Insanity Test

Yes.

Yes, especially knowing what I know now about Gore and Kerry.

[quote=Dust Bunny]Yes, especially knowing what I know now about Gore and Kerry.[/quote]



Bingo!

I wrote in Bobby Hull.  Unfortunately I don’t know his real name, so I guess I ended up voting for a hockey player…oh well.

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/markets/election_demsvreps/



Why are we so worried about democrats winning elections?

------------



DB - you wrote that knowing what you now know about Gore & Kerry you would have voted the same way.



The current cost of the Iraq war is $10 Billion PER MONTH!



The cost to date of the war to date has been something like $380 Billion.



If Gore had not had the election stolen from him in 2000 we likely 1 - Would not have attacked Iraq(which had NOTHING TO DO WITH 9/11.) 2 - Would not have been the central front in the war on terror had it not been for our intervention. 3 - By our own estimates Al Qaeda is now as capable as they were when they killed almost 4000 people in 2001. 4 - Not stretched our armed forces to its breaking point. ARE WE REALLY MORE SAFE TODAY!!!???



If you had $380 Billion to spend - let’s call it half than that - $190 Billion. Let’s assume that we spent the other $190 Billion obliterating Al Qaeda. Would you have put the money towards



- Alternatives to oil dependency

- Finding cures to cancer

- Fund the social security fund.

- Push problems with Medicare off.

- Provide universal pre-school for each child(which economists say has a positive economic result & payoff period of less than 20 yrs.)

- What else?



Why do you think if Bush hadn’t won & hadn’t gone out of his way to make a case for war in Iraq that we’d be in a worse place than we are now?

Ashland,

You're just another idiot who believes that the Republicans stole the election.  Poor Al Gore couldn't carry his home state so we have to blame the loss on the Republicans.  The same whining continues today, the democratic controlled congress has lower approval ratings than George Bush so it's his fault.  Just check out the various liberal whine, I mean news sites. 

If you had a clue about how to win a war, you'd see that pulling out is not the way to do it.  I served for 25 years and never once did I consider leaving because Ididn't agree with all of the decisions being made. 

Do you really think that the Democrat and Republican congressmen would have spent the money on anything really constructive? I don't.  Have all the decisions which have been made been correct?  NO! Do we pull out like whimpering liberal pansies? NO!

Yes, we are safer, and if Clinton would have taken care of this problem while he had the chance, we could be even safer. You liberals tend to forget that 9/11 happened on your watch under your Boy, Baby Face Bill. 

Bush inherited the problems and is trying to fix them.  Thanks for all the help.

[quote=Ashland]

If Gore had not had the election stolen from him in 2000

[/quote]

Whenever you read something like that you know, instantly, that the speaker is an idiot.

The reason we are in Iraq is because we are fighting terrorism--and Iraq was a terror state.

Iraq occupies a land area that is key to controlling the threat of terror.  A basic military technique is "Divide and Conquor" and a pro-West Iraq would separate Syria from Iran--stopping the free flow of weapons.

The despicable set in this country--the whiners--are fond of saying that the markets perform better under Democrats, "on average."

As they say, figures never lie but liars always figure.

What the liars do is a simple averaging exercise.  They take the return during each administration since--conveniently--1927 and average them.

In doing this the 1,000 days of the Kennedy administration count as one and so does the more than twelve years of the Roosevelt administration.

The reason that they start with 1927 is because that was the beginning of the Hoover administration which was in power when the market crashed in 1929--that way the GOP averages include an administration when the averages damn near zeroed out.

There are only thirteen administrations in this averaging deal--averaging small groups of numbers is notoriously misleading.

If you start in 1933--leaving Hoover off--the numbers are not 11% and 2% they're more like 11% and 10%.

If you start in 1944--leaving out the thirteen years of the Roosevelt administration that count just as much as the less than three years of the Ford administration--the numbers flip and favor the GOP.

The number used for the Roosevelt years is just as spectacular on the upside as the number used for Hoover is spectacular on the downside.  Roosevelt comes to office with the Dow at something like 50--yep 50, and it's now just shy of 14,000.  On his watch it went up hundreds of percentage points--hundreds of them.

But numbers are misleading.  Going from 50 to 500 is a 1000% gain but dropping from 500 to 50 is not a 1000 percent loss.  In other words the first two numbers used in this nonsense comparison set it up.

Hoover's number is minus about 90% while Roosevelt's number is a huge positive number, yet much of what happened was little more than recovering.  I'm not bothering to look up the actual numbers, simply demonstrating the techniques used by the despicable people to support their lying.

The reality is that there have been two "golden ages" in the US economy since the Great Depression.  The first was the post war period of the 1950s--while Eisenhower was in office.

The second was in the 1980s when Reagan was in office.

The Clinton years were good too--but that is because of the Gingrich revolution and the fact that the GOP controlled the House for the first time since 1933 and they kept President Clinton's natural instinct to tax and spend in check.

Don't even try to make a case for good times when the House, Senate and White House are all controlled by Democrats.  For that example take a look at the Carter years.

When you hear Whiners such as this Ashland child spout nonsense like he just did remember that they're using only 13 numbers--and two of them are -90% for Hoover and +2,500% for Roosevelt.

As I said, figures never lie but liars always figure.

[quote=FreeFromJones]

You liberals tend to forget that 9/11 happened on your watch under your Boy, Baby Face Bill. 

Bush inherited the problems and is trying to fix them.  Thanks for all the help.

[/quote]

Are you saying the 2000 election occurred after 9/11/2001???

[quote=Mandoman]

Are you saying the 2000 election occurred after 9/11/2001???

[/quote]

No, idiot.  What is being said is that it was the weak-sister response to the previous eight years of attacks that emboldened Al Quada to mount the successful attacks of 9-11-01.

It is also nonsensical to not agree that every moment of the planning occurred on the Clinton watch.

Now, tell us which attacks were planned and executed on the Bush administration's watch?

[quote=Ashland]
If Gore had not had the election stolen from him in 2000 ....[/quote]

That line's one of those great shortcuts in life. When you read it, you know you're dealing with an irrational person, and needn't waste any more time talking to them.

It's sort of like when someone mentions the Illuminati or Chemtrails...

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate][quote=Mandoman]

Are you saying the 2000 election occurred after 9/11/2001???

[/quote]

No, idiot.  What is being said is that it was the weak-sister response to the previous eight years of attacks that emboldened Al Quada to mount the successful attacks of 9-11-01.

It is also nonsensical to not agree that every moment of the planning occurred on the Clinton watch.

Now, tell us which attacks were planned and executed on the Bush administration's watch?

[/quote]

Easy there, Sizzle Chest.  I was trying to get a clarification of when W was elected, since you noted that it wasn't his watch during 2001.

I believe there have been at least 3631 successful attacks carried out so far under the current "watch," but I haven't read the paper the last couple of days, so maybe that number is a little higher at this time.

I'm not disagreeing with you, just making it obvious who the real "idiot" is.

Mandoman, Do you believe that our country would be safer if Gore or Kerry was in the White House?

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate]

[quote=Ashland]

If Gore had not had the election stolen from him in 2000

[/quote]

Whenever you read something like that you know, instantly, that the speaker is an idiot.

True that, because Gore didn't have the election stolen from him, the American People had it stolen from US. No matter how many times you ditto heads echo the talking points, the fact remains that the Florida "election" was rigored, jiggered, disfigured and configured to be deniggered. The number of legal, law abiding black americans that showed up at the polls, only to be told that LeRoy Johnson's name had been taken off the voting rolls due to a felony conviction ("But I'm not that LeRoy Johnson", "Take it up with the election board, tomorrow, but you are not voting today!") was far above the additional number needed to have carried the state for Gore

True Gore did not carry Tennessee, but since when did that backwater determine who gets to be president?   

The reason we are in Iraq is because we are fighting terrorism--and Iraq was a terror state.

WRONG! Iraq IS a terror state, Iraq "was" not a terror state. Aggressive? Yes. Warlike? An adversary to its neighbors? Yes. A state run by a terrible person? Yes. A state that terrorized its own population? Yes. A terrorist state? No.

It's funny that the only people who still hold this view are the people whoes main news source is Fox News.

Iraq is now a terrorist state.

Iraq occupies a land area that is key to controlling the threat of terror.  A basic military technique is "Divide and Conquor" and a pro-West Iraq would separate Syria from Iran--stopping the free flow of weapons.

And so the best way to make people "pro west" is to bomb the living sh*t out of them! RIGHT! There is no logic to this, it's like the old saying "Fighting for peace is like f**king for chastity!"

The despicable set in this country--the whiners--are fond of saying that the markets perform better under Democrats, "on average."

Read a book wouldja please! Here's one you might be interested in http://www.amazon.com/Wealth-Democracy-Political-History-Ame rican/dp/0767905342/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-5750818-5432622?ie=U TF8&s=books&qid=1185200573&sr=1-1  You'll find out that Republicans weren't always the "Party of the rich" and that,historically it is quite the contrary.

As they say, figures never lie but liars always figure.

Blah Blah Blah On his [FDR's] watch it went up hundreds of percentage points--hundreds of them.

Why was that? Because he managed to keep the country, which was past the brink of falling apart, together. Why do you think the McCarthy hearings were so busy? Because there were plenty of people who had joined the comunist party. Why? Because this capitalist system favored by the growing American Aristocracy had utterly and completely failed. Please, if you're going to be in this business, understand its history.

But numbers are misleading.  Going from 50 to 500 is a 1000% gain but dropping from 500 to 50 is not a 1000 percent loss.  In other words the first two numbers used in this nonsense comparison set it up.

Hoover's number is minus about 90% while Roosevelt's number is a huge positive number, yet much of what happened was little more than recovering.  I'm not bothering to look up the actual numbers, simply demonstrating the techniques used by the despicable people to support their lying.

The reality is that there have been two "golden ages" in the US economy since the Great Depression.  The first was the post war period of the 1950s--while Eisenhower was in office.

The second was in the 1980s when Reagan was in office.

The Clinton years were good too--but that is because of the Gingrich revolution and the fact that the GOP controlled the House for the first time since 1933 and they kept President Clinton's natural instinct to tax and spend in check.

HOLY CHRIST! Phillips himself (the guy after whom the screwdriver design is named, not the author) didn't spin as much as you do!

Don't even try to make a case for good times when the House, Senate and White House are all controlled by Democrats.  For that example take a look at the Carter years.

A sample of 13 is too small but a sample of one is just ipsy pipsy!

Carter, who inherited a huge deficit from Nixon/Ford and the VietNam war. Who had to contend with the Kissingerization of the Middle east as he (Kissinger) encouraged the Middle Eastern nations to buy US warplanes (which we weren't buying in such numbers anymore because of the end of the war) using money they made by nationalizing the oil fields and forming a strong oil cartel.

Carter, the President who worked against his own political interest when he appointed Paul Volker as head of the fed. Paul Volker, whom the economic world sees as the man who broke the back of inflation. He cost Carter his presidency, but for their pains, they (again) saved the nation. "And all the thanks he gets from you is 'look at all that poo poo in the yard!'"

When you hear Whiners such as this Ashland child spout nonsense like he just did remember that they're using only 13 numbers--and two of them are -90% for Hoover and +2,500% for Roosevelt.

And the 90% downdraft had nothing to do with Hoover, and the + 2500 had nothing to do with FDR's policies and the cleaning up of the banking and investment industries. It would have happened anyway according to you!

As I said, figures never lie but liars always figure.

So am I to understand that all figurers are liars? Go Figure!

Anybody who classifies all people with a contrary opinion to their own as “Obvious Idiots” is … well, you know.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Blah Blah Blah On his [FDR's] watch it went up hundreds of percentage points--hundreds of them.

Why was that? Because he managed to keep the country, which was past the brink of falling apart, together. Why do you think the McCarthy hearings were so busy? Because there were plenty of people who had joined the comunist party. Why? Because this capitalist system favored by the growing American Aristocracy had utterly and completely failed. Please, if you're going to be in this business, understand its history.

[/quote]

The reason the economy did well during the thirteen years of the Roosevelt administration was because the nation geared up to fight a war and every man in the country had a job in the military.

I'm not sure what the McCarthy hearings have to do with anything--including the Roosevelt years since they occurred during the Eisenhower years.

If you're a fan of Communism you're going to become very frustrated by working on Wall Street.  Perhaps you should resign now, before you make a fool of yourself and/or cost your client's their retirements.

Fools like you are dangerous.

[quote=anonymous]Mandoman, Do you believe that our country would be safer if Gore or Kerry was in the White House?[/quote]

No. 

I think we would be safer today if we put efforts into securing our borders and ports, as well as if we initiated some of the other suggestions of the 9/11 Report.

I'm not sure that we are safer by being in Iraq with our troops.  I think we would be safer had we put our efforts into getting Bin Laden rather than Sadaam.  Perhaps Iraq wouldn't even had become an issue had the first Gulf War been carried out with a more specific mission.

I think we would be safer today by use of better diplomacy throughout the world.  The most recent example that comes to mind is back in the Nixon era with China.  (Some will argue Reagan with Russia, but that was happening with or without US involvement.  Some will say Carter is the man when it comes to diplomacy.)

Unfortunately, the current candidacy on both sides of the isle is somewhat limited, IMO.  I don't believe anyone would want that job "for the people," but only for their own ego/empire building.

Unlike some here, I don't have all of the answers, but I don't believe that asking questions or even having a differing opinion makes someone an idiot.

Nobody said otherwise in re the reason the economy surged during Roosevelt's administration. Please try to stick to what is presented and not your flights of remembered rhetoric.

The FACT is that when Roosevelt took office this nation was starting to revolt. The class warfare had reached a boiling point that most assuredly would have resulted in armed anarchy (which the masses would not necessesarilly have won. Have you ever read The Grapes of Wrath do you know why the Fair Labor Standards act was singned into law (in both cases the issue was reverse auctioning of labor in that the employers were using child labor to force adult labor to accept lower and lower wages. In TGOW, it (the reverse auction) was achieved by the farmers of California advertising high wage jobs so as to flood their market with labor that would then have to compete with a rigged supply and demand equation).

Futher, when FDR started implimenting his reforms, the industrialists tried to buy the army to effect a coup d e'tat (Roosevelt was informed of this by one of the generals who saw his duty clear).

The country was shattered and it was Roosevelt's first hundred days that saved the union (albeit in a different form than what it was before).

Of course you're not sure what McCarthy has to do with it, because nobody has prepared you for questions about him before.

The fact is that while the US economy was going down the tubes, the Russian economy, under the newly created "Communism" was growning at 9% per year. To Americas huddled masses, that looked like a viable alternative to the failed system they were starving under. And so the communist party was strong in the USA (I use this as evidence for you that the country was in the begining stage of dissolution and revolution when Roosevelt came in.

Years later, after the threat had passed and the fear of Communism as a common foe (much like "terrorism" is now the common fear today and will one day be looked at as a popular hysteria) McCarthy had his hearings and ruined the lives of people who were only looking out for the common man.

"Fan of Communism" Again with the Pavlovian responses (whip your chin, you're drooling again!)  I understand lots of things that I'm not a fan of. You for example, I understand you, but I'm not at all fond of you.

Here's one thing about you that I understand, when someone calls themself the "Devil'sAdvocate" and then toe's the party line, they are a person who's brain processes aren't worth the toilet paper they're "written " on.

[quote=Mandoman]

Unfortunately, the current candidacy on both sides of the isle is somewhat limited, IMO.  I don't believe anyone would want that job "for the people," but only for their own ego/empire building.

Unlike some here, I don't have all of the answers, but I don't believe that asking questions or even having a differing opinion makes someone an idiot.

[/quote]

What isle is it, genius?

Aisle.

Thanks for doing the spell check.

How many of you plan to make a career out of hating capitalism and working for “the common man?”

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]True that, because Gore didn't have the election stolen from him, the American People had it stolen from US. [/quote]

See? What a wonderful time saver the "stolen election" test is. You could tell from the opening line there was no reason to read further. Now, find something useful to do with the time you saved. 

[quote=Devil'sAdvocate]How many of you plan to make a career out of hating capitalism and working for "the common man?"[/quote]

What a sh*thead you are.

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]True that, because Gore didn't have the election stolen from him, the American People had it stolen from US. [/quote]

See? What a wonderful time saver the "stolen election" test is. You could tell from the opening line there was no reason to read further. Now, find something useful to do with the time you saved. 

[/quote]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ...............

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]Anybody who classifies all people with a contrary opinion to their own as "Obvious Idiots" is ... well, you know.[/quote]

They're astute observers of humanity when the subject they're using as a basis to call others "obvious idiots" is the "stolen election". Or the Illuminati, or Chemtrails, or how 9/11 was an inside job. You see, an opposing point of view doesn't have value just because it's an opposing point of view. There has to be some factual, rational basis for it, and the "stolen election" has none.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Futher, when FDR started implimenting his reforms, the industrialists tried to buy the army to effect a coup d e'tat (Roosevelt was informed of this by one of the generals who saw his duty clear). [/quote]

Got a source for this?

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Years later, after the threat had passed and the fear of Communism as a common foe (much like "terrorism" is now the common fear today and will one day be looked at as a popular hysteria) McCarthy had his hearings and ruined the lives of people who were only looking out for the common man. [/quote]

I'm not sure which is funnier, the idea that opposition to Communism then, and terrorism today is "popular hysteria" (check that hole where the WTC used to be for details) of the idea that people who joined the Stalin funded US Communist party were "looking out for the common man"....

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]Here's one thing about you that I understand, when someone calls themself the "Devil'sAdvocate" and then toe's the party line, they are a person who's brain processes aren't worth the toilet paper they're "written " on.

[/quote]

Hmm, and what do we say of someone who toes the party line while decrying someone else "toeing the party line"?

[quote=Mandoman]

I think we would be safer today if we put efforts into securing our borders and ports, as well as if we initiated some of the other suggestions of the 9/11 Report. [q/uote]

Could you tell us what recommendations of the 9/11 Commission haven't already been put in place?

[quote=Mandoman]

I think we would be safer today by use of better diplomacy throughout the world.  [/quote]

Could you tell us what sort of diplomacy could stop the Jihadists that have been attacking US interests around the world since 1980 or so?

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]True that, because Gore didn't have the election stolen from him, the American People had it stolen from US. [/quote]

See? What a wonderful time saver the "stolen election" test is. You could tell from the opening line there was no reason to read further. Now, find something useful to do with the time you saved. 

[/quote]

Yep, because we would never want to know all the facts before making an informed decision.  We can just watch Faux News and get the "facts" fed to us, right?

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=Mandoman]

I think we would be safer today if we put efforts into securing our borders and ports, as well as if we initiated some of the other suggestions of the 9/11 Report. [q/uote]

Could you tell us what recommendations of the 9/11 Commission haven't already been put in place?

[quote=Mandoman]

I think we would be safer today by use of better diplomacy throughout the world.  [/quote]

Could you tell us what sort of diplomacy could stop the Jihadists that have been attacking US interests around the world since 1980 or so?

[/quote]

I think we were supposed to say pretty please and Muhammad may I while bending over to kiss our butts goodbye.....   At least that seems to be the Left's idea of being diplomatic.

You’ll focused on a tree when I asked a forest of questions. Let’s try again…



If you had $380 Billion to spend - let’s call it half than that - $190 Billion. Let’s assume that we spent the other $190 Billion obliterating Al Qaeda. Would you have put the money towards



- Alternatives to oil dependency

- Finding cures to cancer

- Funding social security.

- Pushing problems with Medicare off.

- Provide universal pre-school for each child(which economists say has a positive economic result & payoff period of less than 20 yrs.)

- What else?



Why do you think if Bush hadn’t won & hadn’t gone out of his way to make a case for war in Iraq that we’d be in a worse place than we are now?

[quote=pretzelhead][quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]True that, because Gore didn't have the election stolen from him, the American People had it stolen from US. [/quote]

See? What a wonderful time saver the "stolen election" test is. You could tell from the opening line there was no reason to read further. Now, find something useful to do with the time you saved. 

[/quote]

Yep, because we would never want to know all the facts before making an informed decision.  We can just watch Faux News and get the "facts" fed to us, right?

[/quote]

Hey, thanks for that. We were dicussing time saver #1, the "stolen election". You've done us a great favor by bringing up time saver #2, the "Faux News" gambit. It's often used when the speaker has no other ammuniton left. 

 - Provide universal pre-school for each child(which economists say has a positive economic result & payoff period of less than 20 yrs.)

Why don't we just let the government start raising our kids at birth?

[quote=Dust Bunny][quote=mikebutler222][quote=Mandoman]

I think we would be safer today if we put efforts into securing our borders and ports, as well as if we initiated some of the other suggestions of the 9/11 Report. [q/uote]

Could you tell us what recommendations of the 9/11 Commission haven't already been put in place?

[quote=Mandoman]

I think we would be safer today by use of better diplomacy throughout the world.  [/quote]

Could you tell us what sort of diplomacy could stop the Jihadists that have been attacking US interests around the world since 1980 or so?

[/quote]

I think we were supposed to say pretty please and Muhammad may I while bending over to kiss our butts goodbye.....   At least that seems to be the Left's idea of being diplomatic.

[/quote]

It is rather amusing to watch members of the Left use their pet <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US foreign policy grievance list as if it’s the motivating force behind Jihadists. It’s almost as if the facts surrounding the religious motivations of the terrorists is just too much for them to understand, so, in order to grasp the situation, they try to overlay their own agenda. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[quote=Ashland]You'll focused on a tree when I asked a forest of questions. Let's try again... [/quote]

No, what happened is you asked a foolish question and then had your head handed to you, so you want to change the question, and this time with a clairvoyant spin, like “What if Bush knew in advance that every intelligence agency in the world was wrong and that Saddam wasn’t hiding WMDs? What would you do with the money saved?”.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Well, if you’re interested in “what ifs”, here’s one for you. What if Kerry or Gore were president and they ignored what the CIA had told them about why Saddam refused to allow the weapons inspections he’d interfered with for 12 years?  Saddam was about to buy his way out of sanctions (see the UN oil for palaces scandal). THEN what would have happened?

If he hadn’t been already producing and hiding WMDs before sanctions ended, do you honestly believe he wouldn’t have returned to that endeavor? Are you willing to bet massive civilian casualties in the <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US your faith that;

1) The CIA and every other intel agency had it wrong (see both Kerry and Gore’s comments about what THEY thought Saddam was up to dating back to 1998, they sure thought he had them).

2) That post sanctions Saddam wouldn’t have provided newly made WMDs to his terrorist allies? We already know the “Saddam would never work with Al Qaeda because the two were sworn enemies” thing to be fiction based intelligence gained post invasion  from Saddam’s government’s files.

[quote=Ashland]You'll focused on a tree when I asked a forest of questions. Let's try again...

[/quote]

Sounds pretty patronizing.

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=Mandoman]

I think we would be safer today if we put efforts into securing our borders and ports, as well as if we initiated some of the other suggestions of the 9/11 Report. [q/uote]

Could you tell us what recommendations of the 9/11 Commission haven't already been put in place?

[quote=Mandoman]

I think we would be safer today by use of better diplomacy throughout the world.  [/quote]

Could you tell us what sort of diplomacy could stop the Jihadists that have been attacking US interests around the world since 1980 or so?

