 155mm artillery is for, silly.

Sure, Israel is just going around indiscriminately firing their Tanks at the homes of Palestinians

Banned
04-22-2011, 12:49 AM
Do you ignore events like the Flotilla that was bringing weapons to the west bank? The one that was sponsored by code pink? Why do you not debate the facts and try to divert it into me being a bigot? Is your understanding of current events so sketchy that you have to throw out a red herring?

Sure, if you want to banter conspiracy theories, why not? Did they kill Kennedy and stage 9/11 too?


Sure, Israel is just going around indiscriminately firing their Tanks at the homes of Palestinians

Ahem. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1083525.ece)

Banned
04-22-2011, 01:32 AM
Equal opportunity again? Are you giving the people you are fighting the same weapon you have to make sure it is a fair fight? If you got in a fight with someone who happened to be a foot shorter than you, do you tie a hand behind you back to make it a fair fight, even though they started it?

Well why not? I'd be very interested to see if the IDF acts so tough and mighty when they're facing an equal opponent. They didn't exactly shine when they had to go up against Iranian trained and armed Hezbollah fighters.


Were the Jews out and about causing problems, killing "inocent" German families? Where they bombing bus stopps, launching rockets randomly into major cities?

No. As a matter in fact 99.9% of them chose not to resist and were killed. Seems to me its a lot smarter to put up a fight. Better to go to the gas chamber knowing you got to kill your enemy's family first. At least in my opinion.

The point? Revenge is a powerful motivation. That's why a conflict like this won't end unless someone steps up and puts petty vendettas and greed aside. If instead of continuing to kill and alienate the Pali refugees they took a lighter, humanitarian approach, the extremists would lose their public support and the violence would drop to a minimum. "Here, have a state, there's your borders, I'll help you build housing, send engineers to help build a sewage treatment plant and a power grid, send teachers to run professional schools so you can train your own workforce".

Terrorists recruit refugees, people with nothing to lose. Give people jobs, nice homes for their families, and most importantly a FUTURE, the extremist voice won't be able to gain a foothold.


I guess you can argue who shot first, whether it was Israel for moving into the location in 1948, or the other countries for starting a war with Israel because they are Jews? Or the Jews for taking land after they won the war so they can have a better strategic advantage. Or the Palistines that keep randomly killing civilians to get their way.

It's funny how when a Western military kills civilians, its "collateral damage". When a non-state entity kills civilians, its "terrorism".

This really is a war of words.


I don't think I ever claimed Reagan as a hero of mine.

But you see the point I'm making, I hope.

imported_WILDJOKER5
04-22-2011, 11:17 AM
Sure, if you want to banter conspiracy theories, why not? Did they kill Kennedy and stage 9/11 too?
What part don't you believe? The part where Code Pink stated they were involved? Or the part that they found weapons on the boat?



Ahem. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article1083525.ece)Sad, and Isreal says

The Israeli military immediately expressed regret for the civilian deaths and ordered a halt to all artillery, naval and other shellfire into the sealed-off Strip. While Palistines celebrate the deaths of Jewish children as young as 3 months old by handing our candy and brining more smiles to other Palistinians. Seems even, Apologies from one side for an accident, celebration from the other side for blantant murders. Israelis are such evil people.

imported_WILDJOKER5
04-22-2011, 11:27 AM
Well why not? I'd be very interested to see if the IDF acts so tough and mighty when they're facing an equal opponent. They didn't exactly shine when they had to go up against Iranian trained and armed Hezbollah fighters.
Are you giving up your weapons to make it more of a fair fight with the Taliban? There is no fairness in war, your only goal is to make your enemies give up or die. Israel is trying to minimize civilian deaths, Palistines look for civilians to kill.



No. As a matter in fact 99.9% of them chose not to resist and were killed. Seems to me its a lot smarter to put up a fight. Better to go to the gas chamber knowing you got to kill your enemy's family first. At least in my opinion.

The point? Revenge is a powerful motivation. That's why a conflict like this won't end unless someone steps up and puts petty vendettas and greed aside. If instead of continuing to kill and alienate the Pali refugees they took a lighter, humanitarian approach, the extremists would lose their public support and the violence would drop to a minimum. "Here, have a state, there's your borders, I'll help you build housing, send engineers to help build a sewage treatment plant and a power grid, send teachers to run professional schools so you can train your own workforce".

Terrorists recruit refugees, people with nothing to lose. Give people jobs, nice homes for their families, and most importantly a FUTURE, the extremist voice won't be able to gain a foothold.Because it DOESN'T work. Obama went on the apology tour, and even went to Egypt. Guess who was screaming they hate America during their revolution? I really don't think pulling out of the middle east will keep them quiet for long, that is why we need to keep a few spy divisions over there to keep an eye on what they are planning.



It's funny how when a Western military kills civilians, its "collateral damage". When a non-state entity kills civilians, its "terrorism".