[/quote]

No.  If it was that easy, then we probably wouldn't be in the mess that we are in at this time. 

However, we might consider reserving the "Bring them on!" comments as a start.  Arrogance is not getting us anywhere.

[quote=Dust Bunny]I think we were supposed to say pretty please and Muhammad may I while bending over to kiss our butts goodbye.....   At least that seems to be the Left's idea of being diplomatic.[/quote]

...that's pretty catchy...not very politically correct, but catchy nonetheless...

[quote=Mandoman][quote=mikebutler222][quote=Mandoman]

I think we would be safer today if we put efforts into securing our borders and ports, as well as if we initiated some of the other suggestions of the 9/11 Report. [q/uote]

Could you tell us what recommendations of the 9/11 Commission haven't already been put in place?

[quote=Mandoman]

I think we would be safer today by use of better diplomacy throughout the world.  [/quote]

Could you tell us what sort of diplomacy could stop the Jihadists that have been attacking US interests around the world since 1980 or so?

[/quote]

No.  If it was that easy, then we probably wouldn't be in the mess that we are in at this time. 

However, we might consider reserving the "Bring them on!" comments as a start.  Arrogance is not getting us anywhere.

[/quote]

I'm sorry to be the one bringing you the bad news, but the Jihadi's really don't care about your views on US foreign policy, they don't care about diplomacy, they don't care about what you call arrogance. All they care about is their twisted version of Islam, reestablishing it, Islamic government and Shir’a law across the old Caliphate map, and killing non-believers. They’re not just a group of misunderstood “Patriots” who happen to have every view in common with the average NPR listener except the how to change the course of US policies.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

You don't have to believe me, simply read what they've said themselves. And, if after you're read their words, if it still bothers you to accept the world as it is, please have the courtesy to step aside and let others who don’t shrink back from the grisly nature of our enemy do what needs to be done keep you and the other sheep safe from it.

No offense.

[quote=mikebutler222]

I'm sorry to be the one bringing you the bad news, but the Jihadi's really don't care about your views on US foreign policy, they don't care about diplomacy, they don't care about what you call arrogance. All they care about is their twisted version of Islam, reestablishing it, Islamic government and Shir’a law across the old Caliphate map, and killing non-believers. They’re not just a group of misunderstood “Patriots” who happen to have every view in common with the average NPR listener except the how to change the course of US policies.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

You don't have to believe me, simply read what they've said themselves. And, if after you're read their words, if it still bothers you to accept the world as it is, please have the courtesy to step aside and let others who don’t shrink back from the grisly nature of our enemy do what needs to be done keep you and the other sheep safe from it.

No offense.

[/quote]

You asked, so I answered.  You asked and Jihadi's don't care what I think.... So, how long have you been a Jihadi?

What does the Natural Products Report (NPR) have to do with any of this????  You Jihadis are very confusing, always diverting attention elsewhere.

Was Sadaam a Jihadi?  I thought he was a cultural nationalist.

Let me be the first to inform you, we are working on kicking your Jihadi ass.  Eventually, you will come to the table.

Again, apparently, we will have to limit our discussions to what Mikebutler222 already thinks he knows about

Here mikie, here's a link to information about the plot to overthrow FDR and install a Fascict regime

The Plot to Overthrow FDR. 43 min - Sep 20, 2006. video ... <>

Watch video - 43 min -
<SPAN =a>video.google.com/videoplay?docid=628728631767818729

[quote=Dust Bunny]I think we were supposed to say pretty please and Muhammad may I while bending over to kiss our butts goodbye…   At least that seems to be the Left’s idea of being diplomatic.

...that's pretty catchy...not very politically correct, but catchy nonetheless...[/quote]

...had another thought....Mullah, may I?

[quote=Mandoman]

No.  If it was that easy, then we probably wouldn't be in the mess that we are in at this time. 

However, we might consider reserving the "Bring them on!" comments as a start.  Arrogance is not getting us anywhere.

[/quote]

We're not in a "mess."  We're fighting a war, and by definition that means people get killed and things get broken.  This war as been fought masterfully--we've lost less than 4,000 troops over a matter of years.  In real wars that many guys get killed in a single day.

You really should stop whining about such a small death toll.

As for whining about arrogance.  To those of you without a spine something appears arrogant--but to those of us with spines it appears to be confidence.

Why should the strongest nation on earth not challenge anybody to wage a war against us?

Why do those of your ilk not want to win the war?  Why are you wanting to surrender?

[quote=Indyone][quote=Dust Bunny]I think we were supposed to say pretty please and Muhammad may I while bending over to kiss our butts goodbye…   At least that seems to be the Left’s idea of being diplomatic.

...that's pretty catchy...not very politically correct, but catchy nonetheless...[/quote]

...had another thought....Mullah, may I?

[/quote]

  Thanks, I've never been accused of being overly sensitive or politically correct. 

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate]

We're not in a "mess."  We're fighting a war, and by definition that means people get killed and things get broken.  This war as been fought masterfully--we've lost less than 4,000 troops over a matter of years.  In real wars that many guys get killed in a single day.

You really should stop whining about such a small death toll.  Tell that to my sister who lost her son in Iraq.  Personal loss is not whining, it is pure pain.

As for whining about arrogance.  To those of you without a spine something appears arrogant--but to those of us with spines it appears to be confidence.  That is a great argument!

Why should the strongest nation on earth not challenge anybody to wage a war against us?  Are you implying that we, as a country, should fight for the sake of fighting?

Why do those of your ilk not want to win the war?  Why are you wanting to surrender?  Hmmph, not sure how you got to this.

Winning a war is when all of the clear objectives are accomplished.  Losing a war is being emboiled in one where there are no clear objectives, objectives are changed to suit the political climate, or when the objectives are actually of a non-politcal nature, such as if someone was gaining personally by the war action.

So, how close are we to achieving our objectives?  Excuse my admitted ignorance, but what are the objectives?

DA,

Your assumptions are way off, you need to recalibrate.

"Mess? What mess?" been to the gas station lately chum? Seen the dollar against foreign currencies lately? How about the debt? And what's going to happen to the people who are going to take it in the shorts because of that debt?

What mess? You mean the abject incompetance of the administration in every direction? That's not a mess, heck Al Gore would have probably err ummm....

Stop whining about such a small death toll and don't even bother to give that legless gimp a second look, he didn't die in the war so he's just a slacker, like the kid that Patton slapped! Stop whining about the death toll and let's watch the Jessica Lynch story again! Stop whining about the death toll, so what if on a per capita basis there are more people dead or injured in this war than others (just so you know I'm making that one up)? Stop whining about the death toll, so what if we've killed tens and tens of thousands of Iraqis to liberate them froma madman who killed tens of thousands. What a whiner!

Stupid presidents say things like "Bring it on" great presidents say things like "Speak softly and carry a big stick!"

How strong is "The strongest nation on Earth" if they can't even beat a rag tag collection of people that we had laid siege to for 12 years before attacking? We are made to look weak in the eyes of the world's "evildoers" not strong.

"Got ilk?" Surrender to whom? Surrender where? We won the war. "Mission Accomplished" Saddam is dead, he's going to stay that way. What are you talking about "surrender"?

Please stop talking in party line ese and think about what you are saying. 

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

DA,

Your assumptions are way off, you need to recalibrate.

"Mess? What mess?" been to the gas station lately chum? Seen the dollar against foreign currencies lately? How about the debt? And what's going to happen to the people who are going to take it in the shorts because of that debt?

What mess? You mean the abject incompetance of the administration in every direction? That's not a mess, heck Al Gore would have probably err ummm....

Stop whining about such a small death toll and don't even bother to give that legless gimp a second look, he didn't die in the war so he's just a slacker, like the kid that Patton slapped! Stop whining about the death toll and let's watch the Jessica Lynch story again! Stop whining about the death toll, so what if on a per capita basis there are more people dead or injured in this war than others (just so you know I'm making that one up)? Stop whining about the death toll, so what if we've killed tens and tens of thousands of Iraqis to liberate them froma madman who killed tens of thousands. What a whiner!

Stupid presidents say things like "Bring it on" great presidents say things like "Speak softly and carry a big stick!"

How strong is "The strongest nation on Earth" if they can't even beat a rag tag collection of people that we had laid siege to for 12 years before attacking? We are made to look weak in the eyes of the world's "evildoers" not strong.

"Got ilk?" Surrender to whom? Surrender where? We won the war. "Mission Accomplished" Saddam is dead, he's going to stay that way. What are you talking about "surrender"?

Please stop talking in party line ese and think about what you are saying. 

[/quote]

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate]

[quote=Mandoman]

We're not in a "mess."  We're fighting a war, and by definition that means people get killed and things get broken.  This war as been fought masterfully--we've lost less than 4,000 troops over a matter of years.  In real wars that many guys get killed in a single day.

You really should stop whining about such a small death toll.

As for whining about arrogance.  To those of you without a spine something appears arrogant--but to those of us with spines it appears to be confidence.

Why should the strongest nation on earth not challenge anybody to wage a war against us?

Why do those of your ilk not want to win the war?  Why are you wanting to surrender?

[/quote]

Your kids aren't one of the lucky 4000 huh?

As for winning the war, we already did that. Our president, dressed in a flight suit, stood in front of a big banner exclaiming so. It was a great day and our troops were coming home in six months. He told us that too. Oh, wait, that was Cheney. Sorry.

Anyone who has taken the time to educate themselves on the subject knows Clinton took the correct course of action regarding Al-Qaeda. A missile strike killing Saudi royalty probably wouldn't have played well in Riyadh. The outcome of having had not one shot at Bin laden, but at least two and not taking them will be debated thru the ages. Only those who believe bin Laden's death would have stopped 9/11 hold Clinton responsible. Unfortunately, many of those people are the same people who believe Iraq attacked us on 9/11.

The current war has shown us that Bush1 took the correct action in the Gulf war, leaving Iraq's government in place. We are paying and will pay for years the price of Bush/Cheney not listening to the smartest guy in the room, Colin Powell, and moving forward with an ill conceived, ill planned ,ill executed plan for war.

We can debate endlessly who is responsible for 9/11 however, regardless of who's sitting in the oval office, the next attack is squarely on Bush. I fear that a next is not an if, only a when and where.

[quote=BondGuy]

We can debate endlessly who is responsible for 9/11 however, regardless of who's sitting in the oval office, the next attack is squarely on Bush. I fear that a next is not an if, only a when and where.

[/quote]

Who was responsible for 9/11?  How about Islamic extremists?

Who will be responsible for the next attack?  How about Islamic extremists?

Why do those of your ilk want to blame the United States, when the blame is clearly on the shoulders of Islam?

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Again, apparently, we will have to limit our discussions to what Mikebutler222 already thinks he knows about

Here mikie, here's a link to information about the plot to overthrow FDR and install a Fascict regime

The Plot to Overthrow FDR. 43 min - Sep 20, 2006. video ... <>
Watch video - 43 min -
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=628728631767818729

[/quote]

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Futher, when FDR started implimenting his reforms, the industrialists tried to buy the army to effect a coup d e'tat (Roosevelt was informed of this by one of the generals who saw his duty clear). [/quote]

You need to get your conspiracy theories straight. Gen. Butler never said anyone tried to "buy the Army", he claimed that a cabal of industrialists and Wall St types had approched him to lead an "army" of Vets upset with the government to raise a popular uprising that would topple FDR.

[quote=Mandoman][quote=mikebutler222]

I'm sorry to be the one bringing you the bad news, but the Jihadi's really don't care about your views on US foreign policy, they don't care about diplomacy, they don't care about what you call arrogance. All they care about is their twisted version of Islam, reestablishing it, Islamic government and Shir’a law across the old Caliphate map, and killing non-believers. They’re not just a group of misunderstood “Patriots” who happen to have every view in common with the average NPR listener except the how to change the course of US policies.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

You don't have to believe me, simply read what they've said themselves. And, if after you're read their words, if it still bothers you to accept the world as it is, please have the courtesy to step aside and let others who don’t shrink back from the grisly nature of our enemy do what needs to be done keep you and the other sheep safe from it.

No offense.

[/quote]

You asked, so I answered.  You asked and Jihadi's don't care what I think.... So, how long have you been a Jihadi?[/quote]

Yeah, that's it, I'm a Jihadi, and I've spent the last 15 years going deep cover in the securities industry. However, after all that work to dig myself in, I just can't help but post on an internet website about the plans.

OK, back from the Twilight Zone. I suggest you take a moment of two to actually read what the Jihadies themselves say their agenda's about. It has nothing to do with your issues with US foreign policy.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Please stop talking in party line ese and think about what you are saying. 

[/quote]

Not bad advice. Are you going to follow it?

[quote=BondGuy]Anyone who has taken the time to educate themselves on the subject knows Clinton took the correct course of action regarding Al-Qaeda. [/quote]

You just have to be joking.

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate]

[quote=BondGuy]

We can debate endlessly who is responsible for 9/11 however, regardless of who's sitting in the oval office, the next attack is squarely on Bush. I fear that a next is not an if, only a when and where.

[/quote]

Who was responsible for 9/11?  How about Islamic extremists?[/quote]

Bondguy doesn't think these guys exist.

Let's see, they tried to pay a general to lead an army of veterans to force the president to accetpt changes that would essentially render the Constitution null and void. That is better than just "essentially " what I said happened.

Interestingly, they, like this administration does, said that they were intending to do the exact opposite of what they were intending to do. they said they were looking to defend the Constitution, when in fact they were looking to destroy it.

In either case, the fact remains that there were lots of people looking for an alternate system to the one we had. The nation was disolving and FDR ressurected it.

So when whomeverit was that wants to just ignore the Hoover and Roosevelt presidencies when calculating the relative performance of the Dow, I say, read a book! 

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate]

[quote=BondGuy]

We can debate endlessly who is responsible for 9/11 however, regardless of who's sitting in the oval office, the next attack is squarely on Bush. I fear that a next is not an if, only a when and where.

[/quote]

Who was responsible for 9/11?  How about Islamic extremists?

Who will be responsible for the next attack?  How about Islamic extremists?

Why do those of your ilk want to blame the United States, when the blame is clearly on the shoulders of Islam?

[/quote]

Sorry, I clipped my comments.

For the reading comprehension impaired; We can debate endlessly who is responsible  for not stopping the 9/11 terrorist, however, not stopping the next attack, regardless of who is in office, is squarely on Bush.

Blame Islam? Blaming Islam is like blaming the car for the crash. Or more closely, blaming the gun for the murder. It's not the religion that is to blame, it's its misuse by the hate mongers who wish to dominate the world. And make no mistake, i'm no fan of religion. Its latest use as a hammer to murder people is nothing new. Though I'm amazed at how many stupid people there are in the world to fall into such traps. Of course that's all part of the process, keep'em uneducated, keep'em stupid. It's worked throughout history.

That said, the current mess and mismangement in Iraq, all us.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Let's see, they tried to pay a general to lead an army of veterans to force the president to accetpt changes that would essentially render the Constitution null and void. That is better than just "essentially " what I said happened.[/quote]

No, not even close. You said someone tried to "buy" the Army.

[quote=mikebutler222]

Yeah, that's it, I'm a Jihadi, and I've spent the last 15 years going deep cover in the securities industry. However, after all that work to dig myself in, I just can't help but post on an internet website about the plans.

OK, back from the Twilight Zone. I suggest you take a moment of two to actually read what the Jihadies themselves say their agenda's about. It has nothing to do with your issues with US foreign policy.

[/quote]

Okay, while I'm reading about you, why don't you go back to my previous response and answer my questions?  Thanks.

[quote=BondGuy]

Blame Islam? Blaming Islam is like blaming the car for the crash. [/quote]

No one said "blame Islam". We've all been pretty clear that we're talking about Islamic extremists. Those would be the people who believe their religion calls them to establish the dominance of their religion over all others, to kill non-believers and to fly planes into buildings.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Failing to recognize what motivates them, even though they’ve told you many, many times, just so you can overlay the Left’s standard argument that essentially says that the terrorists simply share their (the Left’s) dismay with US foreign policy, it’s just that they’re (the terrorists) violent about it, is tedious. It pretends that the terrorists share your view of the world and that if we only followed policies the Left has espoused forever, we could reach common ground and peaceful coexistence with the Jihadies. No doubt they’d chuckle of that one as they cut off your head. It’s like a death pact of some sort.

Or more closely, blaming the gun for the murder. It's not the religion that is to blame, it's its misuse by the hate mongers who wish to dominate the world. And make no mistake, i'm no fan of religion. Its latest use as a hammer to murder people is nothing new. Though I'm amazed at how many stupid people there are in the world to fall into such traps. Of course that's all part of the process, keep'em uneducated, keep'em stupid. It's worked throughout history.

That said, the current mess and mismangement in Iraq, all us.

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=Devil’sAdvocate]

[quote=BondGuy]

We can debate endlessly who is responsible for 9/11 however, regardless of who's sitting in the oval office, the next attack is squarely on Bush. I fear that a next is not an if, only a when and where.

[/quote]

Who was responsible for 9/11?  How about Islamic extremists?[/quote]

Bondguy doesn't think these guys exist.

[/quote]

Oh, i know that they exist. And I know those who causually follow current events call them islamic extremists.

They are extremists, that we agree on. Unforunately for the Islamic religion many believe this is a religious war, Islam verus the world. It's not. It's a war waged by power hungery madmen who have hijacked Islam to achieve their goals of domination. First over their own people and then over the rest of us. That you keep insisting on making this a religious war is where we disagree. For the leaders of Al-Qaeda, Islam is nothing more than a tool to spread hate, maintain control, and excite the masses to take action. It may be a religious war to the misled followers and to those like you, who don't know any better, even though you should. However, it's not any more a religious war than was WW2.

Unfortunately for all of us, the same crew that brought us the bungled Katrina clean up and mission accomplished on board the USS Abraham Lincoln are the same people charged with protecting us from future attacks. They've provided terrorist worldwide with a first class training ground while the terrorist head remain at large operating openly and free from worry of attack or apprehension. I work in a high rise tower in a downtown office canyon of a major city that has bullseye written all over it. Yeah, I feel safe.

[quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222][quote=Devil'sAdvocate] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[quote=BondGuy]

We can debate endlessly who is responsible for 9/11 however, regardless of who's sitting in the oval office, the next attack is squarely on Bush. I fear that a next is not an if, only a when and where.

[/quote]

Who was responsible for 9/11?  How about Islamic extremists?[/quote]

Bondguy doesn't think these guys exist.

[/quote]

Oh, i know that they exist. And I know those who causually follow current events call them islamic extremists. [/quote]

“Casually follow call them Islamic extremists”?  Is there another title that fits them and their motivation better?

[quote=BondGuy]

First over their own people and then over the rest of us. That you keep insisting on making this a religious war is where we disagree. For the leaders of Al-Qaeda, Islam is nothing more than a tool to spread hate, maintain control, and excite the masses to take action.[/quote]

Just who are you, exactly, to tell us and the Jihadies that they’re not motivated by their twisted view of the Islamic religion? Of course they want power, what you refuse to understand, and beyond all reason, is what it is they want to do with that power. I suppose if you can ignore their religious agenda, then you can pretend they’re like every other challenge we’ve ever faced as a nation, you can underestimate the danger they present, and you can pretend that if only the right politician is elected (your guy, of course) we’ll all be able to reach some middle ground, hold hands and sing Kumbya together…

[quote=BondGuy] Unfortunately for all of us, the same crew that brought us the bungled Katrina……. [/quote]

Ohhhh, that’s why. Because if it’s not really about the Jihadi’s religious motivation, then it’s about Bush….

Perhaps you missed the fact that the Jihadi’s don’t give a rat’s ass about you and your hyper-partisan politics. They attacked us under Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush II. They couldn’t care less about the intramural squabbles in US politics.

[quote=Mandoman][quote=mikebutler222]

Yeah, that's it, I'm a Jihadi, and I've spent the last 15 years going deep cover in the securities industry. However, after all that work to dig myself in, I just can't help but post on an internet website about the plans.

OK, back from the Twilight Zone. I suggest you take a moment of two to actually read what the Jihadies themselves say their agenda's about. It has nothing to do with your issues with US foreign policy.

[/quote]

Okay, while I'm reading about you, why don't you go back to my previous response and answer my questions?  Thanks.

[/quote]

About "me"? You're still pretending I'm a Jihadi and not someone who, unlike you, actually knows something about what motivates them?

[quote=BondGuy]

Unfortunately for all of us, the same crew that brought us the bungled Katrina clean up

[/quote]

What does the Mayor of New Orleans have to do with the War in Iraq?

[quote=BondGuy]

Unfortunately for all of us, the same crew that brought us the bungled Katrina clean up ....[/quote]

Devil's advocate is right about this. Mayor  Nagen and Gov. Blanco have nothing to do with this.

[quote=BondGuy]...and mission accomplished on board the USS Abraham Lincoln ....[/quote]

Neither does the crew of the Lincoln, whose mission was in fact accomplished. Bush, you may have noticed, said it wasn't over in Iraq and that a great deal of work remainded there.

[quote=BondGuy]...are the same people charged with protecting us from future attacks. [/quote]

Yep, six years, no attacks in the US, no embassies leveled elsewhere...you were saying?

[quote=BondGuy]...They've provided terrorist worldwide with a first class training ground ..[/quote]

What Al Qaeda's learning to do in Iraq is die. How to die and how to get the local population to join with US and Iraqi government forces to drive them out. See Al Anbar province for details.

[quote=BondGuy]...while the terrorist head remain at large operating openly and free..[/quote]

"Openly and free"? Is that why we haven't seen UBL in three years? Is that why Zawahiri is living in a cave in a remote part of Pakistan and smuggling out videos? Care to compare this to the days when Clinton handled Al Qaeda, according to you, "correctly"?

 [quote=BondGuy]...I work in a high rise tower in a downtown office canyon of a major city that has bullseye written all over it. Yeah, I feel safe.

[/quote]

How safe did you feel after the WTC attack in 1993 when Clinton downplayed the importance and didn't respond militarily?

[quote=mikebutler222]

About "me"? You're still pretending I'm a Jihadi and not someone who, unlike you, actually knows something about what motivates them?

[/quote]

YOU asked me a question and when I answered it, YOU told me that the Jihadis don't care what I think.  Since YOU answered my response by telling me what the Jihadis think, I could only presume that YOU are the Jihadis.  YOU were not speaking for them?  My misunderstanding.

Of course, YOU know what motivates them.  Perhaps you should take your confidence to Mr. Bush and provide some insight of these people.  We, as a nation/government, can't seem to figure them out and I am sure your assistance would be appreciated.

I didn't think you could answer my questions, since they probably aren't on whatever 'speaking points' list you are using.

When you have served our country, come back and then we all can talk about patriotism a bit.

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate]

[quote=BondGuy]

Unfortunately for all of us, the same crew that brought us the bungled Katrina clean up

[/quote]

What does the Mayor of New Orleans have to do with the War in Iraq?

[/quote]

Listen, nobody gets out of this alive.  Whether the guys wearing a turbon or a baseball cap sieways...we're all gonna' die.

Quite worrying/debating it, get on the horn and slam ham: Die rich.

allla achbar!!

[quote=Mandoman][quote=mikebutler222] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

About "me"? You're still pretending I'm a Jihadi and not someone who, unlike you, actually knows something about what motivates them?

[/quote]

YOU asked me a question and when I answered it, YOU told me that the Jihadis don't care what I think.  Since YOU answered my response by telling me what the Jihadis think, I could only presume that YOU are the Jihadis.  YOU were not speaking for them?  My misunderstanding. [/quote]

Ditz. I suggest you simply read what the leaders of Al Qaeda have written about what motivates them. It’s no secret. And they don’t care what you think about their motivation. They’re rather clear on the subject.

[quote=Mandoman][Of course, YOU know what motivates them.  Perhaps you should take your confidence to Mr. Bush and provide some insight of these people.  We, as a nation/government, can't seem to figure them out and I am sure your assistance would be appreciated.[/quote]

The only people confused about the aims of the terrorists are the hyper-partisans who are willfully ignorant on the subject. Again, I can only suggest you read bin Laden’s letters to his followers, or Al-Zawahiri’s correspondence to the late head of Al Qaeda in <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iraq.

[quote=Mandoman]I didn't think you could answer my questions, since they probably aren't on whatever 'speaking points' list you are using.[/quote]

Address a question to me and I’ll answer it. Play the cuteis “are you a Jihadi” game and I’ll simply ridicule you.

[quote=Mandoman]When you have served our country, come back and then we all can talk about patriotism a bit.

[/quote]

I never mentioned patriotism, but it’s tell how often the Left throws that issue up, as if someone’s slighted them on the subject.

For what it’s worth, I have served my country, been there, done that. Thanks for asking. Oh, and if it means anything else to you, I had a nephew lose his life in Al-Anbar province last year. Not that his sacrifice of my military service are meant to be clubs that I intend to beat you with. I simply mention them both because you asked.

[quote=Mandoman][quote=Devil’sAdvocate]

[quote=BondGuy]

Unfortunately for all of us, the same crew that brought us the bungled Katrina clean up

[/quote]

What does the Mayor of New Orleans have to do with the War in Iraq?

[/quote]

[/quote]

I'm sure that makes sense to someone, somewhere. Nice use of the dead, btw.

How many people from Louisiana died in World War Two?

How about Viet Nam?

Anybody want to wager that it was more than 74?

STOP WHINING!

I'm sorry to be the one bringing you the bad news, but the Jihadi's really don't care about your views on US foreign policy, they don't care about diplomacy, they don't care about what you call arrogance. All they care about is their twisted version of Islam, reestablishing it, Islamic government and Shir’a law across the old Caliphate map, and killing non-believers. They’re not just a group of misunderstood “Patriots” who happen to have every view in common with the average NPR listener except the how to change the course of US policies.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O />

You don't have to believe me, simply read what they've said themselves. And, if after you're read their words, if it still bothers you to accept the world as it is, please have the courtesy to step aside and let others who don’t shrink back from the grisly nature of our enemy do what needs to be done keep you and the other sheep safe from it.

No offense.

You asked, so I answered.  You asked and Jihadi's don't care what I think.... So, how long have you been a Jihadi?

What does the Natural Products Report (NPR) have to do with any of this????  You Jihadis are very confusing, always diverting attention elsewhere.

Was Sadaam a Jihadi?  I thought he was a cultural nationalist.

Let me be the first to inform you, we are working on kicking your Jihadi ass.  Eventually, you will come to the table.

MikeB,

Your reference of patriots, ie patriotism, is in blue.  My questions you have not answered are in red.

I am sorry for the loss of your nephew and thank you for your service.

[quote=mikebutler222]

No one said "blame Islam". We've all been pretty clear that we're talking about Islamic extremists. Those would be the people who believe their religion calls them to establish the dominance of their religion over all others, to kill non-believers and to fly planes into buildings.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[/quote] [/quote]

You call them Islamic extremist yet you don't blame Islam? That's a contradiction.

Why not call it Helter Skelter? Madmen convincing the uneducated and easily led to commit murder through the use of twisted reasoning? Manson used the White Album, bin Laden the Quran, Same thing.

They are extremist who have hijacked Islam for their own twisted purposes. If Catholicism had been the major religion on their section of the planet they would have hijack it. They use the religion only to mislead and control. Manson used the White album to do the same thing.

To make your statement close to true it would have to read  "those people who are misled to believe their religion calls them to establish dominance..."

Snipped the tasteless flogging of dead soldiers for your own use to score points in an internet argument.

I'm sure that makes sense to someone, somewhere. Nice use of the dead, btw.

This is what really bothers me about these types of arguments and especially those from the leftists.  First, you use the names of dead soldiers, some one's private pain, so you can do gotcha on the internet.  If I were to see my relative or friends name used as a checker on a board so you can get one up in an argument, I would want to hunt you down and kneecap you.

You guys always throw out the "we care about the soldiers" smoke screen, when it is obvious that you don't care about them in the flesh, just the abstract.  If you did, you wouldn't be supporting the people who are trying to kill them (and us) by giving verbal encouragement to continue fighting..... after all....we are just about to run tail and hide.

Same situation goes with calmly discussing pulling out of the Middle East with out any real feeling or actual concern for what is going to happen to the people we are abandoning.   I don't care to rehash all the fine points leading up to where we are now.  That's pointless. 

In trying to score gotcha points on your opponents, you (generic you meaning leftist..nothing personal...yet) ignore the certainty that millions of real living, breathing people with hopes and dreams are going to be slaughtered.   Even Obama is up with genocide as long as it helps him win an election.  This is despicable.

This endless bickering about things in the past, blind refusal to acknowledge the present and future consequences of our actions and obstructionism is going to be the end of our country.  We have a Congress right now that is as usless as tits on a boar ( old family saying)  They are screwing around trying to find an impeachment needle in a haystack and accomplishing nothing.   Well, not exactly nothing, they have earned the contempt of the American People and have the lowest regard EVER for Congress.  You do know what happens when the majority of the people hates their own government don't you?

[quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222]

No one said "blame Islam". We've all been pretty clear that we're talking about Islamic extremists. Those would be the people who believe their religion calls them to establish the dominance of their religion over all others, to kill non-believers and to fly planes into buildings.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[/quote]

You call them Islamic extremist yet you don't blame Islam? That's a contradiction. [/quote]

Not in the least. I blame RADICAL Islam. For all I know mainstream Islam doesn't advocate killing non-believers and doesn't favor flying planes into buildings.

Again, your burning desire to play down the fantical religious nature of their motivation makes no sense.

[quote=mikebutler222]

I'm sure that makes sense to someone, somewhere. Nice use of the dead, btw.

[/quote]

Maybe I am mistaken, but I still have hope that elected officials care about the people they represent.  What does the Mayor of NO have to do with Iraq?  He has lost some of the people he represents there.  He represents the families of those who have been lost there.

If we don't recognize the sacrifices made, then they have died in vain.  This is a hero list of those from Louisiana who died defending your right to be free.  I should have reduced it down to the New Orleans heroes in response to your question.

[quote=Mandoman]

I'm sorry to be the one bringing you the bad news, but the Jihadi's really don't care about your views on US foreign policy, they don't care about diplomacy, they don't care about what you call arrogance. All they care about is their twisted version of Islam, reestablishing it, Islamic government and Shir’a law across the old Caliphate map, and killing non-believers. They’re not just a group of misunderstood “Patriots”

I use the word patriots here not to slight you, but to use the term people like Micheal Moore use to describe Jihadis.

who happen to have every view in common with the average NPR listener except the how to change the course of US policies.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O />

You don't have to believe me, simply read what they've said themselves. And, if after you're read their words, if it still bothers you to accept the world as it is, please have the courtesy to step aside and let others who don’t shrink back from the grisly nature of our enemy do what needs to be done keep you and the other sheep safe from it.

No offense.

You asked, so I answered.  You asked and Jihadi's don't care what I think.... So, how long have you been a Jihadi?

What does the Natural Products Report (NPR) have to do with any of this???? 

I thought you were kidding on this one. NPR refers to National Public Radio. Again, I was referring to the Western framework so many of the Left try to apply to terrorists to make sense of their agenda. They refuse to see it for what it is, regilous fanticism, and want to see it as the usual laundry list of complaints they've harbored about US foreign policy forever. IOW, the Jihadies only differ from the stereotypical NPR listener in that the listeners wouldn't use violence to change US policy.

You Jihadis are very confusing, always diverting attention elsewhere.

Was Sadaam a Jihadi?  I thought he was a cultural nationalist.

He was a Baathist. A Pan-Arab nationalist. However, the enemy of his enemy was the US (and Isreal, which is why he funded suicide bombers). That's why, even before the invasion, there were Al Qaeda members and members of other terrorist groups that had killed Americans taking refuge in his tightly controlled nation. Know where the people behind the first WTC bombing in 1993 ran to? Iraq.

Let me be the first to inform you, we are working on kicking your Jihadi ass.  Eventually, you will come to the table.

MikeB,

Your reference of patriots, ie patriotism, is in blue.  My questions you have not answered are in red.

I am sorry for the loss of your nephew and thank you for your service.

[/quote]

No problem, and thanks.

You call them Islamic extremist yet you don't blame Islam?

Well then, I blame Islam just as I blame the Catholic Church for the Inquisition and the Protestants in Salem for burning witches.   When a religion goes off the rails and the members of the religion don't stop or protest the actions of their religion, they are just as much to blame.   

If Muslims want to be distanced from the extremists and bring their religion back to a more sane and humane form they need to get off their butts and do something.  The fact that they don't tells me that they agree with what is being done in the name of their religion and that they consider jihad a part of their religion

So, yes. I blame Islam as a religion and all of the participants until they show some action that proves otherwise.

Are you stupid because you're a leftist, or are you a leftist because you're stupid?

The reason Mayor Nagin came up was because one of you dimbulbs tried to link the Hurricane Katrina fiasco with the War in Iraq.

Those of us who think know that what happened in New Orleans is the fault of the Mayor and the Governor--that the Federal government had no responsibility for what happened because dealing with storms is a state and local issue.

As it should be.

[quote=Mandoman][quote=mikebutler222]

I'm sure that makes sense to someone, somewhere. Nice use of the dead, btw.

[/quote]

Maybe I am mistaken, but I still have hope that elected officials care about the people they represent. 

[/quote]

You have to be kidding. Devil's Advocate counter's Bondguy's cheap shot about botched Katrina by mentioning the man most resposible for making New Orlean's agony the nightmare that is was, the mayor who left school buses to flounder and sent poor people to the Superdome instead, and you chime in with a list of dead troops from Lousiana like it says something about Nagin?

[quote=Dust Bunny]

So, yes. I blame Islam as a religion and all of the participants until they show some action that proves otherwise.

[/quote]

A huge percentage of Muslims believe that killing Americans is a worthy goal of Islam.

Yet in cities all over the country Mosques are being built to spread their particular brand of hatred.

This country is extremely screwed up.

[quote=Dust Bunny]

DB, i luv ya but

Snipped the tasteless flogging of dead soldiers for your own use to score points in an internet argument.

I'm sure that makes sense to someone, somewhere. Nice use of the dead, btw.

This is what really bothers me about these types of arguments and especially those from the leftists.  First, you use the names of dead soldiers, some one's private pain, so you can do gotcha on the internet.  If I were to see my relative or friends name used as a checker on a board so you can get one up in an argument, I would want to hunt you down and kneecap you.

And the right (or is it rightist?) tell us the U.S.Body count in Iraq is only 4000 and to stop whining. Ok for the right ot pull in the dead to 'Gotcha" but not the left? At least the left (I believe it to more the centered view) isn't so cold as casually say it's only 4000 what's the big deal?

You guys always throw out the "we care about the soldiers" smoke screen, when it is obvious that you don't care about them in the flesh, just the abstract.  If you did, you wouldn't be supporting the people who are trying to kill them (and us) by giving verbal encouragement to continue fighting..... after all....we are just about to run tail and hide.

I'm tired of the "we're helping them win the war" by doing no more than exercising my right to free speech. Their leaders are the ones giving them encouragement. I'm speaking out about the mismanagement of a war that should have been mopped up by now. And i'm screaming mad my leaders have gotten us into this mess. It will be the critics of this administration who force change for the better, not those who go along with the status que. Note i didn't say we should pull out of Iraq. How about we stop the half assed prosecution of the war? Lets start there.

Same situation goes with calmly discussing pulling out of the Middle East with out any real feeling or actual concern for what is going to happen to the people we are abandoning.   I don't care to rehash all the fine points leading up to where we are now.  That's pointless. 

We are not responsible for these people. From their POV we don't have a better way. 

In trying to score gotcha points on your opponents, you (generic you meaning leftist..nothing personal...yet) ignore the certainty that millions of real living, breathing people with hopes and dreams are going to be slaughtered.   Even Obama is up with genocide as long as it helps him win an election.  This is despicable.

This endless bickering about things in the past, blind refusal to acknowledge the present and future consequences of our actions and obstructionism is going to be the end of our country.  We have a Congress right now that is as usless as tits on a boar ( old family saying)  They are screwing around trying to find an impeachment needle in a haystack and accomplishing nothing.   Well, not exactly nothing, they have earned the contempt of the American People and have the lowest regard EVER for Congress.  You do know what happens when the majority of the people hates their own government don't you?

Yep, we elect a guy whose only success was turning a profit with a baseball team by stealing people's property. He made out very well. The people who lost their homes and businesses, not as well. That's what happens when someone tries to find an impeachment needle in a haystack, spends millions doing it, and finally comes up with something that 50 years ago wouldn't get a second nodd. That's what happens. The people turn off, forget it's not about who's blowing who and and make a tragic mistake. one we'll pay for for a long time.

That said, this congress is no bargain and Hillary will be the next president

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate]

Are you stupid because you're a leftist, or are you a leftist because you're stupid?

The reason Mayor Nagin came up was because one of you dimbulbs tried to link the Hurricane Katrina fiasco with the War in Iraq.

Those of us who think know that what happened in New Orleans is the fault of the Mayor and the Governor--that the Federal government had no responsibility for what happened because dealing with storms is a state and local issue.

As it should be.

[/quote]

And what makes you think that I am a leftist?  Because I don't see success occurring with the Iraq situation?  So, Domenici (NM), Gregg (NH), Alexander (TN), and Hagel (NE) are leftist, too???  [Okay, maybe Hagel is a bit, but the others?]

Many of you have made way too many assumptions today.  If anyone is of the resolve that, "If you don't agree with me, you are an idiot/leftist/terrorist supporter" then you really need to sit back and reflect on what it is to be an American and what it means to live in a democracy.  This is not a dictatorship, not a communist country, it is a democracy and it is okay for others to have other opinions.  It doesn't make them the enemy.

I voted for George W. two times.  I have been disappointed and thought things would be quite different during his second term.  The turmoil within the administration is very questionable, in my mind.  The continued escalation of the war, even when not in the advice of advisors, is questionable, in my mind.  Does this make me a leftist?

No matter what you think I am, I know one thing for sure.  That is, I'm not a puppet and can think for myself.  If you don't agree with me, fine - convince me how I am wrong.  Resorting to name calling isn't very convincing.

Enough of my ramblings.  I hope each of you have a good night.

God bless you (right or left) and God bless America!

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate]

Are you stupid because you’re a leftist, or are you a leftist because you’re stupid?

The reason Mayor Nagin came up was because one of you dimbulbs tried to link the Hurricane Katrina fiasco with the War in Iraq.

Those of us who think know that what happened in New Orleans is the fault of the Mayor and the Governor–that the Federal government had no responsibility for what happened because dealing with storms is a state and local issue.

As it should be.

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222]

No one said "blame Islam". We've all been pretty clear that we're talking about Islamic extremists. Those would be the people who believe their religion calls them to establish the dominance of their religion over all others, to kill non-believers and to fly planes into buildings.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[/quote]

You call them Islamic extremist yet you don't blame Islam? That's a contradiction. [/quote]

Not in the least. I blame RADICAL Islam. For all I know mainstream Islam doesn't advocate killing non-believers and doesn't favor flying planes into buildings.

Again, your burning desire to play down the fantical religious nature of their motivation makes no sense.

[/quote]

Ok, I'd buy that if there was a such thing as radical Islam. There isn't. There is something called radical Islam that has been created by our media. They have to put a name on it so that's what they call it. What it really is, is terrorist who are miss using religion to build an army of lethal misguided uneducated people to slaughter everyone who doesn't tow the line. The line being whatever they say the Quran says it is.

What's sadly tragic is how many people have bought into this spin. That this is that this is a holy war. At least the poor people of the middle east have an excuse. They are uneducated and their access to the truth is severely censored. Believing what your leaders tell you the holy book says is your only choice when you don't know how to read.  What's your excuse? You are an educated person who is making the same mistake, that it's about religion.

It's about domination.

[quote=Ashland]

What does FEMA mean to you?

QUOTE]

What did FEMA not do that you think was their responsibiliity?

Was New Orleans aware that they were ground zero for the hurricane?

The answer is yes--and at that point the Federal government was out of the picture.

It was up to the city and state to evacuate the city.  They did not do that.

It was up to the state to mobilize the National Guard.  The governor did not do that for days and days, and when she finally did the situation was out of control.

There is no intellectually honest way to deflect blame for that fiasco from where it belongs--Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco.

What it really is, is terrorist who are miss using religion to build an army of lethal misguided uneducated people to slaughter everyone who doesn't tow the line.

It's tough to agree with you when there isn't an outcry of Muslims speaking out against the terrorism.

[quote=anonymous]

What it really is, is terrorist who are miss using religion to build an army of lethal misguided uneducated people to slaughter everyone who doesn't tow the line.

It's tough to agree with you when there isn't an outcry of Muslims speaking out against the terrorism.

[/quote]

There is absolutely an outcry from Muslims speaking out against the terrorism. Spend some time with Muslims and you'll see for yourself.

The problem is Muslims have no voice in this country. Most of us don't know any Muslims and don't want to know any Muslims.

I too would love to fall into the "if you want us to stop persecuting you get your people in line" type of thinking but i can go there. It's like asking Christians to stop the KKK or else. Way to easy.

As I said, it's sad that the terrorist have co-opted Islam as their recruitment tool and hammer.

That's not to say that there aren't many Muslims who do hate us. But as far as that goes take a number. Mostly we don't deserve to be hated. But plenty of people do just that. An that hate is non denominational.

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate]

[quote=Ashland]

What does FEMA mean to you?

QUOTE]

What did FEMA not do that you think was their responsibiliity?

Was New Orleans aware that they were ground zero for the hurricane?

The answer is yes--and at that point the Federal government was out of the picture.

It was up to the city and state to evacuate the city.  They did not do that.

It was up to the state to mobilize the National Guard.  The governor did not do that for days and days, and when she finally did the situation was out of control.

There is no intellectually honest way to deflect blame for that fiasco from where it belongs--Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco.

[/quote]

Actually DA, you've got something wrong here. Nagin did evacuate the city in plenty of time to get the job done. In fact, if anything went right it was the evacuation.

The city had a plan for those who could not evacuate, put them in the largest and thought to be strongest building the city owned, the Superdome, until the calvary, read FEMA, arrived. The city did that.

That the Superdome fell apart is nobody's fault. It took a direct hit.

That people died in their homes? Their own tragically stupid fault for not evcauating when ordered to do so.

Same for those who we watched in those daring rescues by the Coast Guard. And by the way, the Coast Guard was the only Govt agency worthy of praise.

So exactly what did Nagin do wrong? Nothing!

I don't like Nagin or Blanco but they're not the ones who screwed up here. And with the exception of the one or two Bush admin apologist who missed the split screen CNN shot of Chertoff screen right saying he wasn't aware of any crisis at the Superdome while on screen left streaming live video of said crisis played, the entire nation saw exactly who was to blame. And it wasn't nagin or Blanco.

Of course then there's George W ducking blame saying he wasn't briefed about the storm playing split screen with his briefing of the storm by the head of the Natl Hurricane service. That briefing was released by the Natl Hurricane center to deflect criticism that they had failed to do their job in briefing the Prez. They did brief him and had the tape to prove it. What they could never know was that they would be put in a position to have to prove it by none other than the president himself.

[quote=BondGuy][quote=Devil’sAdvocate]

[quote=Ashland]

What does FEMA mean to you?

[/quote]

What did FEMA not do that you think was their responsibiliity?

Was New Orleans aware that they were ground zero for the hurricane?

The answer is yes--and at that point the Federal government was out of the picture.

It was up to the city and state to evacuate the city.  They did not do that.

It was up to the state to mobilize the National Guard.  The governor did not do that for days and days, and when she finally did the situation was out of control.

There is no intellectually honest way to deflect blame for that fiasco from where it belongs--Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco.

[/quote]

Actually DA, you've got something wrong here. Nagin did evacuate the city in plenty of time to get the job done. In fact, if anything went right it was the evacuation.

The city had a plan for those who could not evacuate, put them in the largest and thought to be strongest building the city owned, the Superdome, until the calvary, read FEMA, arrived. The city did that.

That the Superdome fell apart is nobody's fault. It took a direct hit.

That people died in their homes? Their own tragically stupid fault for not evcauating when ordered to do so.

Same for those who we watched in those daring rescues by the Coast Guard. And by the way, the Coast Guard was the only Govt agency worthy of praise.

So exactly what did Nagin do wrong? Nothing!

I don't like Nagin or Blanco but they're not the ones who screwed up here. And with the exception of the one or two Bush admin apologist who missed the split screen CNN shot of Chertoff screen right saying he wasn't aware of any crisis at the Superdome while on screen left streaming live video of said crisis played, the entire nation saw exactly who was to blame. And it wasn't nagin or Blanco.

Of course then there's George W ducking blame saying he wasn't briefed about the storm playing split screen with his briefing of the storm by the head of the Natl Hurricane service. That briefing was released by the Natl Hurricane center to deflect criticism that they had failed to do their job in briefing the Prez. They did brief him and had the tape to prove it. What they could never know was that they would be put in a position to have to prove it by none other than the president himself.

[/quote]

Nonsense.   Mayor Nagin allowed dozens of school buses sit idle while people were walking out of town.

The governor could not stop playing Hamlet regarding the National Guard.

It is not the role of the Federal government to deal with hurricanes and the immediate after effect.  The Federal government is to declare the area a disaster zone, if appropriate, and to support state and local authorities.

For an indication of how it should have been done look to the east.  In Mississippi there were entire towns blown away and/or sucked out to sea.

In Mississippi Governor Barbour reacted quickly, ordered the Guard into the affected areas, asked for FEMA assistance and got about fixing things.

There was also the private sector.  There is a story that a Waffle House along the coast somewhere was without power so they brought in a generator and went about their business on the day after the storm passed.

Meanwhile in New Orleans Mayor Nagin was whining and Governor Blanco was frozen in place like a deer in headlights.

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate][quote=BondGuy][quote=Devil’sAdvocate]

[quote=Ashland]

What does FEMA mean to you?

[/quote]

What did FEMA not do that you think was their responsibiliity?

Was New Orleans aware that they were ground zero for the hurricane?

The answer is yes--and at that point the Federal government was out of the picture.