This really is a war of words.Because we don't TARGET the civilians and create technology to try to avoid civilian deaths? Our military bases are sealed off from civilians, so they go into easy target neighborhoods to kill anyone they can no matter if they are military or not so they can cause TERROR. That is the difference.

Banned
04-23-2011, 12:54 AM
I read in yesterday's issue of STARS AND STRIPES that 25 Israeli academics and artists, including 16 holders of the Israel Prize (the nation's highest civilian honor) signed a statement endorsing the creation of a Palestinian State.

I guess Israel has "bleeding heart liberals" who actually give a damn about human life too.


What part don't you believe? The part where Code Pink stated they were involved? Or the part that they found weapons on the boat?

The part where you provide no credible source.

And the part where I tried to find a credible source myself, and didn't find one.


Sad, and Isreal says

Oh yes. Because profuse apologies after the fact make everything okay.


While Palistines celebrate the deaths of Jewish children as young as 3 months old by handing our candy and brining more smiles to other Palistinians. Seems even, Apologies from one side for an accident, celebration from the other side for blantant murders. Israelis are such evil people.

The Israelis apologized to save their PR image. To not apologize would have meant political consequences.

The Palestinians cheer because they are genuinely happy to inflict payback.

The Palestinians aren't innocent little angels by any means - but they are the weaker party being bullied by a stronger party.

I personally don't feel any sympathy for the Israeli settlers - if they think the West Bank is worth dying over, then by all means they are welcome to continue dying over it.

Banned
04-23-2011, 01:26 AM
Are you giving up your weapons to make it more of a fair fight with the Taliban? There is no fairness in war, your only goal is to make your enemies give up or die.

What are you talking about? We have no dog in that fight. Give weapons to both sides. A one sided fight isn't any fun. And I wouldn't mind seeing a REAL war. "Mr. Tank, meet Mr. Javelin anti-armor weapon".

We should make it a gameshow. Last man standing gets the land and a ten billion dollar cash prize. Every week air an episode of Israeli armor and airplanes fighting guerrillas with IEDs and Stinger missiles. Sounds like good old fashioned fun to me.


Israel is trying to minimize civilian deaths, Palistines look for civilians to kill.

If the Israelis gave a shit about civilian casualties they wouldn't use area fire weapons.

Even the United States in Afghanistan/Iraq shows more restraint than Israel.


Because it DOESN'T work. Obama went on the apology tour, and even went to Egypt. Guess who was screaming they hate America during their revolution? I really don't think pulling out of the middle east will keep them quiet for long,

Do some homework.

Read up on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

Read up on the American invasion of Afghanistan.

Now compare the casualties.


that is why we need to keep a few spy divisions over there to keep an eye on what they are planning.

Are these the same "spy divisions" that said Bay of Pigs would work, Vietnam would be easy, the Taliban would collapse in Afghanistan, Saddam had WMDs, and the Libyan insurgency could be supported entirely with an air war?


Because we don't TARGET the civilians and create technology to try to avoid civilian deaths? Our military bases are sealed off from civilians, so they go into easy target neighborhoods to kill anyone they can no matter if they are military or not so they can cause TERROR. That is the difference.

Blowing up a bus filled with your enemy's wives and children is easier than trying to fight him in his tank, with his artillery and attack helicopters and missiles.

Don't believe me? Pick up and M-16 and get into a shootout with an M1 Abrams. Try it sometime - see who wins.

Variable Wind
04-25-2011, 12:35 PM
What are you talking about? We have no dog in that fight. Give weapons to both sides. A one sided fight isn't any fun. And I wouldn't mind seeing a REAL war. "Mr. Tank, meet Mr. Javelin anti-armor weapon".
We should make it a gameshow. Last man standing gets the land and a ten billion dollar cash prize. Every week air an episode of Israeli armor and airplanes fighting guerrillas with IEDs and Stinger missiles. Sounds like good old fashioned fun to me.
We have promised to help Isreal, they are an ally...their enemies coincidentally are also our enemies.


If the Israelis gave a shit about civilian casualties they wouldn't use area fire weapons.
Even the United States in Afghanistan/Iraq shows more restraint than Israel.
The enemy hides behind their civilians.


Do some homework.
Read up on the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Read up on the American invasion of Afghanistan.
Now compare the casualties.
Not exactly the same. Our fighting force was/is more motivated. And they are still using the same weapons they used 30 years ago. We have learned -somewhat- from the mistakes that the soviets made. We only just started fighting in Afghanistan near the involvement that the soviets did.


Blowing up a bus filled with your enemy's wives and children is easier than trying to fight him in his tank, with his artillery and attack helicopters and missiles.
And you think its bad that Isrealis use area-fire weapons? At least they are going after the enemy and the people who willingly use themselves as shields. Shooting women and children just minding their own business is decidedly worse.


Don't believe me? Pick up and M-16 and get into a shootout with an M1 Abrams. Try it sometime - see who wins.
The tank wins. That means the Isrealis win. Time for the Palestinians to accept that.

imported_WILDJOKER5
04-25-2011, 01:29 PM
The part where you provide no credible source.