It was up to the city and state to evacuate the city.  They did not do that.

It was up to the state to mobilize the National Guard.  The governor did not do that for days and days, and when she finally did the situation was out of control.

There is no intellectually honest way to deflect blame for that fiasco from where it belongs--Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco.

[/quote]

Actually DA, you've got something wrong here. Nagin did evacuate the city in plenty of time to get the job done. In fact, if anything went right it was the evacuation.

The city had a plan for those who could not evacuate, put them in the largest and thought to be strongest building the city owned, the Superdome, until the calvary, read FEMA, arrived. The city did that.

That the Superdome fell apart is nobody's fault. It took a direct hit.

That people died in their homes? Their own tragically stupid fault for not evcauating when ordered to do so.

Same for those who we watched in those daring rescues by the Coast Guard. And by the way, the Coast Guard was the only Govt agency worthy of praise.

So exactly what did Nagin do wrong? Nothing!

I don't like Nagin or Blanco but they're not the ones who screwed up here. And with the exception of the one or two Bush admin apologist who missed the split screen CNN shot of Chertoff screen right saying he wasn't aware of any crisis at the Superdome while on screen left streaming live video of said crisis played, the entire nation saw exactly who was to blame. And it wasn't nagin or Blanco.

Of course then there's George W ducking blame saying he wasn't briefed about the storm playing split screen with his briefing of the storm by the head of the Natl Hurricane service. That briefing was released by the Natl Hurricane center to deflect criticism that they had failed to do their job in briefing the Prez. They did brief him and had the tape to prove it. What they could never know was that they would be put in a position to have to prove it by none other than the president himself.

[/quote]

Nonsense.   Mayor Nagin allowed dozens of school buses sit idle while people were walking out of town.

The governor could not stop playing Hamlet regarding the National Guard.

It is not the role of the Federal government to deal with hurricanes and the immediate after effect.  The Federal government is to declare the area a disaster zone, if appropriate, and to support state and local authorities.

For an indication of how it should have been done look to the east.  In Mississippi there were entire towns blown away and/or sucked out to sea.

In Mississippi Governor Barbour reacted quickly, ordered the Guard into the affected areas, asked for FEMA assistance and got about fixing things.

There was also the private sector.  There is a story that a Waffle House along the coast somewhere was without power so they brought in a generator and went about their business on the day after the storm passed.

Meanwhile in New Orleans Mayor Nagin was whining and Governor Blanco was frozen in place like a deer in headlights.

[/quote]

A few years ago Hurricane Charley missed my west coast Florida house by thirty miles. That is, my house was 30 miles south from the ground zero U.S. Landfall of a cat three hurricane. Houses at ground zero were ripped off the planet. Houses 20 miles from GZ were total loses. My house? A ripped screen. My east coast Florida house sustained a direct hit from Hurricane Frances later that same summer, again with almost no damage. That's the advantage of not being directly on the water. Then in 2005 Wilma made landfall 30 miles south of the west coast house and again we escaped unscathed.

My point: Don't tell me stories about hurricanes.

[quote=BondGuy]

A few years ago Hurricane Charley missed my west coast Florida house by thirty miles. That is, my house was 30 miles south from the ground zero U.S. Landfall of a cat three hurricane. Houses at ground zero were ripped off the planet. Houses 20 miles from GZ were total loses. My house? A ripped screen. My east coast Florida house sustained a direct hit from Hurricane Frances later that same summer, again with almost no damage. That's the advantage of not being directly on the water. Then in 2005 Wilma made landfall 30 miles south of the west coast house and again we escaped unscathed.

My point: Don't tell me stories about hurricanes.

[/quote]

Let me see if I have this right. 

You were almost affected by hurricanes three times and that makes you knowledgable about what happened in New Orleans?

One day I was almost hit by a Ford pickup truck, and on another occasion I was almost run over by a NYC cab, and one time in San Francisco I barely got out of the way of a cable car.

Does that make me an expert on the Department of Transportation?

I live in California, between two volcanoes and near an earth quake fault.  It was my choice.  If all he&& breaks lose should I expect that the government should rush to rescue my stupid a$$ and spend tax payer dollars when I knew I was putting myself in danger.  NO!!

Governments have 3 functions and 3 only. 

1. Protect us from foreign invaders and secure the borders with a standing army and maintain a military  pretty crappy job on the borders so far, I must say.

2.  Protect us from each other. Prosecute crimes against persons and property.   This doesn't include telling us what to eat, to wear seat belts, where to smoke cigarettes, what kind of light bulbs we can use, when to spay our pets or who to marry.

3. Finance public works that are too burdensome for local groups that benefit the whole.  For example communities can't build Hoover Dam or create an interstate highway system.  BUT we can take care of our own local schools and determine if we want to allow people to fish, farm or ....ahem.. in the wilderness.

That's i!!.   Otherwise the government is intrusive into our day to day life and impedes our freedoms. 

So....back to New Orleans.   People there are living below sea level and you expect the federal government to wipe their noses when the inevitable happens; instead of holding the population and (more to the point) the local government accountable for their lack of preparedness and prevention.   Sorry.... you live on the slopes of a volcano don't be surprised when you get burned.

Scurry bunny, scurry!

[quote=Dust Bunny]

I live in California, between two volcanoes and near an earth quake fault. It was my choice. If all he&& breaks lose should I expect that the government should rush to rescue my stupid a$$ and spend tax payer dollars when I knew I was putting myself in danger. NO!!

Governments have 3 functions and 3 only.

1. Protect us from foreign invaders and secure the borders with a standing army and maintain a military pretty crappy job on the borders so far, I must say.

2. Protect us from each other. Prosecute crimes against persons and property. This doesn’t include telling us what to eat, to wear seat belts, where to smoke cigarettes, what kind of light bulbs we can use, when to spay our pets or who to marry.

3. Finance public works that are too burdensome for local groups that benefit the whole. For example communities can’t build Hoover Dam or create an interstate highway system. BUT we can take care of our own local schools and determine if we want to allow people to fish, farm or …ahem… in the wilderness.

That’s i!!. Otherwise the government is intrusive into our day to day life and impedes our freedoms.

So…back to New Orleans. People there are living below sea level and you expect the federal government to wipe their noses when the inevitable happens; instead of holding the population and (more to the point) the local government accountable for their lack of preparedness and prevention. Sorry… you live on the slopes of a volcano don’t be surprised when you get burned.

[quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222][quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222]

No one said "blame Islam". We've all been pretty clear that we're talking about Islamic extremists. Those would be the people who believe their religion calls them to establish the dominance of their religion over all others, to kill non-believers and to fly planes into buildings.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[/quote]

You call them Islamic extremist yet you don't blame Islam? That's a contradiction. [/quote]

Not in the least. I blame RADICAL Islam. For all I know mainstream Islam doesn't advocate killing non-believers and doesn't favor flying planes into buildings.

Again, your burning desire to play down the fantical religious nature of their motivation makes no sense.

[/quote]

Ok, I'd buy that if there was a such thing as radical Islam. There isn't.[/quote]

As I said in the beginning, and you denied, you don't think these people exist.

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate][quote=BondGuy][quote=Devil’sAdvocate]

[quote=Ashland]

What does FEMA mean to you?

[/quote]

What did FEMA not do that you think was their responsibiliity?

Was New Orleans aware that they were ground zero for the hurricane?

The answer is yes--and at that point the Federal government was out of the picture.

It was up to the city and state to evacuate the city.  They did not do that.

It was up to the state to mobilize the National Guard.  The governor did not do that for days and days, and when she finally did the situation was out of control.

There is no intellectually honest way to deflect blame for that fiasco from where it belongs--Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco.

[/quote]

Actually DA, you've got something wrong here. Nagin did evacuate the city in plenty of time to get the job done. In fact, if anything went right it was the evacuation.

The city had a plan for those who could not evacuate, put them in the largest and thought to be strongest building the city owned, the Superdome, until the calvary, read FEMA, arrived. The city did that.

That the Superdome fell apart is nobody's fault. It took a direct hit.

That people died in their homes? Their own tragically stupid fault for not evcauating when ordered to do so.

Same for those who we watched in those daring rescues by the Coast Guard. And by the way, the Coast Guard was the only Govt agency worthy of praise.

So exactly what did Nagin do wrong? Nothing!

I don't like Nagin or Blanco but they're not the ones who screwed up here. And with the exception of the one or two Bush admin apologist who missed the split screen CNN shot of Chertoff screen right saying he wasn't aware of any crisis at the Superdome while on screen left streaming live video of said crisis played, the entire nation saw exactly who was to blame. And it wasn't nagin or Blanco.

Of course then there's George W ducking blame saying he wasn't briefed about the storm playing split screen with his briefing of the storm by the head of the Natl Hurricane service. That briefing was released by the Natl Hurricane center to deflect criticism that they had failed to do their job in briefing the Prez. They did brief him and had the tape to prove it. What they could never know was that they would be put in a position to have to prove it by none other than the president himself.

[/quote]

Nonsense.   Mayor Nagin allowed dozens of school buses sit idle while people were walking out of town.

The governor could not stop playing Hamlet regarding the National Guard.

It is not the role of the Federal government to deal with hurricanes and the immediate after effect.  The Federal government is to declare the area a disaster zone, if appropriate, and to support state and local authorities.

For an indication of how it should have been done look to the east.  In Mississippi there were entire towns blown away and/or sucked out to sea.

In Mississippi Governor Barbour reacted quickly, ordered the Guard into the affected areas, asked for FEMA assistance and got about fixing things.

There was also the private sector.  There is a story that a Waffle House along the coast somewhere was without power so they brought in a generator and went about their business on the day after the storm passed.

Meanwhile in New Orleans Mayor Nagin was whining and Governor Blanco was frozen in place like a deer in headlights.

[/quote]

Exactly. Let's not forget the talking points that came from those two incompetents, that the Iraq war kept them from having the National Guard they needed, and that the Bush administration had shortchanged the levy system. Both of those lies were heralded while people in New Orleans drowned.

Nagin was an absolute disaster (and continues to be to this very day) and Blanco not only impeded the use of the National Guard in a timely fashion, the video shows SHE reported in conference call HOURS after the levy breech that they were intact and holding. FEMA isn’t expected to be onsite within hours (I can tell you from personal experience, having been through a CAT V hurricane), especially when roads and bridges aren’t passable. FEMA supplies can’t be put in the path of a storm, and have to be brought in after it’s passed. That’s the local officials and their propositioned supplies. That’s another area where Nagin failed miserably. He should have been able to care for the people he abandoned in the Superdome for 24-48 hours, but he wasn’t prepared. So much for the claim that it was a smart plan to put people there.

If there was one failure of FEMA it was that they weren’t there to save the day from Blanco/Nagin quicker. Instead of relying on reports from those two nitwits, FEMA should have had CNN on a monitor to see what was really happening on the ground. They should have been there 24 hours earlier. But that’s the entire extent of their response failure. They didn’t put people in peril, that was Blanco/Nagin, the two that go unmentioned in the “Bush screwed New Orleans because he hates black people” fable.

The rest of the mythology about how Nagin/Blanco did a fine job fighting the incompetence of the Bush administration is the very same sort of mythology hyper-partisan Democrats hold as sacred text, just as they hold on to the “stolen election” fantasy against all facts and every investigation.

[quote=BondGuy]That the Superdome fell apart is nobody's fault. It took a direct hit. [/quote]

The Superdowm didn't "fall apart" and it didn't take a direct hit. The issue at the Superdome was that Nagin didn't have supplies and facilities there for the people he abandoned there. They went without food, water and medical attention. All the things that he SHOULD have had in place and prepared to hold people over for 24-48 hours until FEMA could arrive.

It should concern people that fools who can’t understand what happened in New Orleans–or refuse to believe it–are advising others about their money.

Another legacy of the Nagin approach is the abandoned car issue.

There were thousands of abandoned cars after the water went down.

A guy from Texas showed up offering to buy them and haul them off--if I remember he was going to pay something like $5 million total for all the cars.

Mayor Nagin was too smart to fall for that.  Instead he paid something like $25 million to have them hauled off.

There is inconclusive evidence--isn't it always--that the Mayor received what amonts to kick backs from the firm that was hired.

How bright do you have to be to know that being paid $5 million to get rid of abandoned cars is a better idea than paying $25 million to do the same job?

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate]

One day I was almost hit by a Ford pickup truck, and on another occasion I was almost run over by a NYC cab, and one time in San Francisco I barely got out of the way of a cable car.

Does that make me an expert on the Department of Transportation?

[/quote]

I don't know what it says about you and the Dept of Transportation, but it may suggest you need glasses. 

[quote=Oldproducer] [quote=Dust Bunny]

I live in California, between two volcanoes and near an earth quake fault.  It was my choice.  If all he&& breaks lose should I expect that the government should rush to rescue my stupid a$$ and spend tax payer dollars when I knew I was putting myself in danger.  NO!!

Governments have 3 functions and 3 only. 

1. Protect us from foreign invaders and secure the borders with a standing army and maintain a military  pretty crappy job on the borders so far, I must say.

2.  Protect us from each other. Prosecute crimes against persons and property.   This doesn't include telling us what to eat, to wear seat belts, where to smoke cigarettes, what kind of light bulbs we can use, when to spay our pets or who to marry.

3. Finance public works that are too burdensome for local groups that benefit the whole.  For example communities can't build Hoover Dam or create an interstate highway system.  BUT we can take care of our own local schools and determine if we want to allow people to fish, farm or ....ahem.. in the wilderness.

That's i!!.   Otherwise the government is intrusive into our day to day life and impedes our freedoms. 

So....back to New Orleans.   People there are living below sea level and you expect the federal government to wipe their noses when the inevitable happens; instead of holding the population and (more to the point) the local government accountable for their lack of preparedness and prevention.   Sorry.... you live on the slopes of a volcano don't be surprised when you get burned.

[/quote]

Yeah! Right now, we need to pull all of those federal fire fighters out of CA and let those homes burn! Arny needs to deal with the fires, not my tax dollars!

Whew, talk about whining if that happened! Ha![/quote]

Those fall under item #3 for extenisive wild land fires. Projects athat are more than any single community could fund.  The local fires for houses etc are able to be funded and handled by the local volunteer fire depts (which is all we have) and small municipal controlled departments.  CDF  California Forestry Department, (which has just changed its name to Cal Fire) is othewise known locally around here as Can't Deal with Fire

Try again.

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate]

[quote=BondGuy]

A few years ago Hurricane Charley missed my west coast Florida house by thirty miles. That is, my house was 30 miles south from the ground zero U.S. Landfall of a cat three hurricane. Houses at ground zero were ripped off the planet. Houses 20 miles from GZ were total loses. My house? A ripped screen. My east coast Florida house sustained a direct hit from Hurricane Frances later that same summer, again with almost no damage. That's the advantage of not being directly on the water. Then in 2005 Wilma made landfall 30 miles south of the west coast house and again we escaped unscathed.

My point: Don't tell me stories about hurricanes.

[/quote]

Let me see if I have this right. 

You were almost affected by hurricanes three times and that makes you knowledgable about what happened in New Orleans?

One day I was almost hit by a Ford pickup truck, and on another occasion I was almost run over by a NYC cab, and one time in San Francisco I barely got out of the way of a cable car.

Does that make me an expert on the Department of Transportation?

[/quote]

You don't have it right. You answer my defense of Nagin with anecdotal stories about a waffle house that was up and running as soon as the wind died. So, I answered with an antecdotal story of my own. My point was and is, so what! That proves nothing.

Maybe in your world Mississippi was up and running the day after the Hurricane, but here on planet earth the Mississippi that the rest of us know and love was just as screwed as the big easy.

For an intellectually honest guy you're having trouble keeping up.

[quote=BondGuy]

.......my defense of Nagin

[/quote]

Strutting stupidity like a peacock

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I like the way they say it better.

And as to the wild fire argument, well the same could and should be said about the Katrina issue. "Commuity" is a 4 dimensional construct, it includes the dimension of "Time".

But time is a most slippery character. I love playing with the concept of time. But in this case the issue is that the community of NOLA that needed help was a sliver of the 4D community. The need was far beyond what the "single community could fund".

Now I totally agree that NOLA had no business existing in the first place and it was through centuries of misplaced government funds that the place existed at all. The community could not and would not provide for itself, and so the country as a whole subsidized it's existence. But that is not this communities fault. This community is living in an area that has been declared habitable by all agencies that are paid to be expert in these matters.

Is it Bush's fault the levees gave way? Heck no. Is it Bush's fault that  "You're doin a heckuvajob Brownie" was in charge of FEMA?" Yes.

What was the worst thing about NOLA wasn't the idea that NOLA drowned, it was that we supposedly had spent billions of dollars on a disaster preparedness plan and implementation against the idea that there was an imminent threat of surprise terrorist attack, and then when there was a natural disaster that was well anticipated, we all saw the Keystone Kops bunking into each other slapping each other on the back and pointing fingers, and sending snarky e-mails to each other and generally not doing anything to help anyone.

Where did our money go? What are we ready for? BUPKISS! That's what we've done, that's what we're ready for. We keep hearing people tell us that attack is imminent, and yetwhat have they done to close the huge security gaps in this nation? And so the question is asked again...Where did our money go? When you send a cocaine abuser to the grocery store with a $100 and all he comes back with is a quart of milk, you ask, "Where's the rest of the money?"

That's all I'm asking, "What did you waste the money on? It's obvious you didn't spend it on preparedness!"

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222][quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222]

No one said "blame Islam". We've all been pretty clear that we're talking about Islamic extremists. Those would be the people who believe their religion calls them to establish the dominance of their religion over all others, to kill non-believers and to fly planes into buildings.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[/quote]

You call them Islamic extremist yet you don't blame Islam? That's a contradiction. [/quote]

Not in the least. I blame RADICAL Islam. For all I know mainstream Islam doesn't advocate killing non-believers and doesn't favor flying planes into buildings.

Again, your burning desire to play down the fantical religious nature of their motivation makes no sense.

[/quote]

Ok, I'd buy that if there was a such thing as radical Islam. There isn't.[/quote]

As I said in the beginning, and you denied, you don't think these people exist.

[/quote]

Mike are you being purposely contrary or do you have a reading comprehension problem?

You in a racist prejudiced way have attached a religion to terrorism. A religion that has been hijacked by madmen to forward their goal of world domination.  The religion radical islam doesn't exist just as the religion radical catholicism doesn't exist. There is Islam and there is catholicism.

That madmen have grabbed ahold of the Quran and are using it to murder people is no fault of Islam or any of its millions of followers. What's interesting is that the madmen leaders of the terrorist want their followers to believe it's about religion. As I've said, those followers are illiterate. Yet, as you continue to prove, the well educated have bought their propaganda as well.

If we accept their terms and make this a religious war, we will lose.  

Do I think these people exist? I know they exist. I'm just calling them what they are. The terrorist are madmen. Just as Hitler was a madman.

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate]

[quote=BondGuy]

.......my defense of Nagin

[/quote]

Strutting stupidity like a peacock

[/quote]

DA, I really missed you while you were gone. But I gotta say, is the best you can do? Was the wait for stinging barbs and sharp jabs  that only DA could deliver for nothing?

Dig deep and give me something to bath me in that good old DA aura.

OK, enough. Welcome back. It's been fun sparing with you.

We disagree. Nothing new there right?

BTW, I would like to use Katrina to diffuse the "Terror Hysteria" that the powers that be use to distract the public from their other, more nefarious, objectives.

We are Russia in the historical perspective. By this I refer to the admonition that "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it." which was reference to the folly of trying to defeat Russia by invading it. Russia is much too large to engage in a land war.

China is much too big in terms of geography and population to defeat in a land war (see Korea as an example, and then see Vietnam as another example).

There is nothing that the terrorists could probably do (which is to say that it is possible but the probability is that by the time they got to a size that would be effective, we would know about it. Which is to say, I'm not advocating dismantling the intelligence community.) that would be more than a disruption of our day. The forces of nature as much much more powerful than anything man has devised and those powers pound our nation annually (a hurricane here, an Earthquake there, a tornado the other place, a flood destroying more farmland than hundreds of crop dusters of anthrax, a drought shutting down entire regions of agriculture).

The point being that (under any president other than the one we have) the world is aware that the United States of America has the power to completely destroy the entire planet, and so an attack on the United States is a futile gesture in anticipation of one's own suicide.

With the US army in Afghanistan, what were the possibilities that Saddam would have even looked like he was going to launch an attack on the US (by our most aggressive estimates, he had enough firepower to destroy an are 8 time the areas of NYC, that's a bite, but it's not the knockout punch!)? ZERO! Why? Because then we'd have had justification to completely obliterate them, and Saddam didn't want to be obliterated. 

The terrorist threat is way overblown. It is being used in the way the Commie threat (and on their side, the Imperialist Capitalist schweinhund threat) is used to rally around a central, common enemy. It's an old trick, as old as religion, perhaps even older. ( http://youtube.com/watch?v=KmnB3T00ZuU )

You in a racist prejudiced way have attached a religion to terrorism. A religion that has been hijacked by madmen to forward their goal of world domination.  The religion radical islam doesn't exist just as the religion radical catholicism doesn't exist. There is Islam and there is catholicism.

Until the members of Islam show that they don't approve of or condone the actions of the jihadists/terrorists the religion of Islam is not hijacked and is complicit in the actions of the terrorists.   So far, except for a very few people, they have not shown any inclination to distance themselves from or denounce the terrorists.

Walk like a duck, quack like a duck...

Catholicism (needs to be capitalized) was just as complicit and as much of a terrorist organization during the Inquisition.  Trying to shuffle responsibility is a weak excuse  and a cover up for the real agenda of Islam as a religion.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

The terrorist threat is way overblown.

[/quote]

So, how many deaths are acceptable?  Apparently 9/11 did not bother you.  Would it bother you if a dirty bomb went off in a major city and killed, say, 50,000?

Is that enough to fight about?

What motivates you coward types to stand up and fight?

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates Despite years of work aimed at changing Saudi Arabia’s public school curriculum, the country’s latest textbooks continue to promote intolerance of other religions, a new study said.

Fifth graders learn "it is forbidden for a Muslim to be a loyal friend to someone who does not believe in God and his prophet, or someone who fights the religion of Islam."

That's from the International Herald Tribune, 5/24/06, and it illustrates the real problem. Money rules. DA is on to something, all this liberal crap will be out the window when the ugly face of Islam on the march shows its face again, thanks to institutionalized radical Islam, led by our good Arab friends.

[quote=coolshoos]

That's from the International Herald Tribune, 5/24/06,

[/quote]

The reality is that Islam teaches three things when dealing with you and me.

1.  They are to convert us to Islam--that may appeal to you but not to me.

2.  They are to tax us--that too may appeal to you but not to me.

3.  They are to kill us--does that appeal to you?

That's it.  Nothing else is acceptable.

Now, they are out here wandering around.  They smile at you and you think that means that they like you.

Nazis smiled at Jews getting off the trains--but they were envisioning their skin being used as lamp shades.

The only sane thing to do is to fight them everywhere on earth--and to avoid fighting them on our soil as long as we possibly can.