And the part where I tried to find a credible source myself, and didn't find one.Sorry, the part that they found weapons on board was wrong. They were just attacked after telling the boats not to go any farther. But deciding not to listen, the boats went on anyways. When boarded, they Israeli forces were attacked FIRST, so they defended themselves. And yes, the video of the event confirms the soldiers were attacked first.

The reason why Israel had suspisions is because under the guise of "aid" there are weapons being smuggled in. Not much coverage of when the Israelis find the weapons, just when they defend themsleves checking for weapons.

Here is my example. (http://www.bigdawgmusicmafia.com/profiles/blog/show?id=3460570%3ABlogPost%3A27606&commentId=3460570%3AComment%3A27984&xg_source=activity) And yes, I see what this site is, but I can't get to the AOLnews site. But I sure couldn't see this story being covered anywhere else either.

And also in 2009 it happened too. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aGpKirues6c8) Israel has a justification to be nervous about the ships passing through its waters, do you think the terrorist just keep spawning these weapons out their arses?


The Israelis apologized to save their PR image. To not apologize would have meant political consequences.

The Palestinians cheer because they are genuinely happy to inflict payback.

The Palestinians aren't innocent little angels by any means - but they are the weaker party being bullied by a stronger party.

I personally don't feel any sympathy for the Israeli settlers - if they think the West Bank is worth dying over, then by all means they are welcome to continue dying over it.And the 3 month old Israeli infants are weaker than the Palistinian terrorists. I feel no sympathy for the Palistinians using human shields and thinking they need to die over it, then fine, let them.

Your logic is totally screwed up. In your mind, it is ok for the Palistinians to exact revenge against the Israeli army by killing civilians, but it is not ok for Israel to defend their citizens by going after those terrorist, even when the terrorist use human shields. How does this make any sense to you cause this is how you are arguing for Palistine, against Israel.

Banned
04-26-2011, 12:52 AM
Sorry, the part that they found weapons on board was wrong. They were just attacked after telling the boats not to go any farther. But deciding not to listen, the boats went on anyways. When boarded, they Israeli forces were attacked FIRST, so they defended themselves. And yes, the video of the event confirms the soldiers were attacked first.

The reason why Israel had suspisions is because under the guise of "aid" there are weapons being smuggled in. Not much coverage of when the Israelis find the weapons, just when they defend themsleves checking for weapons.

Here is my example. (http://www.bigdawgmusicmafia.com/profiles/blog/show?id=3460570%3ABlogPost%3A27606&commentId=3460570%3AComment%3A27984&xg_source=activity) And yes, I see what this site is, but I can't get to the AOLnews site. But I sure couldn't see this story being covered anywhere else either.

And also in 2009 it happened too. (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aGpKirues6c8) Israel has a justification to be nervous about the ships passing through its waters, do you think the terrorist just keep spawning these weapons out their arses?

You claimed Code Pink was smuggling weapons, which turned out to be absolute bullshit. Just the idea of a bunch of middle aged white women arms dealing RPGs and AK-47s should sound stupid to anyone who's not a complete retard.


And the 3 month old Israeli infants are weaker than the Palistinian terrorists. I feel no sympathy for the Palistinians using human shields and thinking they need to die over it, then fine, let them.

Fine by me. They can both die for all I really care.

The only difference between the Palestinian terrorists and the Israeli "soldiers" are the uniforms.


Your logic is totally screwed up. In your mind, it is ok for the Palistinians to exact revenge against the Israeli army by killing civilians, but it is not ok for Israel to defend their citizens by going after those terrorist, even when the terrorist use human shields. How does this make any sense to you cause this is how you are arguing for Palistine, against Israel.

A man, Jewish or not, sticks his hand into a hornets nest - he shouldn't cry when he gets stung.

Banned
04-26-2011, 01:02 AM
We have promised to help Isreal, they are an ally...their enemies coincidentally are also our enemies.

One of the things that Ron Paul says that I agree with - why are we subsidizing the existence of an entire nation? Especially one that has been caught repeatedly sending spies into our government? Or galvanizes an entire religion of 1.2 billion people against us?

Okay, so we're Israel's "ally". What exactly does Israel give in return? Other than a good way to suck up our money and weapons?


The enemy hides behind their civilians.

I'm curious, how exactly are the Palestinians "our enemies"? Were the Palestinians behind 9/11? Have they launched amphibious invasions against us? How much American territory have the Palestinians conquered? Or are we just saying that because they're Muslims, and we are at war with all Muslims?


Not exactly the same. Our fighting force was/is more motivated. And they are still using the same weapons they used 30 years ago. We have learned -somewhat- from the mistakes that the soviets made. We only just started fighting in Afghanistan near the involvement that the soviets did.

That is exactly what I'm getting at here. As much as I think COIN is stupid, it still works better than napalming villages and getting the entire population pissed off at you. The big reason our casualties are so low is because 99% of the population either likes us (and by us I mean our money), or doesn't care either way.