We'll probably be in Iraq for years, decades, even longer.  Consider how long we have been in South Korea.  Why are you whiners not wailing and gnashing your teeth about that?

[quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222][quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222][quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

No one said "blame Islam". We've all been pretty clear that we're talking about Islamic extremists. Those would be the people who believe their religion calls them to establish the dominance of their religion over all others, to kill non-believers and to fly planes into buildings.

[/quote]

You call them Islamic extremist yet you don't blame Islam? That's a contradiction. [/quote]

Not in the least. I blame RADICAL Islam. For all I know mainstream Islam doesn't advocate killing non-believers and doesn't favor flying planes into buildings.

Again, your burning desire to play down the fanatical religious nature of their motivation makes no sense.

[/quote]

Ok, I'd buy that if there was a such thing as radical Islam. There isn't.[/quote]

As I said in the beginning, and you denied, you don't think these people exist.

[/quote]

Mike are you being purposely contrary or do you have a reading comprehension problem? [/quote]

Neither, I’m being perfectly accurate.

[quote=BondGuy]You in a racist prejudiced way have attached a religion to terrorism. [/quote]

Talk about out-of-the-blue silliness. I haven’t “attached a religion to terrorism”, I’ve accurately stated what  the terrorists THEMSELVES say their motivation is. Why you insist they you’re more accurate than they are about their own motivation remains a mystery.

 [quote=BondGuy]  The religion radical islam doesn't exist just as the religion radical catholicism doesn't exist. [/quote]

Again, why you refuse to acknowledge the Wahhabist strain of Islam, their lust for Shir’a law, the Taliban and Al Qaeda outgrowths of it is simply bizarre.

BTW, there are anti-abortion people who stand outside clinics, and there are anti-abortion people who bomb clinics. You figure there’s no difference there?

[quote=BondGuy]That madmen have grabbed ahold of the Quran and are using it to murder people is no fault of Islam or any of its millions of followers.[/quote]

I never said it was. You see, I’m the one saying there’s a difference between mainstream Islam and the Taliban/Al Qaeda. You’re the one denying it.

[quote=BondGuy]If we accept their terms and make this a religious war, we will lose.  [/quote]

If you refuse to see the religious underpinnings of their fight, you’re refusing to see the extreme from of fanaticism that can only come with religious fervor.  These aren’t common criminals motivated by greed or lust, these aren’t WWII era fascists driven solely by a thirst for power. These are followers of a perverted form of a religion that hold their agenda much, much deeper than the types of threats mentioned above.

They’ll happily die in the process of furthering their agenda, which includes killing you, because you’re a non-believer. Better still, they believe they get to jump to the head of the line to get to heaven, and they’ll get special favors there BECAUSE they killed you. They’ll happily kill your children. Is that a perversion of Islam? Well, I sure think so, but what you and I think doesn’t matter to them. They “see” the way and all your talk that they’re being used or that UBL isn’t “really” all about religion is pointless to them.

You refuse to acknowledge that, and that’s a serious error of judgment. It leads you to minimize the danger they present, to see them as nothing special in terms of the threat they pose, simply people who are misguided, misused, and whom we can find middle ground with, if only a Democrat were elected president and the magical “diplomacy” were instituted.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

There is nothing that the terrorists could probably do ...... that would be more than a disruption of our day.

[/quote]

Incredible, simply incredible....

[quote=Dust Bunny]

You in a racist prejudiced way have attached a religion to terrorism. A religion that has been hijacked by madmen to forward their goal of world domination.  The religion radical islam doesn't exist just as the religion radical catholicism doesn't exist. There is Islam and there is catholicism.

Until the members of Islam show that they don't approve of or condone the actions of the jihadists/terrorists the religion of Islam is not hijacked and is complicit in the actions of the terrorists.   So far, except for a very few people, they have not shown any inclination to distance themselves from or denounce the terrorists.

Walk like a duck, quack like a duck...

Catholicism (needs to be capitalized) was just as complicit and as much of a terrorist organization during the Inquisition.  Trying to shuffle responsibility is a weak excuse  and a cover up for the real agenda of Islam as a religion.

[/quote]

Gee i didn't capitalize Catholicism. At least i spelled it correctly. Ops i didn't capitalize I.

As for your thoughts, scary stuff!

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate][quote=Whomitmayconcer]

The terrorist threat is way overblown.

[/quote]

So, how many deaths are acceptable?  Apparently 9/11 did not bother you.  Would it bother you if a dirty bomb went off in a major city and killed, say, 50,000?

Is that enough to fight about?

What motivates you coward types to stand up and fight?

[/quote]

It's overblown and will remain overblown, until a Democrat is in the Whitehouse, then it will be accurately described (until there's a repeat of 9/11 somewhere, in which case it will be some Republican's fault. We've already been told it will be Bush's fault, right?).

[quote=mikebutler222]

It's overblown and will remain overblown, until a Democrat is in the Whitehouse, then it will be accurately described (until there's a repeat of 9/11 somewhere, in which case it will be some Republican's fault. We've already been told it will be Bush's fault, right?).

[/quote]

One of the things that amuses me is the whiner's insistance that we're not fighting a war, we're fighting some sort of rogue crime.

From where I sit, if your opposition considers itself to be at war with you it's best to consider yourself to be at war.

It's going to take more than writing angry memos to the United Nations or asking Interpol for help.

We need to kill them faster than they're killing us--one of the major problems is they see dying as a reward.

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate][quote=mikebutler222]

It's overblown and will remain overblown, until a Democrat is in the Whitehouse, then it will be accurately described (until there's a repeat of 9/11 somewhere, in which case it will be some Republican's fault. We've already been told it will be Bush's fault, right?).

[/quote]

One of the things that amuses me is the whiner's insistance that we're not fighting a war, we're fighting some sort of rogue crime.

[/quote]

That's why they have to hold on to the fiction that there's no religious fervor involved. If they admit the reality of the enemy we face their entire world collapses and the "it's all because of Bush" mantra with it.

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate][quote=Whomitmayconcer]

The terrorist threat is way overblown.

[/quote]

So, how many deaths are acceptable?  Apparently 9/11 did not bother you.  Would it bother you if a dirty bomb went off in a major city and killed, say, 50,000?

Is that enough to fight about?

What motivates you coward types to stand up and fight?

[/quote]

Quien no sabe! You dont get it or you don't want to get it? Which is it?

If a dirty bomb went off in a major city and killed 50,000, 20 clean A-bombs would go off in the country responsible and the entire country would be dead. Every country knows that. Every terrorist organization knows that.

Aside from this, what courage of yours is it that sends others off to a foreign land to shoot and be shot at?

Aside from that. Who is the coward, the one who strides through the darkness or the one who shouts at the darkness for someone else to turn on a light? I don't fear the darkness, you are afraid that your own shadow is involved in a terrorist plot. You are the coward, not me.

I take comfort in the fact that the United States of America will survive even if I have died (which, eventually, I will). I take comfort in the fact that we are a nation that will even survive this administration, which is by far the worst administration of all time (Including Hoover's which was pretty damned bad!).

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate][quote=coolshoos]

That's from the International Herald Tribune, 5/24/06,

[/quote]

The reality is that Islam teaches three things when dealing with you and me.

1.  They are to convert us to Islam--that may appeal to you but not to me.

2.  They are to tax us--that too may appeal to you but not to me.

3.  They are to kill us--does that appeal to you?

That's it.  Nothing else is acceptable.

Now, they are out here wandering around.  They smile at you and you think that means that they like you.

Nazis smiled at Jews getting off the trains--but they were envisioning their skin being used as lamp shades.

The only sane thing to do is to fight them everywhere on earth--and to avoid fighting them on our soil as long as we possibly can.

We'll probably be in Iraq for years, decades, even longer.  Consider how long we have been in South Korea.  Why are you whiners not wailing and gnashing your teeth about that?

[/quote]

Truth is never complicated. Thinking about how money and power corrupt, the Saudi Wahhabist indoctrination of children into the socio political culture of hatred for outsiders is "logical" - how else can repressive dictatorships stay in power?

Your reference to South Korea, with regard to patience and the eventual "opening" of China, is spot-on.

Money can be liberal, but capitalists must never lose sight of basic economic truths, or lose their (economic) freedom. The next time the world is thrown into recession through an act of fear and terror, it will just be a reminder. Every single one of us still wakes up every day and checks the internet to see if we have another 9/11, if we were managing money back then. How quickly we forget how the sons of our Saudi friends blew up Wall Street, and how the resulting recession caused heightened economic suffering for millions of marginalized people all over the world.

If a dirty bomb went off in a major city and killed 50,000, 20 clean A-bombs would go off in the country responsible and the entire country would be dead. Every country knows that. Every terrorist organization knows that.

Huh? This is a joke, or very naiive?

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222][quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222][quote=BondGuy][quote=mikebutler222] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

No one said "blame Islam". We've all been pretty clear that we're talking about Islamic extremists. Those would be the people who believe their religion calls them to establish the dominance of their religion over all others, to kill non-believers and to fly planes into buildings.

[/quote]

You call them Islamic extremist yet you don't blame Islam? That's a contradiction. [/quote]

Not in the least. I blame RADICAL Islam. For all I know mainstream Islam doesn't advocate killing non-believers and doesn't favor flying planes into buildings.

Again, your burning desire to play down the fanatical religious nature of their motivation makes no sense.

[/quote]

Ok, I'd buy that if there was a such thing as radical Islam. There isn't.[/quote]

As I said in the beginning, and you denied, you don't think these people exist.

[/quote]

Mike are you being purposely contrary or do you have a reading comprehension problem? [/quote]

Neither, I’m being perfectly accurate.

[quote=BondGuy]You in a racist prejudiced way have attached a religion to terrorism. [/quote]

Talk about out-of-the-blue silliness. I haven’t “attached a religion to terrorism”, I’ve accurately stated what  the terrorists THEMSELVES say their motivation is. Why you insist they you’re more accurate than they are about their own motivation remains a mystery.

 [quote=BondGuy]  The religion radical islam doesn't exist just as the religion radical catholicism doesn't exist. [/quote]

Again, why you refuse to acknowledge the Wahhabist strain of Islam, their lust for Shir’a law, the Taliban and Al Qaeda outgrowths of it is simply bizarre.

BTW, there are anti-abortion people who stand outside clinics, and there are anti-abortion people who bomb clinics. You figure there’s no difference there?

Of course there is a difference. Just as there is a difference between Muslims who are peaceful and Muslims who are bombers.

Most of the abortion clinic bombers are Catholic. Those who are not are at the least Christian. So if I'm to understand your thinking Muslims who are bomb in the name of their God are Radical Islamics while Catholics who bomb in the name of their faith are what? Anti- abortionist? Why wouldn't you call them radical Catholics. or, if it's the case , radical Christians? Only muslims get the stigma of the negative attachment? Why is that?

[/quote]

Re: Religious Fervor.

Are we REALLY that naive as to believe religiousity?

Do we REALLY think that the driving force behind people is god, other than the one true god; POWER?

Religion is what you use to get poor dumb schmucks to die for you. It has always been such. That you can sit here in the 21st century, after several thousand years of recorded human history and still opine that religious fervency is the heart of our problems is to show that you are "obviously simplistic" in your thinking.

Raise your game or SYPH you!

[quote=coolshoos]

If a dirty bomb went off in a major city and killed 50,000, 20 clean A-bombs would go off in the country responsible and the entire country would be dead. Every country knows that. Every terrorist organization knows that.

Huh? This is a joke, or very naiive?

[/quote]

Big talk from the weak set.  If it happened they'd start screaming, "There is no country---we cannot retaliate against a country."

Witness the nonsensical blather about Iraq not having anything to do with September 11th, therefore being off limits in a retaliation for what happened.

It's like a Japanese whiner wailing, "We can't be angry with the United States because of the atom bomb.  Jimmy Doolittle was from California what happened had nothing to do with Texas."

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Re: Religious Fervor.

Are we REALLY that naive as to believe religiousity?

Do we REALLY think that the driving force behind people is god, other than the one true god; POWER?

Religion is what you use to get poor dumb schmucks to die for you. It has always been such. That you can sit here in the 21st century, after several thousand years of recorded human history and still opine that religious fervency is the heart of our problems is to show that you are "obviously simplistic" in your thinking.

Raise your game or SYPH you!

[/quote]

Wow, I thought I'd never see the day.

I agree with you. Now if we just get the rest of the group to understand the simple concept that God is being used as a tool, nothing more.

Why not encourage them to self-deport themselves.

Start by firing every Muslim who holds a job and refusing to hire them.

A great many will finally give up and go back to where they came from.

Those who don't could get some visits from night riders.

There is no reason why the country has to accept the crap being dumped our way.

If the US was not welcoming they would not want to come here, and if they're already here they'd decide to leave.

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate]

[quote=Ashland]

What does FEMA mean to you?

QUOTE]

What did FEMA not do that you think was their responsibiliity?

Was New Orleans aware that they were ground zero for the hurricane?

The answer is yes--and at that point the Federal government was out of the picture.

It was up to the city and state to evacuate the city.  They did not do that.

It was up to the state to mobilize the National Guard.  The governor did not do that for days and days, and when she finally did the situation was out of control.

There is no intellectually honest way to deflect blame for that fiasco from where it belongs--Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco.

[/quote]

Mobilize the national guard?  You mean the one in Iraq?

And here's a great example of how useful FEMA was in the disaster:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9179805/

If a dirty bomb went off in a major city and killed 50,000, 20 clean A-bombs would go off in the country responsible and the entire country would be dead. Every country knows that. Every terrorist organization knows that.

Are you insane or have you been living under a rock for the last 10 years?   Which country would you suggest we bomb when the next Al Quaida (sp?) attack occurs comprised of Islamic Fundamentalists???   Should we bomb France, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Chicago????

You are right.  Every terrorist organization does know this and this is why they keep themselves non National.  Terrorists without borders.  No country affiliation.  Just affiliation to their warped religious ideas.

Only muslims get the stigma of the negative attachment? Why is that?

The Catholic Church  along with other Christian sects have publicly and repeadity denounced the bombings of abortion clinics

"Most organized opponents of abortion, including the Christian Life Commission, the U.S. Catholic Conference and the National Right to Life Committee, have repeatedly denounced violence and distanced themselves from its advocates. But the 15.2-million-member SBC, the nation's largest Protestant denomination, is the first to go to such lengths to reject antiabortion violence. "It is not enough just to denounce the violence," Land said. "It must be refuted as well.""

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n27_v111/ai_1 5805783

The Muslim community and the religious leaders have NOT denounced and refuted the terrorists.  On the other hand, they have embraced them, financed them, hidden them and helped to spread the ideology.

This is why the get the stigma.  They deserve it.

[quote=pretzelhead]

Mobilize the national guard?  You mean the one in Iraq?

[/quote]

When Hurricane Katrina hit NOLA there were about 10,000 members of the Louisiana National Guard.

Approximately 3,000 were in Iraq--leaving about 7,000 in the state.

Governor Blanco did not call any of them up in a timely fashion.

The knee-jerk desire to deny realities does not paint you in a favorable light.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer][quote=Devil'sAdvocate][quote=Whomitmayconcer] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

The terrorist threat is way overblown.

[/quote]

So, how many deaths are acceptable?  Apparently 9/11 did not bother you.  Would it bother you if a dirty bomb went off in a major city and killed, say, 50,000?

Is that enough to fight about?

What motivates you coward types to stand up and fight?

[/quote]

If a dirty bomb went off in a major city and killed 50,000, 20 clean A-bombs would go off in the country responsible and the entire country would be dead. Every country knows that. Every terrorist organization knows that. [/quote]

Here’s a term for you “asymmetrical warfare”. Take a look into it.

You seem to miss a couple of points here;

1)     No country would have their fingerprints on it.

2)     No terrorist organization would care if you leveled “the country responsible”, since they’re not a country

3)     UBL wasn’t afraid of retribution, nor was the rest of Al Qaeda

4)      Religious fanatics who think they get to go to heaven early based on martyrdom won’t care

[quote=pretzelhead][quote=Devil’sAdvocate]

[quote=Ashland]

What does FEMA mean to you?

QUOTE]

What did FEMA not do that you think was their responsibiliity?

Was New Orleans aware that they were ground zero for the hurricane?

The answer is yes--and at that point the Federal government was out of the picture.

It was up to the city and state to evacuate the city.  They did not do that.

It was up to the state to mobilize the National Guard.  The governor did not do that for days and days, and when she finally did the situation was out of control.

There is no intellectually honest way to deflect blame for that fiasco from where it belongs--Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco.

[/quote]

Mobilize the national guard?  You mean the one in Iraq?

And here's a great example of how useful FEMA was in the disaster:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9179805/

[/quote]

Sorry wrong link.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9369937/

(I can admit my mistakes)  I will not sit back and argue that the first link was indeed the link that I meant to paste, as some would.  I will not "stay the course" and opine that the first quote was indeed the correct quote and proves a great point, when in reality it does not.  No, I am humble.  I can admit my wrong-doing.  That DOES NOT make me an "evildoer." 

At any rate the second link shows one example of the GREAT job that FEMA did in the wake of Katrina.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Re: Religious Fervor.

Are we REALLY that naive as to believe religiousity?

Do we REALLY think that the driving force behind people is god, other than the one true god; POWER?[/quote]

No, whom, you can call it a thirst for power. It makes no difference to the people who will happily cut off your head to further the "god" you claim they don't really care about.

[quote=Dust Bunny]

The Catholic Church  along with other Christian sects have publicly and repeadity denounced the bombings of abortion clinics

[/quote]

Add the FACT that there have been very few abortion clinic bombings.  I don't have the count, but I'd wager a month's pay that there have been fewer clinic bombers than there were hijackers on September 11th.

Additionally, abortion clinic bombing is a solitary crime while the attacks on the West by Islam are well organized and large conspiracies.

One wonders what genetic code is missing among the Americans who seek to blame America for what happened on September 11th and for what will happen again any day now.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Re: Religious Fervor.

Are we REALLY that naive as to believe religiousity?

Do we REALLY think that the driving force behind people is god, other than the one true god; POWER?

Religion is what you use to get poor dumb schmucks to die for you. It has always been such. That you can sit here in the 21st century, after several thousand years of recorded human history and still opine that religious fervency is the heart of our problems is to show that you are "obviously simplistic" in your thinking.

Raise your game or SYPH you!

[/quote]

I want you to clarify your comment about what happens to a country that " sponsors " a dirty bomb.

You seem to be trying to make some intellectual point about respect, but muddle ideology with behaviour. You and Bond Guy.

I get the impression you both think we are still at the data gathering phase of the 'planning process'.

[quote=pretzelhead][quote=pretzelhead][quote=Devil’sAdvocate]

[quote=Ashland]

What does FEMA mean to you?

QUOTE]

What did FEMA not do that you think was their responsibiliity?

Was New Orleans aware that they were ground zero for the hurricane?

The answer is yes--and at that point the Federal government was out of the picture.

It was up to the city and state to evacuate the city.  They did not do that.

It was up to the state to mobilize the National Guard.  The governor did not do that for days and days, and when she finally did the situation was out of control.

There is no intellectually honest way to deflect blame for that fiasco from where it belongs--Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco.

[/quote]

Mobilize the national guard?  You mean the one in Iraq?

And here's a great example of how useful FEMA was in the disaster:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9179805/

[/quote]

Sorry wrong link.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9369937/

(I can admit my mistakes)  I will not sit back and argue that the first link was indeed the link that I meant to paste, as some would.  I will not "stay the course" and opine that the first quote was indeed the correct quote and proves a great point, when in reality it does not.  No, I am humble.  I can admit my wrong-doing.  That DOES NOT make me an "evildoer." 

At any rate the second link shows one example of the GREAT job that FEMA did in the wake of Katrina.

[/quote]

So, in a massive natural disaster, in an attempt to mass resources, they wasted money. You think that's unique? Care to hear some stories about the work FEMA did after Hugo, or Bertha? Trucks stuck in mud, tents lost, generators showing up four days late? Do you figure FEMA has ice machines posted around the nation waiting for emergency use? We went without power for two weeks after our last big hurricane, and it wasn’t <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Clinton’s fault, or Bush Sr’s fault or even FEMA’s fault. FEMA has yet to find that magic wand some people thing they have at their disposal. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Sorry, pal, if FEMA did anything wrong, it was showing up 24 hours later than they should have to rescue people from the twin disasters of Nagin and Blanco. All the BS about the LANG not being available, Nagin being "smart" to put thousands of people in the Superdome without food and water for 48 hours, etc., is just that BS. Had NOLA done ANY sort of reasonable planning, had Blanco activated the thousands of NG troops she had when Bush asked, people would not have suffered as they were forced to. Blaming all that misery on FEMA showing up 24 later than they should have is simple, mindless partisanship.

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate][quote=coolshoos]

If a dirty bomb went off in a major city and killed 50,000, 20 clean A-bombs would go off in the country responsible and the entire country would be dead. Every country knows that. Every terrorist organization knows that.

Huh? This is a joke, or very naiive?

[/quote]

Big talk from the weak set.  If it happened they'd start screaming, "There is no country---we cannot retaliate against a country."

Witness the nonsensical blather about Iraq not having anything to do with September 11th, therefore being off limits in a retaliation for what happened.

It's like a Japanese whiner wailing, "We can't be angry with the United States because of the atom bomb.  Jimmy Doolittle was from California what happened had nothing to do with Texas."

[/quote]

This comment about a dirty bomb and consequences is illuminating. If you want to understand the liberal mind, look no further. It has everything to do with taking freedom and responsibility for granted.

I learned a lot here today, thanks.

Coolshoos,

Naive? Not.

The knowledge that the US had the power and the will to use nuclear weapons turned Nikita Kruschev's ships around in the Carribean.

Knowledge of Russian nuclear bombs kept Americans in a ground war in VietNam.

Knowledge of Pakistani nuclear weapons keep us from expanding the war into their territory (which is why the Al queda is now keeping sanctuary there).

Knowledge of North Korean Bombs keeps us from there.

When we determined that it was some guy hiding in Afghanistan that had mastermineded/financed the 9/11 attack, we sent forces into Afghanistan to find and destroy the terrorist network (and I'm all for such effort). While there is now serious doubt that our military could carry out a land war elsewhere there is no doubt in anyone's mind that we have the technology to destroy anyplace on a massive scale. Further, any strategist will know that the very fact that we have overdeployed our ground troups makes us more willing to use "any means at our disposal" in retaliation.

Does that clear it up?

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Re: Religious Fervor.

Are we REALLY that naive as to believe religiousity?

Do we REALLY think that the driving force behind people is god, other than the one true god; POWER?[/quote]

No, whom, you can call it a thirst for power. It makes no difference to the people who will happily cut off your head to further the "god" you claim they don't really care about.

[/quote]

Mikebutler222,

You equate all levels of authority when you say things like this.

You willingly ignore the difference between the soldier and the general.

It is convenient omissions like those that discredit your overall argument.

Whommit, 

What part of the terrorist organization not being an arm of or being affiliated with a Nationality/Country do you not get?   

When we are attacked again, we will still have no defined target nation upon which to retaliate because the enemy is a mutli national group based on a religious ideology not a country like Russia.  There is no comparison.  