This time the Taliban have a far smaller number of soldiers than they did against the Soviets. The vast majority of the casualties are inflicted by IEDs, which is a type of warfare that doesn't require very many soldiers to do.



And you think its bad that Isrealis use area-fire weapons? At least they are going after the enemy and the people who willingly use themselves as shields. Shooting women and children just minding their own business is decidedly worse.

Bingo. That is actually a very good point which I wasn't even going to bring up until you mentioned it. So we see an entire population that hates Israel so much they will quite willingly give up their lives in a futile war they can't win? You don't that kind of enemies by passing out MREs to children. You make enemies like that by oppressing, killing, and stealing from them for generations.


The tank wins. That means the Isrealis win. Time for the Palestinians to accept that.

So by that logic, America should still be a British colony?

Variable Wind
04-26-2011, 01:20 AM
One of the things that Ron Paul says that I agree with - why are we subsidizing the existence of an entire nation? Especially one that has been caught repeatedly sending spies into our government? Or galvanizes an entire religion of 1.2 billion people against us?
Okay, so we're Israel's "ally". What exactly does Israel give in return? Other than a good way to suck up our money and weapons?
Yeah because its the Jews fault that we gave them a place to live after the Halocaust. Its their fault that they have protected their own interests. In case you didnt know, we send spies into their government too. The only reason why Isreal is so hated is because they are so successful in protecting themselves. The fact that they are hated by all of the crazy fanatics around them doesnt really say anything bad about the Isrealis.



I'm curious, how exactly are the Palestinians "our enemies"? Were the Palestinians behind 9/11? Have they launched amphibious invasions against us? How much American territory have the Palestinians conquered? Or are we just saying that because they're Muslims, and we are at war with all Muslims?
We arent at war with all muslims, just the ignorant missionary-by-martyrdom types who hate me because I think our mutual God might be a tad different from their viewpoint.


That is exactly what I'm getting at here. As much as I think COIN is stupid, it still works better than napalming villages and getting the entire population pissed off at you. The big reason our casualties are so low is because 99% of the population either likes us (and by us I mean our money), or doesn't care either way.
This time the Taliban have a far smaller number of soldiers than they did against the Soviets. The vast majority of the casualties are inflicted by IEDs, which is a type of warfare that doesn't require very many soldiers to do.
I would be happy if we just fenced off Afghanistan and left it as a reservation for savages who want to live in the 9th century.


Bingo. That is actually a very good point which I wasn't even going to bring up until you mentioned it. So we see an entire population that hates Israel so much they will quite willingly give up their lives in a futile war they can't win? You don't that kind of enemies by passing out MREs to children. You make enemies like that by oppressing, killing, and stealing from them for generations.
You also get those kind of enemies when they have been brainwashed by surrounding nations (that hate jews) and an underlying resentment that they lost their land because they helped the Nazis. They arent the first people in the world to suffer consequences, the Jews historically have been taught that lesson countless times.



So by that logic, America should still be a British colony?
As I recall, we won our independence with Military might and stategy, not terrorism. Guerrilla tactics? Sure. But that is not terrorism. That and the brits were spread thin. We did not call for the death of all British subjects either.

Banned
04-26-2011, 03:55 AM
Yeah because its the Jews fault that we gave them a place to live after the Halocaust. Its their fault that they have protected their own interests.

Why do they think they need more?


In case you didnt know, we send spies into their government too.

I'm willing to bet money we don't have an effective intelligence gathering op in Israel. The CIA is too inept and the Massad (splling?) is too good.


The only reason why Isreal is so hated is because they are so successful in protecting themselves. The fact that they are hated by all of the crazy fanatics around them doesnt really say anything bad about the Isrealis.

If that's true, then why did the Palestinian Authorties offer Israel a huge chunk of land in return for being left alone - and why did Israel turn it down?


We arent at war with all muslims, just the ignorant missionary-by-martyrdom types who hate me because I think our mutual God might be a tad different from their viewpoint.

The death tolls seem a little lop-sided for me to believe that.


I would be happy if we just fenced off Afghanistan and left it as a reservation for savages who want to live in the 9th century.

This isn't exactly the nicest place to live in the world. Your priorities change when you're living in a tent with goats and your life expectancy is 40.


You also get those kind of enemies when they have been brainwashed by surrounding nations (that hate jews) and an underlying resentment that they lost their land because they helped the Nazis. They arent the first people in the world to suffer consequences, the Jews historically have been taught that lesson countless times.

And by the looks of things, sooner or later they're going to be taught that lesson yet again.


As I recall, we won our independence with Military might and stategy, not terrorism. Guerrilla tactics? Sure. But that is not terrorism. That and the brits were spread thin. We did not call for the death of all British subjects either.

If recall my history class correctly, it wasn't all hugs and kisses for the loyalists.\

But that wasn't what I was getting at. Just because your enemy is stealing your land, has tanks and aircraft, and a lot more money than you - doesn't mean you should just give up. Now granted, it doesn't mean its okay for you to do bad things back to them.