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Knowledge of North Korean Bombs keeps us from there.

[/quote]

From where?

As to the notion that terrorist would not be able to be held responsible for a dirty bomb, I say balderdash!

If our intelligence agencies are so worthless as to not be able to determine the source of a dirty bomb then what are we paying for? (gee, for the liberal here, I seem to be the only one concerned with government spending waste here)

If we have been in aggressive combat in a "War on Terrorism" for these nearly 6 years (assuming that there was obliviousness the years prior, which is an erroneous assumption, but for the sake of the discussion...) and we have not even created the intel network to be able to read the "fingerprints, or absence thereof" then this is absolutely time for a dramatic change in the leadership of this confrontation.

So, please, stop with the backslapping and guffawing and "see what I mean"ing of your mutual admiration society and use your head for something other than a hatrack.

And if the what is at stake is so high, then the nations that harbor terrorism are for sure saying to the heads of those organizations, "Not while you are here you don't!"

The point here being that the chance of a dirty bomb being blown up in the USA is far more remote than the administration (and the terrorists) would like you to believe.

Both of those groups are working on the same damned nerve (of yours) they both want you to live in fear of what might happen, especially if the fear itself is their objective.

FDR famously said "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." This administration says "Be afraid, be very afraid!"

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

for the liberal here,

[/quote]

How you can be so lacking in self respect is amusing.

Tell us something.  What do you believe that you think somebody like me does not believe?

"... especially if the fear itself is their objective."

We know that this is their objective, because we know that they know that they can NOT beat us. The best they can do is give us a black eye and a bloody nose.

I don't look forward to either, nor do I look forward to the death and destruction that would come after it.

Devil's-Advocate,

Don't waste your fingerprints typing to me. You are absolutely without merit and I won't bother replying to you.

The point here being that the chance of a dirty bomb being blown up in the USA is far more remote than the administration (and the terrorists) would like you to believe.

Possibly so.  We are more likely to be hit with a swarm of smaller, more widespread attacks similar to but on a much larger scale than those in Israel.   Or more likely a biologically based attack.  Smallpox anyone?  Poisoned water supply?   Food contamination?

The issue of terrorism is that a small group with a small amount of funds can cripple a larger country and cost us billions of dollars.  Their cost to return ratio is very low.

Meanwhile people like Bond Guy and others sit back and deny that there is a problem or distort what the problem is to be in line with their lollipop and rainbow view of people and the world.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

The knowledge that the US had the power and the will to use nuclear weapons turned Nikita Kruschev's ships around in the Carribean.[/quote]

It was MAD (mutual assured destruction) that turned around the Soviet ships and missiles from <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Cuba.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

The differences between THAT threat and THIS threat are obvious;

1)     The Soviets had a territory and population they didn’t want to see vaporized

2)     The Soviets believed we would do it

3)     Al Qaeda has no territory to defend, they have no population they care about

4)     Bin Laden’s been quite clear that based on the examples of Beirut and Somalia that we lack the stomach to do it, even IF they had a population and territory to care about.

Again, this goes back to your failure to see the religious fervor element of this. Krushev had a thirst for power, but he and his followers didn’t have a thirst for martyrdom.  They didn’t believe that their agenda would prevail if they killed themselves in the process of killing you and your kids.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Devil's-Advocate,

Don't waste your fingerprints typing to me. You are absolutely without merit and I won't bother replying to you.

[/quote]

Can't even handle a simple question such as citing something you believe that you think I don't.

You're a mental midget and I shall mock you till you cry like the sissy you are.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

And if the what is at stake is so high, then the nations that harbor terrorism are for sure saying to the heads of those organizations, "Not while you are here you don't!"[/quote]

Those nations that would consider harboring terrorists know they'd be held responsible for attacks that came from their territory because Bush told them, you're either with us or you're with the terrorists. Of course, you lot wet your pants when he said that.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

As to the notion that terrorist would not be able to be held responsible for a dirty bomb, I say balderdash! [/quote]

I don't recall anyone saying that. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

It took fifteen years to find the Unabomber, and he was here in the <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US. No doubt we’ll find the individuals at the top of Al Qaeda (those that aren’t already dead), but that’s not the same as saying we’ll level that nation they represent, nor is it the same as acknowledging that a willing martyr expects us to find and kill him someday.  Neither of those two threats amount to a deterrent to a terrorist.

What people did say was they you clearly don't understand the asymmetrical situation we’re in.

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Re: Religious Fervor.

Are we REALLY that naive as to believe religiousity?

Do we REALLY think that the driving force behind people is god, other than the one true god; POWER?[/QUO

No, whom, you can call it a thirst for power. It makes no difference to the people who will happily cut off your head to further the "god" you claim they don't really care about.

[/quote]

Some people you just can't reach. The people who do the blood letting are the misled. So, yes they will, in their misguided way, murder you for their God. It's their leaders, who use God to get the followers to do their bidding, who are Godless. Like bin Laden himself they are the disenfranchised. They hate us for who we are. It ain't about God. Got it now?

As for the Muslims not denouncing terrorist, I've heard plenty of Muslims do just that. Unfortunately for the Muslims, the Muslim voice is weak in our country. No Muslim radio networks or television networks. They have only local leaders to carry their voice. How far does that carry? No further than the local weekly shopper paper. Meanwhile the racist, as this board demonstrates, are in full gear forwarding the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim hate machine.

If we accept their terms that this is a religious war, we lose.

This is a war about hate waged by madmen.

"....you're either with us or you're with the terrorists."

That's a false choice and only fools fall take the false choice bait.

How'd that worm taste? With your experience you'd be sure to win Fear Factor!

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Knowledge of Pakistani nuclear weapons keep us from expanding the war into their territory (which is why the Al queda is now keeping sanctuary there).[/quote]

Actually we don't fear <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Pakistan's nuclear weapons, because Pakistan’s government isn’t hostile to the US. What we fear is what an US incursion into Pakistan would to do the fragile internal politics there, and how it might lead to the collapse of Musharraf’s government and the chance of a radical Islamist element taking its place. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[quote=BondGuy]

Some people you just can't reach. The people who do the blood letting are the misled. So, yes they will, in their misguided way, murder you for their God. [/quote]

Ahhh, progress. Now, if you'd simply realize the element of fervor present, we'd be getting somewhere.

[quote=BondGuy]

It's their leaders, who use God to get the followers to do their bidding, who are Godless. Like bin Laden himself they are the disenfranchised. [/quote]

Tell me again, just who are you to tell us that bin Laden isn't really motivated by religion? And just why is it that you're so interested in making this assertion, in the face of all evidence to the contrary?

[quote=BondGuy]

They hate us for who we are. It ain't about God. Got it now?

[/quote]

Ahhh, here we go, the Left's attempt to overlay their life-long laundry list of foreign policy gripes on to bin Laden. Next comes the "if only we'd" plea, as if bin Laden's just some rational, disaffected leader who isn't motivated by, you guessed it, religion. 

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

"....you're either with us or you're with the terrorists."

That's a false choice and only fools fall take the false choice bait.

[/quote]

There's no false choice about it, as you proved yourself when you talked about the leaders of nations telling terrorist organizations in their country "not while you're here".

[quote=Dust Bunny]

Meanwhile people like Bond Guy and others sit back and deny that there is a problem or distort what the problem is to be in line with their lollipop and rainbow view of people and the world.

[/quote]

DING! DING! DING! We have a winner....

[quote=Dust Bunny]

The point here being that the chance of a dirty bomb being blown up in the USA is far more remote than the administration (and the terrorists) would like you to believe.

Possibly so.  We are more likely to be hit with a swarm of smaller, more widespread attacks similar to but on a much larger scale than those in Israel.   Or more likely a biologically based attack.  Smallpox anyone?  Poisoned water supply?   Food contamination?

SMALLPOX? Where are they going to get smallpox? Now if you said Ebola...

Here is where this comes back to Katrina. And here is where this crosses over to Hilary's request for an exit strategy. If I were president, I would have a plan to deal with an outbreak of Ebola. It wouldn't be a pleasant plan and it would involve the killing of lots of people not yet infected, but the plan would be in place.

What we consistently see from this administration is that they have no plan other than a plan to retain power for themselves. And that is what bothers me (speaking only for myself). I may not agree with what someone else thinks, but if I feel he is thinking, I'm willing to respect his thoughts.

How can we not have an exit plan for Iraq? How could we have been so incompetent in dealing with Katrina (especially after how competent we had been in previous natural disasters)? How can it be that the justification for the war in Iraq has changed with the polling data? Why is it that Ossama Bin laden is still alive?

After I've seen again and again a military and an administration operating with such incompetancy, how can I rationally have faith that next time they'll do better? 

The issue of terrorism is that a small group with a small amount of funds can cripple a larger country and cost us billions of dollars.  Their cost to return ratio is very low.

Yes, true, and when they have a willing ally in the White House who wants you to be constantly afraid.

I don't disagree that terrorism should be dealt with. I do disagree that this is the administration to do it.

Meanwhile people like Bond Guy and others sit back and deny that there is a problem or distort what the problem is to be in line with their lollipop and rainbow view of people and the world.

I don't get that vibe from BondGuy at all. I think that there are many fronts in a war against terror, not least of which being "Stop pissing people off!"

Let's be realistic here, our foreign policies have been atrocious over the decades. Our corporations have supported regimes that have won the race to the bottom in terms of protecting their own populations from the consequences of being the low cost provider. Look at the history of Nike as an example. Or Union Carbide in Bhopal, or Kathy Lee Gifford's sweat suit shops, or Mexico, or Louisianna for that matter.

Our corporate partner's actions have bitten us in the ass so many times it look's like a pitbull's chewtoy!

Almost every war says that religion is at the heart of it, but the truth is that they are all over money.

[/quote]

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Knowledge of Pakistani nuclear weapons keep us from expanding the war into their territory (which is why the Al queda is now keeping sanctuary there).[/quote]

Actually we don't fear <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Pakistan's nuclear weapons, because Pakistan’s government isn’t hostile to the US. What we fear is what an US incursion into Pakistan would to do the fragile internal politics there, and how it might lead to the collapse of Musharraf’s government and the chance of a radical Islamist element taking its place. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[/quote]

Yes this is all true, but what do we care who rules Pakistan? Because the person that rules Pakistan rules Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

Please Mike, please. I know you are a smart guy, I respect your intelligence, please stop insulting mine.

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=Whomitmayconcer]

"....you're either with us or you're with the terrorists."

That's a false choice and only fools fall take the false choice bait.

[/quote]

There's no false choice about it, as you proved yourself when you talked about the leaders of nations telling terrorist organizations in their country "not while you're here".

[/quote]

No Mikebutler222, all I proved was that there are nations that know the terrorist elements within their borders.

There are lightyears between not being "with us" and being "against us".

I may disagree with you, but that doesn't mean I wish you any harm and it certainly doesn't mean that I wil abet anyone doing you harm.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Here is where this comes back to Katrina. [/quote]

Ahh, you mean comes back to the Democrat fable, because it sure as hell doesn't come back to the reality of Katrina.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]And here is where this crosses over to Hilary's request for an exit strategy. [/quote]

Of course that's not what Hillary requested. She asked for a public disclosure of a withdrawal plan, and she did it trying to form a political trap. If the administration said “here’s our plan” her response would have been “See, they’re PLANNING TO LEAVE”. If the administration withheld a plan (and there are contingency plans for everything) she’d say “THEY HAVE NO PLAN!!!”. The Asst Sec. Def was right to tell her that public discussions of contingency plans serves no one but the enemy.

 [quote=Whomitmayconcer]                                                                  

 I think that there are many fronts in a war against terror, not least of which being "Stop pissing people off!"

Let's be realistic here, our foreign policies have been atrocious over the decades.

[/quote]

Thank you for providing the proof that the entire agenda behind the Left denying bin Laden’s motivation is religious is exactly so they can do what you’ve done here, which is to substitute YOUR foreign policy grievance list for that of the one bin Laden’s been providing for years.

It’s Nike, or Union Carbide or, god forbid, Kathy Lee Gifford. God help us if people of your mind every gain control of the defense of this nation….

[quote=Whomitmayconcer][quote=mikebutler222][quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Knowledge of Pakistani nuclear weapons keep us from expanding the war into their territory (which is why the Al queda is now keeping sanctuary there).[/quote]

Actually we don't fear <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Pakistan's nuclear weapons, because Pakistan’s government isn’t hostile to the US. What we fear is what an US incursion into Pakistan would to do the fragile internal politics there, and how it might lead to the collapse of Musharraf’s government and the chance of a radical Islamist element taking its place. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[/quote]

Yes this is all true, but what do we care who rules Pakistan? Because the person that rules Pakistan rules Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

Please Mike, please. I know you are a smart guy, I respect your intelligence, please stop insulting mine.

[/quote]

No one's insulting your intelligence but you. You simply prove again you don’t understand the asymmetrical war we’re in.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 We don't want to see Musharriff's government fall and an Islamic one take its place because Al Qaeda would then have an entire nation to use as a training base. The fact that Pakistan has nukes is secondary, it’s doubtful they have the missiles to get them here AND, unlike Al Qaeda, even an Islamic government of Pakistan might care about having its population vaporized.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer][quote=mikebutler222][quote=Whomitmayconcer]

"....you're either with us or you're with the terrorists."

That's a false choice and only fools fall take the false choice bait.

[/quote]

There's no false choice about it, as you proved yourself when you talked about the leaders of nations telling terrorist organizations in their country "not while you're here".

[/quote]

No Mikebutler222, all I proved was that there are nations that know the terrorist elements within their borders. [/quote]

And why would they tell those terrorist groups "not while you're here"? Because they now know that harboring terrorists no longer means "hey, not my fault" if they go on to harm the US or others.

[quote=Dust Bunny]

Meanwhile people like Bond Guy and others sit back and deny that there is a problem or distort what the problem is to be in line with their lollipop and rainbow view of people and the world.

[/quote]

DB, without the cheap shots at my lack of proper capitalization please point me to the the post where I deny there is a problem? Or that I propose a lollipop view of the world?

I'm not sorry that I don't share your racist view of the Muslim world. And I make no apologies for taking you to task for your simplistic FOX News take on the WAR on Terror. However, because I don't share your racist and misinformed views you attack me.

I take the people who would destroy us very seriously. I have to. They are very smart. They have not only bamboozled their own followers, they've bamboozled you too. How smart is that?

And let's keep this post in context. Istill luv ya, you're a great asset to this board. But seriously, I for one, could do without the racist diatribe. You don't like Muslims- message received loud and clear.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Please Mike, please. I know you are a smart guy, I respect your intelligence, please stop insulting mine.

[/quote]

Demonstrate a single reason why what you have to say should be considered to be worthy of anybody's curiosity, much less respect?

I asked you a simple question--what do you believe that you think somebody like me does not--and you ran like a little girl.

"....her response would have been “See, they’re PLANNING TO LEAVE”.

And that would have whom, exactly? Hilary? The Democrats, who have a much better situation saying that the administration has no plan?

And if Hilary is this good at politics (which I think she is) then we should give credit where credit is due and recognize that she's qualified for the job.

"Ahh, you mean comes back to the Democrat fable, because it sure as hell doesn't come back to the reality of Katrina."

Again with the "Democrat" routine.

Mikebutler222, we saw it, we were here when it happened, we're still living with the consequences today. The administration just flat out failed in its test of disaster preparedness. not to mention that the administration went out of it's way to make sure that the pain of Katrina came out of our pockets when it refused to free up any of the Strategic Oil Reserves to stabilize the markets.

"Thank you for providing the proof that the entire agenda behind ..."

I love how one of "Many fronts" is "code" for an "Entire agenda" in Mikebutler222's mind.

BWahahahahahaha!

"We don't want to see Musharriff's government fall and an Islamic one take its place because Al Qaeda would then have an entire nation to use as a training base. The fact that Pakistan has nukes is secondary, it’s doubtful they have the missiles to get them here AND, unlike Al Qaeda, even an Islamic government of Pakistan might care about having its population vaporized."

and

"And why would they tell those terrorist groups "not while you're here"? Because they now know that harboring terrorists no longer means "hey, not my fault" if they go on to harm the US or others."

You're funny Mikebutler222, just watching you do backflips and tumblesaults and pick and choose which "reality" we want to believe now versus then.

Before we were worried because people who have no nuclear weapons might use a dirty bomb on us and now we're not worried if those self same people get ahold of working nuclear bomb technology because they maybe don't have a delivery system for the same. That's really funny!

So what we're really worried about is a ground assault of trained Al queda soldiers? And what? If our satellites show us where they are training (and they will) we'll just let them be? You're funny!

And in one statement you aver about "Radical Islamists"

mikebutler222 wrote:

No one said "blame Islam". We've all been pretty clear that we're talking about Islamic extremists. Those would be the people who believe their religion calls them to establish the dominance of their religion over all others, to kill non-believers and to fly planes into buildings.

And then you say that they wouldn't when it's convenient to you string of self delusions.

Really Mikebutler222, do you think that anyone who isn't a complete fool and who doesn't already agree with you is going to accept such contortions as valid?

Talk about you asymetricality!

Not to mention, you just kneecapped the entire justification for "Pre- Emptive War"

If Radical Islamists aren't going to use nuclears on the US because they know that the consequence is glassification, then why wouldn't Saddam have known the same damned thing?

Because he figured we wouldn't bomb oil fields?

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

"....her response would have been “See, they’re PLANNING TO LEAVE”.

And that would have whom, exactly? Hilary? [/quote]

What is it you're asking here, "and that would have whom.."?

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

And if Hilary is this good at politics (which I think she is) then we should give credit where credit is due and recognize that she's qualified for the job.[/quote]

Actually, playing politics by wanting to publicly debate contingency plans proves she’s not qualified.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

"Ahh, you mean comes back to the Democrat fable, because it sure as hell doesn't come back to the reality of Katrina."

Again with the "Democrat" routine. [/quote]

Please don’t pretend that your recitation of the Democratic fable of Katrina is any but that, a partisan fable.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

"Thank you for providing the proof that the entire agenda behind ..."

I love how one of "Many fronts" is "code" for an "Entire agenda" in Mikebutler222's mind.

BWahahahahahaha!

[/quote]

Spare me, Whom, you did exactly what I said. You dumped bin Laden’s stated agenda, the one he’s talked about for better than a decade, then you tried to replace it with your shop-worn list of complaints about <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US foreign policy. THAT’S the reason you’re in denial about his agenda’s religious roots, it crowds out your “if we’d only” list of things you’d want us to do even  if bin Laden had never been born.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Coolshoos,

Naive? Not.

The knowledge that the US had the power and the will to use nuclear weapons turned Nikita Kruschev's ships around in the Carribean.

Knowledge of Russian nuclear bombs kept Americans in a ground war in VietNam.

Knowledge of Pakistani nuclear weapons keep us from expanding the war into their territory (which is why the Al queda is now keeping sanctuary there).

Knowledge of North Korean Bombs keeps us from there.

When we determined that it was some guy hiding in Afghanistan that had mastermineded/financed the 9/11 attack, we sent forces into Afghanistan to find and destroy the terrorist network (and I'm all for such effort). While there is now serious doubt that our military could carry out a land war elsewhere there is no doubt in anyone's mind that we have the technology to destroy anyplace on a massive scale. Further, any strategist will know that the very fact that we have overdeployed our ground troups makes us more willing to use "any means at our disposal" in retaliation.

Does that clear it up?

[/quote]

Sorry, I take back " naive".

We are at the heart of the matter. Everyone is disappointed that humanity has not evolved to the point where negotiation, or isolation, or threat of nuclear force is not effective in the case of terrorism.

In no way is the threat of nuclear force viable for terrorism as it is in the case of North Korea, where a multi lateral approach involving China, Japan and Korea is the real stick and free trade is a carrot.

As for Iraq, it is a shame that the secular interests of dictatorships like Russia or Saudi or China or diasporas like France can't help take leadership. But don't let your feelings be hurt, and don't wallow in dysfunctional self pity.

I don't think liberalism is compatible with pragmatism, so I think those who envision humanity as it should be ought to be respected.

Even the Orthodox Christian Church put self defense (taking of life) in the context of justice. Jesus doesn't, the church, in her wisdom, does.

On terrorism, and Iraq, the blowing up of Wall Street, the free world's inability to stand in solidarity with its leader, these tragedies history will judge.

I was more moderate or liberal before 9/11. " Them " blowing up Wall Street was like a billy club to the head. The reason we are in Iraq is because "they" blew up Wall Street, and all the whining about the why, and the how, and the what if, has nothing to do with behaviour, which in the end is what matters.

It's a little like folks standing around and wringing their hands about the internal fees of various managed funds. Allreit is like the French, he is going to try to figure out a way to sell weapons to the Iranians and make a profit, while everyone else carries the yoke of our history and commitments.

Free choice is a good thing; those who stand in the small inner circle of commitment also bear a heavy and soulful burden.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Not to mention, you just kneecapped the entire justification for "Pre- Emptive War"

If Radical Islamists aren't going to use nuclears on the <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US because they know that the consequence is glassification, then why wouldn't Saddam have known the same damned thing?

Because he figured we wouldn't bomb oil fields?

[/quote]

You’ve dipped into self-parody, Whom. Try reading this slowly, perhaps it might sink in.

Nations have territory and populations to be concerned about. Even Islamist governments can be expected to be concerned about “glassification”, IF they think we have the will (which is in serious doubt due to Beirut, Somalia and even Iraq, if some people get their way), and if they allow their fingerprints to be on the weapon (it wouldn’t have been expected for Saddam to allow for those fingerprints, he didn’t allow Al Qaeda a high-profile presence in his country).

Terrorist organizations, OTOH, have no territory, no populations to speak of, and due to their religious beliefs welcome personal martyrdom.

Again, I suggest you look up the term “asymmetrical warfare”.

I'm not sorry that I don't share your racist view of the Muslim world

Throwing down the race card is just another distraction to the real issue.  Islam is not a race.  It is a religion that is worldwide and includes many different nationalities and races.  You should try to know the distinction.  

There is nothing racist about my attitudes toward Islamofascist and the people who support them either actively or by silent agreement.

The left tried to use the same tactic on anyone who disagreed with the open border illegal immigration issue.  If you aren't for illegal and uncontrolled immigration you must be a racist.  If you make the remarks that the City of New Orleans and the people of New Orleans were not prepared for Katrina and that they created many of their own problems you are a racist.   If you disagree with High Priest Gore about global warming, you get compared to being a Holocaust denier.  I guess they haven't figured out how we can be tagged racists on that one......yet.

If Radical Islamists aren't going to use nuclears on the US because they know that the consequence is glassification

They know no such thing.  They don't care about it either.

What is the antidote to suicide and murder being used on a wide scale as a political weapon?

Take a moment and imagine a science fiction movie about such a scenario.

There is only one solution, and that is why the current scenario clashes with compassion and liberalism.

The real tragedy is the exoposure of the character of the average American in 2007.

[quote=Dust Bunny]

I'm not sorry that I don't share your racist view of the Muslim world

Throwing down the race card is just another distraction to the real issue.  Islam is not a race.  It is a religion that is worldwide and includes many different nationalities and races.  You should try to know the distinction.  