But morality is practiced when it is convenient to practice. If we took away the IDF's tanks and F-35s, and gave both sides nothing but sticks and stones to fight with - they would both fight the same way. You wouldn't know the difference between the two.

Variable Wind
04-26-2011, 03:17 PM
Why do they think they need more?
Look at a map of the middle east. Tell me who has more.


I'm willing to bet money we don't have an effective intelligence gathering op in Israel. The CIA is too inept and the Massad (splling?) is too good.
Oh, so because they are better at their job than we are, its bad? Its okay that we do it because we arent that effective.
This point is moot. We do it, they do it. We do it to the Brits and the French too btw and they do it to us. We do it to the Japanese and koreans and they do it to us.


If that's true, then why did the Palestinian Authorties offer Israel a huge chunk of land in return for being left alone - and why did Israel turn it down?
Because its not the PAs land to offer. Thats like if I won a lawsuit against you for $500.00 and you then took my checkbook and wrote me a check for 250.00 and offered it to me to leave you alone. Unfortunately, since NONE of their "sympathetic" neighbors want anything to do with the Palestinians, they have nothing to offer anyone other than mercenary-like services and political patsying. Funny thats exactly what they do.


The death tolls seem a little lop-sided for me to believe that.
Then dont believe it. It doesnt make it any less true. If the sides were reversed, there wouldnt be any Christians, or Jews or Bhuddists or Wiccans or Atheists. We would all be either dead or living under a worldwide theocratic rule that circumcises women and okays the use of goats as sexual playthings.


This isn't exactly the nicest place to live in the world. Your priorities change when you're living in a tent with goats and your life expectancy is 40.
The taliban and fundamentalist islam is what makes it that way for the most part. Its not an area that would really thrive, but at least offer a decent quality of life. They have lived this way for millenia and have no desire to change. Not for us, not for the Russians, not for the Brits, not for themselves.


And by the looks of things, sooner or later they're going to be taught that lesson yet again.
Because the world is unwilling to teach that lesson to the other guys in the region.


If recall my history class correctly, it wasn't all hugs and kisses for the loyalists.
But that wasn't what I was getting at. Just because your enemy is stealing your land, has tanks and aircraft, and a lot more money than you - doesn't mean you should just give up. Now granted, it doesn't mean its okay for you to do bad things back to them.
Thank you, in that last post you seemed to be justifying it. And here is something for clarifications sake. WE (victorius allied nations) took Palestine from the palestinians. The Jews did not. The Jews were a displaced and culturally raped people who had seen horrors that not even the greatest fabricated isreali committed atrocity would begine to touch. In part as appology for our negligence and as punishment to Palestine for their involvement in the Axis powers, they were moved. The Germans paid reparations, so did the Japanese and the Italians...HEAVY reparations. The south paid reparations in the Civil War, and just like any other war the victor gets the spoils.


But morality is practiced when it is convenient to practice. If we took away the IDF's tanks and F-35s, and gave both sides nothing but sticks and stones to fight with - they would both fight the same way. You wouldn't know the difference between the two.
Oh yeah? Look at the IDFs history. They have fought on equal technological footing outnumbered against multiple nations at the same time. Not only did they win, but often they win decisively in Old Testament-style ass whippings.

Banned
04-27-2011, 01:19 AM
Look at a map of the middle east. Tell me who has more.

Right now the Israelis have all of it.


Oh, so because they are better at their job than we are, its bad? Its okay that we do it because we arent that effective.
This point is moot. We do it, they do it. We do it to the Brits and the French too btw and they do it to us. We do it to the Japanese and koreans and they do it to us.

It's just a bit ironic to see the world's "last superpower" bending over backwards to please a tribe - a tribe that the rest of the civilized world is condemning for human rights violations.


Because its not the PAs land to offer. Thats like if I won a lawsuit against you for $500.00 and you then took my checkbook and wrote me a check for 250.00 and offered it to me to leave you alone. Unfortunately, since NONE of their "sympathetic" neighbors want anything to do with the Palestinians, they have nothing to offer anyone other than mercenary-like services and political patsying. Funny thats exactly what they do.

Then you leave the Palestinians no other choice but war.


Then dont believe it. It doesnt make it any less true. If the sides were reversed, there wouldnt be any Christians, or Jews or Bhuddists or Wiccans or Atheists. We would all be either dead or living under a worldwide theocratic rule that circumcises women and okays the use of goats as sexual playthings.

Right, because Christians, Atheists, and Jews have never murdered or persecuted people they don't like.


The taliban and fundamentalist islam is what makes it that way for the most part. Its not an area that would really thrive, but at least offer a decent quality of life. They have lived this way for millenia and have no desire to change. Not for us, not for the Russians, not for the Brits, not for themselves.

The civil war that we started by funding and arming the mujadeen) which culminated in the Russian invasion, destroyed the country's infrastructure. Indirectly, 9/11 was our own fault. We ourselves created the instability which resulted in the rise of the Taliban.


Because the world is unwilling to teach that lesson to the other guys in the region.

The rest of the world is disgusted by what the Israelis are doing. It's no better than the way the Syrians are behaving. The difference is, we don't give Syria money and arms.


Thank you, in that last post you seemed to be justifying it. And here is something for clarifications sake. WE (victorius allied nations) took Palestine from the palestinians. The Jews did not. The Jews were a displaced and culturally raped people who had seen horrors that not even the greatest fabricated isreali committed atrocity would begine to touch. In part as appology for our negligence and as punishment to Palestine for their involvement in the Axis powers, they were moved. The Germans paid reparations, so did the Japanese and the Italians...HEAVY reparations. The south paid reparations in the Civil War, and just like any other war the victor gets the spoils.

So basically, we should punish people who had absolutely nothing to do with WWII, who weren't even born yet.

That is the reasoning of a fanatic.


Oh yeah? Look at the IDFs history. They have fought on equal technological footing outnumbered against multiple nations at the same time. Not only did they win, but often they win decisively in Old Testament-style ass whippings.

Oh yes, because the IDF would be so bad-ass without modern fighter bombers, rotary wing, tanks, and fire support.

Their latest invasion of Lebanon - remind me how that turned out again?

Variable Wind
04-27-2011, 01:42 AM
Right now the Israelis have all of it.
Methinks you should consult a map. Isreal is tiny. Syria, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Egypt, and SAUDI ARABIA are all huge. Thats not even including the other smaller nations like UAE, Dubai ect that also hate them.


It's just a bit ironic to see the world's "last superpower" bending over backwards to please a tribe - a tribe that the rest of the civilized world is condemning for human rights violations.
Are you talking about the civilized world that also ignores the human rights violations committed by China that make anything the Isrealis do look like pampering? Sorry, the "rest of the civilized world" also talks down to us when we provide more freedom than 99% of the rest of the world.

The rest of the world sounds a bit hypocritical and ignorant.


Then you leave the Palestinians no other choice but war.
And that forces the Isrealis hand. They have to defend their own interests.


Right, because Christians, Atheists, and Jews have never murdered or persecuted people they don't like.
The last time any religion other than Islam had a goal of worldwide domination of their theology was the inquisition...maybe even the crusades. It was wrong then, and it remains wrong now. I am not going to stand by and allow them to act this way simply because my faith acted that way millenia ago. You study the past to understand the present and predict the future, you cannot live in it.


The civil war that we started by funding and arming the mujadeen) which culminated in the Russian invasion, destroyed the country's infrastructure. Indirectly, 9/11 was our own fault. We ourselves created the instability which resulted in the rise of the Taliban.
The current chapter of the Taliban, their roots go all the way back before british occupation.


The rest of the world is disgusted by what the Israelis are doing. It's no better than the way the Syrians are behaving. The difference is, we don't give Syria money and arms.
Again, the rest of the world isnt fit to lick my toes. When the Chinese stop killing infants, they can say something. When the russians start feeding their people, they can have room to talk. Most of the EU has become so scared of islam that they allow female circumcision so that pretty much knocks them out too.


So basically, we should punish people who had absolutely nothing to do with WWII, who weren't even born yet.
That is the reasoning of a fanatic.
No, their forefathers punished them by not moving on. They punish their kids by not moving on. They got booted for choosing the side of a madman. Again, what SHOULD Isreal do? Lay down and let the Palestinians have their way? I promise you there wont be a palestine for more than 6 months before it belongs to another Arab nation.


Oh yes, because the IDF would be so bad-ass without modern fighter bombers, rotary wing, tanks, and fire support.
Their latest invasion of Lebanon - remind me how that turned out again?
Again, they have won decicively when faced with their technological equals. They are better trained and better motivated. Why do you think the IDF is so good? The same reason Mossad is so good.


Look, I admit that Isreal isnt the fairest or the most free place to live. They are far from perfect...but they havent been around for even a century. Look at how much growing our nation had to do. Added to that, they are also nowhere near the monsters you or the "rest of the civilized world" make them out to be.

imported_WILDJOKER5
04-27-2011, 01:47 AM
Right now the Israelis have all of it.I can't believe you are this stupid. But then again, you seem to be committed to the liberal mindset. Israel has all of THEIR OWN LAND, and who has all the land around them? VW asked who has more land in the MIDDLE EAST? DA.



It's just a bit ironic to see the world's "last superpower" bending over backwards to please a tribe - a tribe that the rest of the civilized world is condemning for human rights violations.The rest of the world? Show the list of those that condemn Israel for defending itself. These must also be the same people that condemn the way the US treats our own prisoners, not just the ones at gitmo.


Then you leave the Palestinians no other choice but war.Syria AND Egypt took land from the Palestinians. Are they being attacked? Palestinians have caused their own suffering by attacking civilians (which you condone cause they can't destroy a tank), so they deserve to have everyone that is around to be killed when Israel retaliates against the forces, even though they are hiding behind civilians.