There is nothing racist about my attitudes toward Islamofascist and the people who support them either actively or by silent agreement.

The left tried to use the same tactic on anyone who disagreed with the open border illegal immigration issue.  If you aren't for illegal and uncontrolled immigration you must be a racist.  If you make the remarks that the City of New Orleans and the people of New Orleans were not prepared for Katrina and that they created many of their own problems you are a racist.   If you disagree with High Priest Gore about global warming, you get compared to being a Holocaust denier.  I guess they haven't figured out how we can be tagged racists on that one......yet.

If Radical Islamists aren't going to use nuclears on the US because they know that the consequence is glassification

They know no such thing.  They don't care about it either.

[/quote]

Being prejudiced against Muslims makes you a racist whether you recognize that fact or not. You, in your posts, have lumped all Muslims together. They're all bad in you view. Perhaps you don't realize that's the view you presented? DA wants to drive them out of the country. MikeB attaches terrorism to their religion in every post.

Many if not most of these Muslims are American citizens. Yet the lynch mob is forming. If intelligent people, like those who reside on this board feel this way, what about those who aren't so well read?  

As for Katrina see my new topic on the bus issue. 80% of that city's population was evacuated. A success in any book.

Was the Katrina problem about race? I don't know. I do know that FEMA was in my upper middle class white neighborhood one day after Charley. Race a factor? I hope not. I vote for incompetence as the reason for the katrina FEMA fiasco, but you be the judge.

[quote=BondGuy]

DA wants to drive them out of the country.

Many if not most of these Muslims are American citizens. Yet the lynch mob is forming. If intelligent people, like those who reside on this board feel this way, what about those who aren't so well read?

[/quote]

I don't want to run them out of the country--I want them to engage in a frenzy of buying transportation back to the sand countries from which they came.

As for the rest of the drivel above--the country is teeming, absolutely teeming, with people who would be happy to hunt Muslims as if they were deer.

Why they would want to stay in light of knowing that they're no more welcome than a dose of clap escapes me.

[quote=BondGuy][quote=Dust Bunny]

I'm not sorry that I don't share your racist view of the Muslim world

Throwing down the race card is just another distraction to the real issue.  Islam is not a race.  It is a religion that is worldwide and includes many different nationalities and races.  You should try to know the distinction.  

There is nothing racist about my attitudes toward Islamofascist and the people who support them either actively or by silent agreement.

The left tried to use the same tactic on anyone who disagreed with the open border illegal immigration issue.  If you aren't for illegal and uncontrolled immigration you must be a racist.  If you make the remarks that the City of New Orleans and the people of New Orleans were not prepared for Katrina and that they created many of their own problems you are a racist.   If you disagree with High Priest Gore about global warming, you get compared to being a Holocaust denier.  I guess they haven't figured out how we can be tagged racists on that one......yet.

If Radical Islamists aren't going to use nuclears on the US because they know that the consequence is glassification

They know no such thing.  They don't care about it either.

[/quote]

Being prejudiced against Muslims makes you a racist whether you recognize that fact or not. You, in your posts, have lumped all Muslims together.    Horse apples!!!   What I have said is that until Muslims repudiate the actions of the Islamofascists and terrorists to show that Islam doesn't condone or promote those types of activities, they are just as bad as the terrorists.  The fact that they don't distance themselves from these actions and allow hate of others to be preached in their mosques tells me that this IS a part of Islam. 

I'm from the show me State originally.  So if the Muslim community doesn't want to be treated with suspicion, fear and hatred.....show me your good intentions.

They're all bad in you view. Perhaps you don't realize that's the view you presented? DA wants to drive them out of the country. MikeB attaches terrorism to their religion in every post.

I don't want to drive anyone out of the country who is here legally.  What I want is for them to obey the laws, not whine for special favors (footbaths , segregated schools, refusing to accomodate  taxi patrons ) because of their religion and keep their religion to themselves.  I ask the same thing of Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Catholics and Gaia worshipers.

When the terrorist attach Mohamed and their religion to their acts with every word and every action, Mike B is quite correct in connecting the two.

Many if not most of these Muslims are American citizens.    No they are not.   Are you delusional? The terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Towers was here on visas, many of them expired.  Islamofascists come from all over the world.  Some may be American citizens but they are decidedly in the minority.

Yet the lynch mob is forming.   No lynch mob.  Just clear vision and self preservation.  If intelligent people, like those who reside on this board feel this way, what about those who aren't so well read?  

As for Katrina see my new topic on the bus issue. 80% of that city's population was evacuated. A success in any book.

Was the Katrina problem about race? I don't know. I do know that FEMA was in my upper middle class white neighborhood one day after Charley. Race a factor?   I hope not. I vote for incompetence as the reason for the katrina FEMA fiasco, but you be the judge.  The fiasco in New Orleans, had not so much to do with racism as with graft, corruption, incompetence, stupidity and severe damage to a city that is built under sea level.   As far as I'm concerned, there is no need to rebuild all of New Orleans at the expense of the rest of the country, only to be damaged again by the next big storn.  Turn it into an adult Mardi Gras/Jazz Music/Disneyland.  

The poor people in New Orleans are better off being moved someplace else where they may have a chance to get out of the chains of poverty and class that existed in the City.

And this Muslim agenda is not just in the United States.

http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005/04/norway-blind-people-rej ected-by-muslim.html

http://www.geocities.com/islamic_monitor/islamic_agenda.html

We ignore all of this at our own peril.  On the other hand Whommit is somewhat correct in that a terrorist attack on a city in the US will not completely destroy our country.  We are too large for that and there are too many people, especially in the fly over States, that are more than willing to take matters into their own hands, since it is all too apparent that the liberals who are taking over Congress are ready to hand victory to the terrorists and sell us all down the river.

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

"....her response would have been “See, they’re PLANNING TO LEAVE”.

And that would have HELPED whom, exactly? Hilary? [/quote]

What is it you're asking here, "and that would have helped whom.."?

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

And if Hilary is this good at politics (which I think she is) then we should give credit where credit is due and recognize that she's qualified for the job.[/quote]

Actually, playing politics by wanting to publicly debate contingency plans proves she’s not qualified.

Playing politics is backing your oponent into a no win situation, just like the administration did by calling for the war powers vote right before the elections in 2002. If the Dems had voted against, they would have suffered greater losses in the mid term elections, if they voted yes then the situation that faces many of them now would face them. it was a politically smart move even though the results have been disasterous for the nation since.

As usual, you want it both ways, you want to be able to believe that Hilary is incompetent and Machiavellian at the same time.

It just goes to show that liberals are more open minded than those to the right of center when it comes to understanding motivations.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

"Ahh, you mean comes back to the Democrat fable, because it sure as hell doesn't come back to the reality of Katrina."

Again with the "Democrat" routine. [/quote]

Please don’t pretend that your recitation of the Democratic fable of Katrina is any but that, a partisan fable.

As with all fables Mikebutler222, there is a basis in fact. Are you sure you mean to use the word fable? Because it's actually a complementary sort of word in that fables come with morals and morals are generally seen as conveying a universal truth (you might try reading Aesop's fables someday).

Deny the truth as often as you wish Mikebutler222, it doesn't change the facts, only your own perception of them.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

"Thank you for providing the proof that the entire agenda behind ..."

I love how one of "Many fronts" is "code" for an "Entire agenda" in Mikebutler222's mind.

BWahahahahahaha!

[/quote]

Spare me, Whom, you did exactly what I said. You dumped bin Laden’s stated agenda, the one he’s talked about for better than a decade, then you tried to replace it with your shop-worn list of complaints about <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />US foreign policy. THAT’S the reason you’re in denial about his agenda’s religious roots, it crowds out your “if we’d only” list of things you’d want us to do even  if bin Laden had never been born.

And if the US oil companies weren't doing business with the Saud family and the family  that was in power (in stead) had created a strong middle class in Saudi Arabia then Bin laden wouldn't have the soapbox to stand on or the unemployed millions with too much time on their hands to listen to him. Nor would he have the family billions at his disposal to fund his operations.

Must you always stop at the first shiney nugget you come to instead of digging deeper to see if there are any other multi faceted truths to be had?

Dust Bunny,

"If Radical Islamists aren't going to use nuclears on the US because they know that the consequence is glassification

They know no such thing.  They don't care about it either."

Take it up with Mikebutler222, he's the one who said it.

[quote=BondGuy] MikeB attaches terrorism to their religion in every post. [/quote]

Lunacy. I attach it to the TWISTED form of Islam THEY, THEMSELVES attach it to. Your refusal to take their word for it is one thing, suggesting I'm a racist for knowing enough of them to believe them is another.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Dust Bunny,

"If Radical Islamists aren't going to use nuclears on the US because they know that the consequence is glassification

They know no such thing.  They don't care about it either."

Take it up with Mikebutler222, he's the one who said it.

[/quote]

That's not a quote from me, Whom. That's your distortion. Be man enough to own up to it.

Playing politics ..

Hillary playing politics with contingency plans proves she unworthy of the office she seeks.

As with all fables Mikebutler222, there is a basis in fact.

Perhaps on your planet. Your fiction about Katrina is the same as your fiction about the "stolen election". You repeat it like a sacred text, even though it won't stand the slightest honest examination.

And if the US oil companies weren't doing business with the Saud family ....

More proof that you can't grasp bin Laden's stated agenda, so you have to subsitute your own. It's fine, pretend all you like that biun Laden's just a disaffected liberal upset with US foreign policy. People not deluded by your hyper-partisanship know better and will do the work required to make sure that you'll never have to face the day when some Al Qaeda operative laughs in your face as you explain you're a kindred spirit, and disaffect too, as your head is removed from your body.

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=Whomitmayconcer][quote=mikebutler222][quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Knowledge of Pakistani nuclear weapons keep us from expanding the war into their territory (which is why the Al queda is now keeping sanctuary there).[/quote]

Actually we don't fear <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Pakistan's nuclear weapons, because Pakistan’s government isn’t hostile to the US. What we fear is what an US incursion into Pakistan would to do the fragile internal politics there, and how it might lead to the collapse of Musharraf’s government and the chance of a radical Islamist element taking its place. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[/quote]

Yes this is all true, but what do we care who rules Pakistan? Because the person that rules Pakistan rules Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

Please Mike, please. I know you are a smart guy, I respect your intelligence, please stop insulting mine.

[/quote]

No one's insulting your intelligence but you. You simply prove again you don’t understand the asymmetrical war we’re in.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 We don't want to see Musharriff's government fall and an Islamic one take its place because Al Qaeda would then have an entire nation to use as a training base. The fact that Pakistan has nukes is secondary, it’s doubtful they have the missiles to get them here AND, unlike Al Qaeda, even an Islamic government of Pakistan might care about having its population vaporized.

[/quote]

Mikebutler222,

That's what happens when you twist and twist and twist, youforget which line of crap you laid where.

I don't need to twist what you say, I let you say it and your own words contradict themselves.

As to your "Kindred sppirit" line. I'll tell you here and now, that I am no kindred spirit of Al queda. If when you say I am, you will be telling a lie.

Before, you were just wrong, do us all a favor and don't take it to your usual next level.

[quote=Dust Bunny][quote=BondGuy][quote=Dust Bunny]

I'm not sorry that I don't share your racist view of the Muslim world

Throwing down the race card is just another distraction to the real issue.  Islam is not a race.  It is a religion that is worldwide and includes many different nationalities and races.  You should try to know the distinction.  

There is nothing racist about my attitudes toward Islamofascist and the people who support them either actively or by silent agreement.

The left tried to use the same tactic on anyone who disagreed with the open border illegal immigration issue.  If you aren't for illegal and uncontrolled immigration you must be a racist.  If you make the remarks that the City of New Orleans and the people of New Orleans were not prepared for Katrina and that they created many of their own problems you are a racist.   If you disagree with High Priest Gore about global warming, you get compared to being a Holocaust denier.  I guess they haven't figured out how we can be tagged racists on that one......yet.

If Radical Islamists aren't going to use nuclears on the US because they know that the consequence is glassification

They know no such thing.  They don't care about it either.

[/quote]

Being prejudiced against Muslims makes you a racist whether you recognize that fact or not. You, in your posts, have lumped all Muslims together.    Horse apples!!!   What I have said is that until Muslims repudiate the actions of the Islamofascists and terrorists to show that Islam doesn't condone or promote those types of activities, they are just as bad as the terrorists.  The fact that they don't distance themselves from these actions and allow hate of others to be preached in their mosques tells me that this IS a part of Islam. 

I'm from the show me State originally.  So if the Muslim community doesn't want to be treated with suspicion, fear and hatred.....show me your good intentions. Already answered. maybe we can get a Muslim TV network going to satisfy your demand. However, as your attitude shows, can you blame Muslims in this country for keeping a low profile?

They're all bad in you view. Perhaps you don't realize that's the view you presented? DA wants to drive them out of the country. MikeB attaches terrorism to their religion in every post.

I don't want to drive anyone out of the country who is here legally.  What I want is for them to obey the laws, not whine for special favors (footbaths , segregated schools, refusing to accomodate  taxi patrons ) because of their religion and keep their religion to themselves.  I ask the same thing of Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Catholics and Gaia worshipers.

When the terrorist attach Mohamed and their religion to their acts with every word and every action, Mike B is quite correct in connecting the two.

Many if not most of these Muslims are American citizens.  (see reply below)  No they are not.   Are you delusional? The terrorists who destroyed the World Trade Towers was here on visas, many of them expired.  Islamofascists come from all over the world.  Some may be American citizens but they are decidedly in the minority.

Yet the lynch mob is forming.   No lynch mob.  Just clear vision and self preservation.  If intelligent people, like those who reside on this board feel this way, what about those who aren't so well read?  

As for Katrina see my new topic on the bus issue. 80% of that city's population was evacuated. A success in any book.

Was the Katrina problem about race? I don't know. I do know that FEMA was in my upper middle class white neighborhood one day after Charley. Race a factor?   I hope not. I vote for incompetence as the reason for the katrina FEMA fiasco, but you be the judge.  The fiasco in New Orleans, had not so much to do with racism as with graft, corruption, incompetence, stupidity and severe damage to a city that is built under sea level.   As far as I'm concerned, there is no need to rebuild all of New Orleans at the expense of the rest of the country, only to be damaged again by the next big storn.  Turn it into an adult Mardi Gras/Jazz Music/Disneyland.   Yeah, A CITY BELOW SEA LEVEL NOT SUCH A HOT IDEA.

The poor people in New Orleans are better off being moved someplace else where they may have a chance to get out of the chains of poverty and class that existed in the City. I'm not going to cut poor people a break for their circumstances. They will be poor regardless of their address. poverty exists first as a mindset. That's not to say there aren't external factors at work in some cases. racism being one such factor. Mostly though, if your poor it's your own fault.

[/quote] [/quote]

DB, this shows just how far out on the racist limb you now find yourself. I mention Muslims who are americans and you say i'm delusional. I'm not talking about terrorist. I'm talking about our law abiding neighbors. The people who live next door, work, pay taxes, and just happen to be not protestant. Yet because i said the magic word, Muslim, you immediately connect it to the 9/11 terrorist. That's racist, whether you see it that way or not. And i'm some sort of a whack job for actually trusting these people, American citizens from the neighborhood?

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate]

[quote=BondGuy]

DA wants to drive them out of the country.

Many if not most of these Muslims are American citizens. Yet the lynch mob is forming. If intelligent people, like those who reside on this board feel this way, what about those who aren't so well read?

[/quote]

I don't want to run them out of the country--I want them to engage in a frenzy of buying transportation back to the sand countries from which they came.

As for the rest of the drivel above--the country is teeming, absolutely teeming, with people who would be happy to hunt Muslims as if they were deer.

Why they would want to stay in light of knowing that they're no more welcome than a dose of clap escapes me.

[/quote]

Sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth.

A+ for honesty.

I don't know why they stay either. I guess we could ask some Black people if they know why their ancestors stayed? Or maybe we'd have better luck talking to 80 something Japanese-Americans.

As long as Muslims don't run out in front of my motorcycle on a dark night I'm Ok with them staying. Oh, what a slippery slope!

As for real deer, I'm for exterminating as many of those forest rats as I can. 8gs in vehicle damage and still counting. You can't miss them. They are attracted to headlights like a deer...well you see my problem.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer][quote=mikebutler222][quote=Whomitmayconcer][quote=mikebutler222][quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Knowledge of Pakistani nuclear weapons keep us from expanding the war into their territory (which is why the Al queda is now keeping sanctuary there).[/quote]

Actually we don't fear <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Pakistan's nuclear weapons, because Pakistan’s government isn’t hostile to the US. What we fear is what an US incursion into Pakistan would to do the fragile internal politics there, and how it might lead to the collapse of Musharraf’s government and the chance of a radical Islamist element taking its place. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[/quote]

Yes this is all true, but what do we care who rules Pakistan? Because the person that rules Pakistan rules Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

Please Mike, please. I know you are a smart guy, I respect your intelligence, please stop insulting mine.

[/quote]

No one's insulting your intelligence but you. You simply prove again you don’t understand the asymmetrical war we’re in.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 We don't want to see Musharriff's government fall and an Islamic one take its place because Al Qaeda would then have an entire nation to use as a training base. The fact that Pakistan has nukes is secondary, it’s doubtful they have the missiles to get them here AND, unlike Al Qaeda, even an Islamic government of Pakistan might care about having its population vaporized.

[/quote]

Mikebutler222,

That's what happens when you twist and twist and twist, youforget which line of crap you laid where.

I don't need to twist what you say, I let you say it and your own words contradict themselves.

[/quote]

Wrong, again. It would seem there's no stick big enough to beat into you the difference between how TERRORISTS groups with no land and no population to concern themselves about, versus who GOVERNMENTS with land and populations.

Now would be a good time for you to own up to the fact that your "Mike said it" line to DB was a lie.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

As to your "Kindred sppirit" line. I'll tell you here and now, that I am no kindred spirit of Al queda. If when you say I am, you will be telling a lie. [/quote]

You've tried to impose on them YOUR grievance list about US foreign policy, YOUR agenda on them, as if you share that list.

Don’t lecture me about lies, pal, you’re the one that created a quote for DB and attributed it to me.

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=Whomitmayconcer][quote=mikebutler222][quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Knowledge of Pakistani nuclear weapons keep us from expanding the war into their territory (which is why the Al queda is now keeping sanctuary there).[/quote]

Actually we don't fear <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Pakistan's nuclear weapons, because Pakistan’s government isn’t hostile to the US. What we fear is what an US incursion into Pakistan would to do the fragile internal politics there, and how it might lead to the collapse of Musharraf’s government and the chance of a radical Islamist element taking its place. <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[/quote]

Yes this is all true, but what do we care who rules Pakistan? Because the person that rules Pakistan rules Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

Please Mike, please. I know you are a smart guy, I respect your intelligence, please stop insulting mine.

[/quote]

No one's insulting your intelligence but you. You simply prove again you don’t understand the asymmetrical war we’re in.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 We don't want to see Musharriff's government fall and an Islamic one take its place because Al Qaeda would then have an entire nation to use as a training base. The fact that Pakistan has nukes is secondary, it’s doubtful they have the missiles to get them here AND, unlike Al Qaeda, even an Islamic government of Pakistan might care about having its population vaporized. [/QUOTE]

Reply:

Not to mention, you just kneecapped the entire justification for "Pre- Emptive War"

If Radical Islamists aren't going to use nuclears on the US because they know that the consequence is glassification, then why wouldn't Saddam have known the same damned thing?

Because he figured we wouldn't bomb oil fields?

[quote=Dust Bunny]

If Radical Islamists aren't going to use nuclears on the US because they know that the consequence is glassification

They know no such thing.  They don't care about it either.

[/quote]

What am I supposed to do Mikebutler222, forget everything yousaid in the post before when I read the next one?

You said that the fear was that "Radical Islamists" might take over Pakistan. Earlier you had said that :

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=BondGuy]

Blame Islam? Blaming Islam is like blaming the car for the crash. [/quote]

No one said "blame Islam". We've all been pretty clear that we're talking about Islamic extremists. Those would be the people who believe their religion calls them to establish the dominance of their religion over all others, to kill non-believers and to fly planes into buildings.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><?:NAMESPACE PREFIX = O />

Failing to recognize what motivates them, even though they’ve told you many, many times, just so you can overlay the Left’s standard argument that essentially says that the terrorists simply share their (the Left’s) dismay with US foreign policy, it’s just that they’re (the terrorists) violent about it, is tedious. It pretends that the terrorists share your view of the world and that if we only followed policies the Left has espoused forever, we could reach common ground and peaceful coexistence with the Jihadies. No doubt they’d chuckle of that one as they cut off your head. It’s like a death pact of some sort.

 [/quote]

So you see, it is not misattribution at all. It's you "moving the goal posts".

I guess you can say that there is a difference in "extremists" and "Radicals". But that would be extremely and radically silly. Especially from a guy who equates the motivations of the general with the motivations of the footsoldier.

Bond Dufus

You just want to play the race card on everything, don't you.  If I don't like bond traders, I must be racist.  If I don't like people who are a dufus, I must be racist.

I think what you are forgetting is that there are Muslims here in the USA who belief thst our form of government is wrong and who want their cult (do some research on the meanoing of cult) to replace our form of government.  Our constitution allows for the free practice of religion, but not for the free practice of overthrowing our government. Dust Bnny is correct when she says that we ignore these folks and their agenda to our own peril.

Just go to an Islamic country and espouse some of the actions our precious liberals believe to be ok: free sex, (even with the opposite sex), freedom to say and do what ever you feel like doing, because it is after all your right, and let's see how long you live.  They don't accept the things you believe are your rights. 

I would say you're a whack job for actually trusting these people, because trust is what got us into the position we are in.  We trusted the people we let into out country on visas who then murdered innocent Americans.  We trust the people who come across our borders illegally and yet kill many more Americans each year than have been killed in the entire Iraq war.

BG...go ahead and trust them, and when we see your head on a platter, we'll know what your trust got you.

Yes there are some typos, but when you type when yous pissed off, you make typos, and Bond Guy, you piss me off.  Especially since I served for 25 years to keep you pansy A$$ safe to spew the crap you spew.  Man, I should have said, I'm serving to protect everyone except the pansies like Obama, Clinton, Reid, and Bond Guy!!

If you want to trust all of your Muslim neighbors then move to the sand box with them!!

Ok lets review... You spent 25 years not using your brains. Back in the late 70's early 80's the people who joined the military were people who hadn't used their brains in high school and or before...<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Then you joined Jones (we don't know how much time was spent in between the military and Jones), Not the mark of a true champion. And now you post drivel under the name "FreeFromJones" so I guess you're with LPL.

And just one more thing, over those 25 years, just when were you "defending our freedom", when you were in Germany drinking beer and watching the wall grow moss? When you were in Korea banging "house girls"? Maybe when you went to Grenada to protect soon to be defendents in Malpractice suits. Perhaps it was when we invaded that superpower Panama? Maybe you were there in Vietnam, do you think that we have forgotten that VN was a total waste of time money and materiel not to mention the millions of lives, and for what? To halt the "Domino Effect"? The one that never happened? (Before you go off on it, it is only conjecture that the effort in VN made the communists reconsider their expansion plans.)