Right, because Christians, Atheists, and Jews have never murdered or persecuted people they don't like.Has any of them STARTED out by being a "conform or die" religion? That is a no before you get the question wrong or start to twist words around.


The civil war that we started by funding and arming the mujadeen) which culminated in the Russian invasion, destroyed the country's infrastructure. Indirectly, 9/11 was our own fault. We ourselves created the instability which resulted in the rise of the Taliban.You blame the rape victim too don't you? "She wouldn't have been raped if she hadn't slept around and wore skimpy outfits."


The rest of the world is disgusted by what the Israelis are doing. It's no better than the way the Syrians are behaving. The difference is, we don't give Syria money and arms.
Ah, no they are not. Syria is shooting into unarmed civilian protesters not making violence. Israelis are defending their citizens from terrorist attacks. NOT THE SAME.



So basically, we should punish people who had absolutely nothing to do with WWII, who weren't even born yet.

That is the reasoning of a fanatic.You have the understanding of a 2 y/o. Israel got their land in ~1945 following WWII from people that helped Germany. Do you still get it? Palestinians allied with Hitler to kill jews. So, the world decided for their crimes, Palestine would give up some land. In ~1949, the middle eastern Muslim countries attacked Israel and Israel defended themselves. When finished defending itself from aggressors, they took more land, and you can't tell me they would have been fine if the Muslim side won.




Oh yes, because the IDF would be so bad-ass without modern fighter bombers, rotary wing, tanks, and fire support.
You keep calling out for equal footing in war, but I still doubt you want the commander of your base to relinquish the perimeters weapons and start using rocks to defend where you are deployed to. Simple really, Liberals want everything that doesn't bring them down, to be equal for everyone else.

Banned
04-27-2011, 03:30 AM
Methinks you should consult a map. Isreal is tiny. Syria, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Egypt, and SAUDI ARABIA are all huge. Thats not even including the other smaller nations like UAE, Dubai ect that also hate them.

Funny, I didn't know the Palistinians owned all those countries. Last I checked, Israel had forced them all into refugee camps are wiping them clean with bulldozers periodically, just the cherry on top.


Are you talking about the civilized world that also ignores the human rights violations committed by China that make anything the Isrealis do look like pampering? Sorry, the "rest of the civilized world" also talks down to us when we provide more freedom than 99% of the rest of the world.

Well then, explain to me why the US vetoed the UN resolution against Israel.


The rest of the world sounds a bit hypocritical and ignorant.

Israel is a bit hypocritical and stupid, considering there was another country behaving in a similar fashion about 70 years ago. What was that country called again? You know - the one with the guy with the funny mustache?


And that forces the Isrealis hand. They have to defend their own interests.

Yeah. That "forces Israel's hand" alright. God forbid they just let their neighbors have some dirt to live on and stop stealing it.


The last time any religion other than Islam had a goal of worldwide domination of their theology was the inquisition...

I'm willing to bet Christians have killed a lot more people in the 20th century alone than Islam. Now granted, Christians have better technology and weapons - but guns don't kill people...



maybe even the crusades. It was wrong then, and it remains wrong now. I am not going to stand by and allow them to act this way simply because my faith acted that way millenia ago. You study the past to understand the present and predict the future, you cannot live in it.

Yes. Once again, God forbid we just stay within our own borders and stop trying to bring Walmart-Christianity to the heathens.


The current chapter of the Taliban, their roots go all the way back before british occupation.

The Pashtu tribe does, the political entity that is the Taliban today, appeared after the Soviet withdrawal.


Again, the rest of the world isnt fit to lick my toes. When the Chinese stop killing infants, they can say something. When the russians start feeding their people, they can have room to talk.

Why is it we impose sanctions on Iran and then later Iraq for killing people, but not Israel? Or Syria or Egypt for that matter. The hypocrisy in our policy in the Middle East is blinding.


Most of the EU has become so scared of islam that they allow female circumcision so that pretty much knocks them out too.

Muslims are persecuted pretty badly in Europe too, arguably worse than in the United States.


No, their forefathers punished them by not moving on. They punish their kids by not moving on. They got booted for choosing the side of a madman.

Interrogative - where exactly are they going to "move on"?


Again, what SHOULD Isreal do? Lay down and let the Palestinians have their way?

Believe it or not, but the world isn't going to think America/Israel is "weak" by showing kindness to refugees.


I promise you there wont be a palestine for more than 6 months before it belongs to another Arab nation.

Maybe. But at least it wouldn't be Israel's problem anymore, would it? And I honestly don't think the Arab nations are exactly in a rush to take charge of the Palestinian debacle. The Palestinians are like the red-headed step child that no one wants.


Again, they have won decicively when faced with their technological equals.

Funny, seemed more like a stalemate actually. Which is a bit alarming when your side has tanks and Close Air Support, and the other side has AKs and mortars.


They are better trained and better motivated. Why do you think the IDF is so good? The same reason Mossad is so good.

They're good because they have modern training standards and weapons. And in my own opinion, a man willing to launch a suicide attack is pretty motivated as well.


Look, I admit that Isreal isnt the fairest or the most free place to live. They are far from perfect...but they havent been around for even a century. Look at how much growing our nation had to do. Added to that, they are also nowhere near the monsters you or the "rest of the civilized world" make them out to be.

I don't believe we should support secular dictators who suppress democracy. And I don't believe we should support Israel either. If they want to wage a war of aggression, they should do it with their own money.

Banned
04-27-2011, 04:14 AM
I can't believe you are this stupid. But then again, you seem to be committed to the liberal mindset. Israel has all of THEIR OWN LAND, and who has all the land around them? VW asked who has more land in the MIDDLE EAST? DA.

According to your own post, the Palestinians don't own ANY land. So by definition, Israel owns more.


The rest of the world? Show the list of those that condemn Israel for defending itself.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/UN/usvetoes.html


These must also be the same people that condemn the way the US treats our own prisoners, not just the ones at gitmo.

The size of our prison population is a disgrace, but that's a topic for another discussion.


Syria AND Egypt took land from the Palestinians. Are they being attacked?

Are Syria and Egypt trying to build a wall across Palestinian land? And nobody fucks with the Syrians, they make the IDF look like Boy Scouts. They'll bomb their own cities to dust if they try to rebel.


Palestinians have caused their own suffering by attacking civilians (which you condone cause they can't destroy a tank), so they deserve to have everyone that is around to be killed when Israel retaliates against the forces, even though they are hiding behind civilians.

Well then. Please suggest a good way to destroy a tank with an AK, and I'll inform them immediately. :p


Has any of them STARTED out by being a "conform or die" religion? That is a no before you get the question wrong or start to twist words around.

Nope. And despite what your mentor Glenn tells you, Islam didn't either. Muhammed was forcibly exiled from Mecca, and his battles against them were in self defense.


You blame the rape victim too don't you? "She wouldn't have been raped if she hadn't slept around and wore skimpy outfits."

For someone who hates liberalism and feminism so much, I'm surprised you'd say that. Yes, I do believe a lot of "rapes" that supposedly occur are trumped up. The Duke rape charges are a classic example of this.


Ah, no they are not. Syria is shooting into unarmed civilian protesters not making violence. Israelis are defending their citizens from terrorist attacks. NOT THE SAME.

If the Israeli radicals were really so concerned about their citizens, they would be looking for a peaceful solution to the war.

But its not happening. Israeli radicals ignore their more level headed comrades and throw the entire country into a never ending war, and the Christian Taliban back in the US eagerly support them every step of the way.


You have the understanding of a 2 y/o. Israel got their land in ~1945 following WWII from people that helped Germany.

The Israeli state was created in 1948. But never mind.


Do you still get it? Palestinians allied with Hitler to kill jews. So, the world decided for their crimes, Palestine would give up some land. In ~1949, the middle eastern Muslim countries attacked Israel and Israel defended themselves. When finished defending itself from aggressors, they took more land, and you can't tell me they would have been fine if the Muslim side won.

For someone who loves to bring up WWI analogies, you show a surprising ignorance of it. The Peace of Versailles was written up with this exact revenge-mentality in mind. And what happened? Germany was forced to take the entire blame for the war, were forced to pay massive reparations, and forced to give up a large chunk of their industrial and agricultural heartland. Needless to say the Germans weren't too happy about that.

The Great Depression hit, and their poverty sunk to even lower levels, and the war debt went from extremely difficult to impossible. Then a man came along who applied Keneysian Economics and brought them out of the depression years sooner than everyone else.. On top of that, he promised to make Germany great again. He created a revisionist history of the Great War, claiming the German army would have won the war, but they were "betrayed by the politicians".

And it only got better from there. He told them they were racially superior to everyone else, and it was their destiny to rule the world. Their inferiors were to be eliminated to create "living space" for them. He built up their army again, stopped paying the reparations, and took back the land they had lost in the previous war.

Remind me how this turned out again? Hate and revenge is a vicious cycle. Brutalize and humiliate your enemy - all you're succeeding in doing is royally pissing him off, so he'll look for every opportunity to get back at you. If you refuse to reason with the moderates in the enemy camp, they'll lose credibility with their people and the extremists will take the lead.


You keep calling out for equal footing in war, but I still doubt you want the commander of your base to relinquish the perimeters weapons and start using rocks to defend where you are deployed to. Simple really, Liberals want everything that doesn't bring them down, to be equal for everyone else.

Ha. You say the Israelis shouldn't fight fair, then cry when the Palestinians don't. So what are you saying? That the Israelis can do whatever they want, while the Palestinians should just bend over and take it?

What makes your preaching even more hilarious is your stubborn refusal to even acknowledge the POSSIBILITY of a diplomatic solution.