Here's a little tidbit for you. There are Christian radicalist extremists that are already IN this country and they want to topple the government and replace it with their brand of theocracy. Are you going to be just as mad at them as you are at the rest of the world that doesn't agree with your brainwashed perceptions?

Maybe it's just my age, but, in my lifetime, very few of the people that I have known that joined or were joined to the military did so out of a sense of Patriotism (not none, few). There were many who joined so as not to be drafted (these people, who joined non frontline positions such as the Navy) and then, during the peace years (after the Vietnam war till Desert Storm) did so because the military was an "employer of last resort". So you'll have to forgive me if my impression of the people in the military isn't quite as red white and blue as you might like it to be.

Further, the people that I have known to come out of the military have a sense of patriotism that ignores it's own inconsistencies with a fervor that surpasses most religious fervors (regardless of how they went in). It's as if they are trying so hard to convince themselves that it comes spilling out on the rest of us. It is absolutely known that the fabric of a military is antithetical to a democracy. Everybody knows this (that knows anything) and everybody has known this since long before "democracy' existed. Plato's The Republic is about this fact for crying out loud! So to listen to some "Ex-Military" man yak at me about "Patriotism, and Rights, and Freedoms and motherhood and apple pie" is like taking sex tips from a Shaker! 

I particularly remember the guy who was a part owner of a Bible Book Store, young guy, ex military (reservist for the pension benes) and he actually said to me that the Arabs had added nothing to humanity in it's entire history. He believed this, with the same surety that Xtians believe that Dinosaur fossils are inconclusive "proof" that there was anything here before "The Garden Of Eden". I don't have to tell you what the Arabs have added to humanity, do I?

So you'll have to forgive me if my impression of the people in the military isn't quite as red white and blue as you might like it to be.

Not to worry, nothing about you comes across as red white and blue.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer] So you see, it is not misattribution at all. It’s you “moving the goal posts”.

[/quote]

You're an unrepentant fool, Whom, and that’s what make conversing with you on almost any subject a waste of time. You’ve have to be either completely brain-dead or so lacking in personal integrity that you insist on playing one to continue this charade, and all just so you don’t have to correct yourself.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

There’s no contradiction, it’s the key to asymmetrical warfare, which you continue to either not grasp or refuse to admit. Governments, even ones of radical Islamists, can be expected to care about their land and population (expected, not guaranteed, thus the concerns about <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iran with nukes) . Terrorists don’t have either, and furthermore, can be expected to worry less even about personal safety, as they value martyrdom.

This means that terrorists aren’t intimidated when you promise to drop bombs on some country should the US be hit by a dirty bomb or some such WMD. They don’t have a country. Governments, otoh, even radical Islamists, can be expected to be intimidated at least enough to make sure that if they assist terrorists acquire WMD their own fingerprints  aren’t obvious.  That intimidation factor assumes that they believe we have the will to actually follow through on threats.

The Soviet Union believed us, bin Laden, otoh, has been making the case throughout the Muslim world that we don’t have the will to do that, in fact we don’t even have the will to wage conventional warfare beyond the point that we begin to take even relatively minor casualties. He points to Beirut, Somalia and even to Iraq when he talks about the “paper tiger” that is the US. He uses that “weak horse” metaphor in his recruiting. You may have heard something about this, it’s been in all the papers.

Then again, given your hyper-partisan state of mind, your belief that the threat of terrorism is overblown, that Bush is just using “fear” for political gain, perhaps you’re not rational enough to actually study Al Qaeda, bin Laden and the various writings and action they’ve produced. As for me, I saw the hole where the WTC used to be, I need no further convincing.

WhomS**T for Brains,

You have a great opinion of those who have served to protect your sorry excuse for human flesh.  So you just called all the folks in the military brainless drones, so you fit right in there with the Harry Reids and the John Kerrys who also believe the same. Sounds like you have smoked too much dope and now you spew drivel about knowing so much on how the country should be run and that every decision made by the administration has been wrong and that if we'll just not do anything to make the poor Islamists mad then they'll leave us alone and we'll all get along.  You, my misfortunate American, are so naive and so stupid. 

You obviously don't know alot of people who have joined the military.  Nearly everyone whom I met in my 25 years served beecause of his/her desire to live in a free country and to protect those rights for even nose dribble like you.  Even if someone joins for other reasons, they soon realize the importance of the decisoin they've made.

Along the same lines of listening to a retired military person (you're never an ex-military person) makes me think that listening to you telling us how to deal with the Muslims is like taking political advice from Obama.  So enjoy your freedoms and when the mullahs are running the world and you need assylum or protection because they are about to cut you into pieces, don't ask a military man or woman to save you, because we will rememebr!!!

[quote=BondGuy]

DB, this shows just how far out on the racist limb you now find yourself. [/quote]

You know, Bondguy, unlike Whom, I respect you and often find you a valuable member of this forum on many, many issues. On this one, however, your hyper-partisanship has caused you to go way over the line and to start waving the race card, all because you refuse to believe that Al Qaeda has a religious agenda, and all that because you want to see him as just another, aggrieved party, a victim of rough US foreign policy.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I don’t agree with DB on every element of this issue. I do believe the silence and/or qualified, conditional statements so often made by non-terrorist Muslim leaders casts them in a very bad light, but I wouldn’t go as far as she has. I’d love to hear a flat, no-excuses, no-caveat denouncement of all aspects of terrorism from mainstream Muslim leaders, but such comments are few and far between, and it’s an absolute shame.

Having said that, I can disagree with DB about it, and you should be able to as well, without trotting out the tired race card.  

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Ok lets review... You spent 25 years not using your brains. Back in the late 70's early 80's the people who joined the military were people who hadn't used their brains in high school and or before...[/quote]

To call you a horse's ass is to offend horse's asses...

"Even if someone joins for other reasons, they soon realize the importance of the decisoin they've made."

That's called brainwashing.

Patty Hearst, came to understand the righteousness of the Symbianese(?) Liberation Army after she was joined to it too.

Brainless drones is what the military wants you to be. If you stop and think about where you're going and what you're doing, you'd have to be crazy to do it (try reading Catch 22 on this subject). 

Mikebutler222,

"Terrorists don’t have either, and furthermore, can be expected to worry less even about personal safety, as they value martyrdom."

The point here Mikebutler222, is that you are the one who said the extremist Islamists are a threat to our existence by virtue of their religious fervency, and then you are the one who said that there is a real possibility that extremist Islamists might take control of Pakistan if the Musharif government topples. And then you are the one who contradicts yourself by saying that the Extermist Islamists as a govenrment would use nukes because all of a sudden they are concerned for the safety of their population.

You mean like the Taliban was, right?

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. Symmetrically or ASS- a-metrically or both.

"...  intimidated at least enough to make sure that if they assist terrorists acquire WMD their own fingerprints  aren’t obvious"

There you go, insulting our military intelligence agencies again! Funny how they go from being flawless to flawed to flawless to flawed depending on which poll you want be in concert with.

"As for me, I saw the hole where the WTC used to be, I need no further convincing."

Your mind's made up don't confuse you with the facts.

Fact is that the attack on the World Trade Towers did not significantly change the economy of the United States. Was it a terrible thing? Yes. Was it a wake up call to this administration? Yes. Did it deserve swift and certain retaliation and retribution? Yes. Have we meted out either? Yes, Swift. Certain? No. Retribution? No. Retaliation? No.

Take your asymmetrical war excuses and cram them up your ass (at least then you will have had to take your head out of it). Asymmetricality is simply the latest reason for our failure to achieve our objective.

Yes I know the concept has been around for centuries. It can be said that it is what lead to our victories in the American Revolution. But that fact just goes to show how weak our military leadership is that they have yet to come up with a strategy to defeat it. Certainly, what we are doing is not working. 

Let me ask you this straight out. Do you believe that terrorists can defeat this nation?

[quote=FreeFromJones]

Yes there are some typos, but when you type when yous pissed off, you make typos, and Bond Guy, you piss me off.  Especially since I served for 25 years to keep you pansy A$$ safe to spew the crap you spew.  Man, I should have said, I'm serving to protect everyone except the pansies like Obama, Clinton, Reid, and Bond Guy!!

If you want to trust all of your Muslim neighbors then move to the sand box with them!!

[/quote]

Where to start with this guy?

Ok, well, first, when you say move to the sand box with my Muslim neighbors, you do realize that's a racist statement? Yet, I would bet you don't view yourself as a racist? Rent a copy  of Mississippi Burning and get back to me.

As for my Muslim neighbors, they live in an upper middle class neighborhood, work as professionals, mostly engineers, pay taxes and are American Citizens. Except for making more money than you do, and  living in a better neighborhood than you, they are no different from you. Well they are mostly like you, they're not right wing bigots.

And here's something that should really get your blood boiling, they are building a new Mosque about a mile from my house. Whew, the plotting that will go on there huh?

The 9/11 terrorist hold the record for killing the most amercans in a terrorist act. Do you know who held that dubious record before 9/11. Timothy McVeigh. White boy american. Yet no outcry to string up white trash?

You espouse jihadist hysteria, yet the Christian Identity Movement doesn't get a nod from you? You aren't worried about the white supremist in your own church? Yet, the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim. That about cover it?

I assume your reference above is to suppose to show me you served in the military. If you did so with your narrow minded thinking you were a disgrace not only to the uniform you wore but to the flag you served. You obviously have no idea what that flag means nor what it stands for.

Our founding fathers signed and gave their blood to a constitution that would guarantee life free from religious persecution. You've probably heard of the Constitution. If not, look it up. The signers of this founding document didn't give their blood so that the low thinkers such as yourself could come along and undo it. And there is no doubt in my mind that if you could undo it you would.

As for the terrorist threat? I'm all for hunting and  killing terrorist. I wish my government would do that.

[quote=FreeFromJones]

WhomS**T for Brains,

That's MR. WHOMS**TFORBRAINS to you!

You have a great opinion of those who have served to protect your sorry excuse for human flesh. I asked what exactly you did for those 25years I paid your salary. It's not like you did anything for free. It seems to me the motto of the serviceman is "Never volunteer for anything!"   So you just called all the folks in the military brainless drones, so you fit right in there with the Harry Reids and the John Kerrys who also believe the same. Sounds like you have smoked too much dope Me thinks thou dost protest too loud! The military has been a den of druggedness for quite some long time. And that doesn't even include alcohol! and now you spew drivel about knowing so much on how the country should be run and that every decision made by the administration has been wrong and that if we'll just not do anything to make the poor Islamists mad then they'll leave us alone and we'll all get along. So what you're saying is that you can't dispute what I'm saying so you'll just resort to hollow shouting and name calling. And then you'll wonder why I have so little respect for people who start out by boasting about their military service. Service is like wealth, if you have to boast about it, you really don't have it. You, my misfortunate American, are so naive and so stupid. 

You obviously don't know alot of people who have joined the military.  Nearly everyone whom I met in my 25 years served beecause of his/her desire to live in a free country and to protect those rights for even nose dribble like you. And yet they gave up all of those rights that they are supposedly protecting in order to join the military. Do military men have the same rights as civilians in terms of military law? No, they do not. Do they have the same freedom of movement that civilians have? No they do not. Do they have the same recourse that civilians have for work related injustices (including harassment, injury, overtime, etc etc)? No. Do they have the same rights to free speech that civilians do? No.  The point is that you lived in a world that did not allow you freedom, and now you want to tell me about freedom. This is no different than someone from Jones telling you that it is the greatest investment house on the Street. Can you see that? Even if someone joins for other reasons, they soon realize the importance of the decisoin they've made.

Along the same lines of listening to a retired military person (you're never an ex-military person) makes me think that listening to you telling us how to deal with the Muslims is like taking political advice from Obama Do you Osama? Or are you referring to Barak Obama? Because taking politcal advice from a politician is not a good example of "bad advice". I didn't tell you how to deal with Muslims. I did say that we have had an atrocious foreign policy over the decades, but that is not restricted to Muslims.   So enjoy your freedoms and when the mullahs are running the world and you need assylum or protection because they are about to cut you into pieces, don't ask a military man or woman to save you, because we will rememebr!!! But you'll forget the fact that I paid for your lazy ass to loaf it out in the peacetime military while the rest of us were out here slogging it out in the real world.

Let me ask you this, if terrorism and the Muslim threat is SO big, then why haven't we instituted a draft?

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=BondGuy]

DB, this shows just how far out on the racist limb you now find yourself. [/quote]

You know, Bondguy, unlike Whom, I respect you and often find you a valuable member of this forum on many, many issues. On this one, however, your hyper-partisanship has caused you to go way over the line and to start waving the race card, all because you refuse to believe that Al Qaeda has a religious agenda, and all that because you want to see him as just another, aggrieved party, a victim of rough US foreign policy.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I don’t agree with DB on every element of this issue. I do believe the silence and/or qualified, conditional statements so often made by non-terrorist Muslim leaders casts them in a very bad light, but I wouldn’t go as far as she has. I’d love to hear a flat, no-excuses, no-caveat denouncement of all aspects of terrorism from mainstream Muslim leaders, but such comments are few and far between, and it’s an absolute shame.

Having said that, I can disagree with DB about it, and you should be able to as well, without trotting out the tired race card.  

[/quote]

Mike, I too find you to be a valuble contributor to the board. As I do DB. Certainly I see the religious connection to the Jihadist movement. But what i also see is Jihadist hysteria. One of the founding cornerstones of our constitution is freedom from religious persecution. Yet, as one reads through this thread we find statements telling us to deport all Muslims, Hunt them, go live in the sand lot with them, don't trust them. When talking about people who are as American as you or I, who are Muslim, DB instantly connected them to 9/11. This sounds a lot like religious persecution to me. Regardless, it is hysteria run wild. This is what got blacks lynched 90 years ago. And in my book it wrong.

When you exclude one group of people you don't like what would you call it? I call it racism. And it is far from tired. There is a movement in this country to forward the thinking put forward on this board.

I'll back off from calling anyone on this board a racist. I'll do so because I think some have not fully thought out their posts and are looking at the subject myopically. However, all should be aware of the racist nature of their comments. And I leave room that some have bought into the anti Muslim movement.

When talking about people who are as American as you or I, who are Muslim, DB instantly connected them to 9/11. This sounds a lot like religious persecution to me.

I'm talking about people who chose a religious ideology that promotes killing others who don't believe the same as they do and a religious ideology that has a political agenda.

I don't care if they are American, French, Somali or anything else.  If you don't protest or shout out and say that you do not agree with the actions of your religion then I hold them just as accountable as the people who perpetrate terrorism.    The same issue goes for Christians who don't deny the extremists in their own camp. 

There is nothing racist about it.  I realize that there may be moderate Muslims who don't agree with the terrorists, but until they stand up for themselves they WILL be tarred with the same brush. 

In the United States, there is absolutely no excuse for remaining complicit and silent on this issue since they are not in danger of being stoned to death and Sharia Law isn't implemented by the government.   The moderate Muslims remaining silent tells me that they agree by default with the jihadists and their agenda. 

The 9/11 terrorist hold the record for killing the most amercans in a terrorist act. Do you know who held that dubious record before 9/11. Timothy McVeigh. White boy american. Yet no outcry to string up white trash?

He's one White boy american trash.  He wasn't joined by 17 other White boy american trash while the rest of the White boy american trash applauded their actions or refused to speak out against their actions. 

There was certainly an outcry to string up McVeigh and there would have been an outcry to string up any group that supported his actions.

Joe,

"Not once have I seen a mainstream US Muslim group issue a condemnation of the perversion of Islam to justify terrorism. And how often do we hear of Jews calling for the abolishion of Israel? How many times have we heard of using US Military force to "Protect our interests" in foreign countries.  I find this troubling. And rightfully so. If they want to be Americans, then they need to act like it. By protesting?  In prior generations waves of immigrants came to this country and made an effort to learn the language and embrace our culture while preserving and cherishing aspects of their own heritage. You mean like Salt Lake City, right? Most every group that has come to this country has gathered (by choice or by economics) into small ghettoes and fought assimilation like the plague. They've all lost the battle eventually, but it was never for lack of trying.  I am afraid that is not so much the case in this generation of immigrants, Muslims or otherwise, and I think it is at the heart of many growing problems in this country.

Want to see a glimpse of the future if we don't address this issue head-on?  Take a look at France the last few years....

While I see what you mean, what's ironic about it is that the French have been much less tolerant of outside influence than we. The French are very much into the idea that France is unique in the world's history as the world's great thinkers and artists and lovers and cuisinaires etc etc etc. There are very strict laws in France about, hell just about everything!

But there is another big difference with France. The arab people who live there are generally decendents of arabs in countries that France was once ruler of. Northern Africa was where the French went to be imperialist (Along with the forays into south east asia).

And then the third issue is simply land mass and population. It takes a lot fewer people (and all peoples are more concentrated in France) to make a difference in France.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN9cqtJTvF4

[quote=anonymous]

The 9/11 terrorist hold the record for killing the most amercans in a terrorist act. Do you know who held that dubious record before 9/11. Timothy McVeigh. White boy american. Yet no outcry to string up white trash?

He's one White boy american trash.  He wasn't joined by 17 other White boy american trash while the rest of the White boy american trash applauded their actions or refused to speak out against their actions. 

There was certainly an outcry to string up McVeigh and there would have been an outcry to string up any group that supported his actions.

[/quote]

That's not really true. You seem to forget the "Militia" movement that decried Bush's "New World Order" and advocated overthrow of the government. They applauded McVeigh (a retired military man)!

[quote=anonymous]

The 9/11 terrorist hold the record for killing the most amercans in a terrorist act. Do you know who held that dubious record before 9/11. Timothy McVeigh. White boy american. Yet no outcry to string up white trash?

He's one White boy american trash.  He wasn't joined by 17 other White boy american trash while the rest of the White boy american trash applauded their actions or refused to speak out against their actions. 

There was certainly an outcry to string up McVeigh and there would have been an outcry to string up any group that supported his actions.

[/quote]

He acted autonomously but was part of an anti-government group. Actually there was at least one co-conspiriter.

DB,

Did you notice how he appealed to the Jewish vote there? He made fun of the "Blame Isreal" crowd.

Did you notice that he is saying some of the same things that "Liberals" here are saying? That the war has been grossly mishandled thus far.

He's running away from the administration and he's saying things that appeals to liberals (we're so happy anybody on the right sees that Bush's work has been incompetent, we'll even take Newt's word for it.)

That's all I have been saying. Thanks for linking the video.

[quote=Dust Bunny]

When talking about people who are as American as you or I, who are Muslim, DB instantly connected them to 9/11. This sounds a lot like religious persecution to me.

I'm talking about people who chose a religious ideology that promotes killing others who don't believe the same as they do and a religious ideology that has a political agenda.

I don't care if they are American, French, Somali or anything else.  If you don't protest or shout out and say that you do not agree with the actions of your religion then I hold them just as accountable as the people who perpetrate terrorism.    The same issue goes for Christians who don't deny the extremists in their own camp. 

There is nothing racist about it.  I realize that there may be moderate Muslims who don't agree with the terrorists, but until they stand up for themselves they WILL be tarred with the same brush. 

In the United States, there is absolutely no excuse for remaining complicit and silent on this issue since they are not in danger of being stoned to death and Sharia Law isn't implemented by the government.   The moderate Muslims remaining silent tells me that they agree by default with the jihadists and their agenda. 

[/quote]

Ok, you've made your position clear, again. That's some interesting thinking.

I disagree that Muslims who are just going about their lives, just as you or I, are complicit because they are not stopping the terrorist. You are under the misguided belief that the Muslims in this country have a way to control the terrorist. They don't.  A jihadist invasion where the madmen kill all of us would include American Muslims who are looked upon as sell outs.

Please name one Muslim leader who has a national voice?

Please show me one U.S. based Muslim television network?

The Muslim voice doesn't rise above the local communty newspaper. There is no national network. That is why you don't hear the Muslim outcry against the terrorist. In my neck of the woods Muslim leaders have decried terrorism on several occasions. I guess you missed that? Which is exactly the point.

Holding entire religions, groups, or races responsible for the sins of a relatively few is a slippery slope. Are you responsible for everything your race, religion , nationality does? Are you trying to stop all the wrongs of these various groups? Maybe you are. But unless you are an activist you are no different than the Muslims you choose to persecute for doing no less. It doesn't have to be about life or death issues. Please think about it.

[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Further, the people that I have known to come out of the military have a sense of patriotism that ignores it's own inconsistencies with a fervor that surpasses most religious fervors (regardless of how they went in). It's as if they are trying so hard to convince themselves that it comes spilling out on the rest of us. It is absolutely known that the fabric of a military is antithetical to a democracy. Everybody knows this (that knows anything) and everybody has known this since long before "democracy' existed. Plato's The Republic is about this fact for crying out loud! So to listen to some "Ex-Military" man yak at me about "Patriotism, and Rights, and Freedoms and motherhood and apple pie" is like taking sex tips from a Shaker! 

[/quote]

Nice try there, whomit.  So any of us who dare disagree with you on this count know nothing?  You are clearly intelligent, but your brains are surpassed by your arrogance.

Just remember that those soldiers you despise so much served so that you would have the freedom to express how you disrespect them.  Some of them even died so that you could espouse your ridiculuous views.

If we didn't have a strong military, we most likely wouldn't have survived as a free country all these years.  We'd probably all be speaking German or Russian right now.

Are they perfect?  Always morally right?  No.  Is there a certain amount of tension between the interests of a military and the interest of a free democratic society? Absolutely.

But without them my family and I would not enjoy the freedoms and prosperity that we have today.  So I honor, respect, and appreciate our men and women in uniform.

Oh, and in case you wondered, I'm not ex-military, so you can't write me off as some brainwashed addle-brained flag waving vet.  Nope.  I'm just a patriotic American.  I wish I could say the same for you...but I think in your own mind you are bigger than the ideals upon which this country is built.  Ever consider moving to Canada?
[/quote]

Joe, Joe... Joe, the joester, Ramalamajoedong joeerino, the joeinator..

I never said that there shouldn't be a military. I don't disagree with the methods of militarisation, I just recognize it for what it is.

Even more than Separation of Church and State, the founding fathers wanted a separation of Military and state. Our Constitution is distinctly different from military rule and it is to control the military that there are Rights agains Illegal search and seizure,  Speedy trial and three branches of govenrment to control the ability of any one branch of government from takning over the military for its own purposes.

The military is a separate society that we live symbiotically with. They can't survive without our money and we can't survive without their protections.

It is absolutely a fact that, throughout history the relationship between the military and the civilian governments has been dicey. Ever heard of Julius Ceasar? Cicero? Crasus? The Triumverate? it's a fascinating story, I'd suggest this book http://www.amazon.com/Cicero-Times-Romes-Greatest-Politician /dp/037575895X

As an American (I know you're not going to understand this and it's going to give you a colossal wedgie) I'm right to despise soldiers. They represent everything that we are against. They live under a totalitarian regime, we freedom loving Americans hate totalitarianism! We can not understand why someone would WANT to live like that. I don't despise the people individually, but I don't think their opinions about freedom and patriotism are worth as much as they would like us to believe.

I thank people who have traded their lives for a life in the military. And I try to convince people who are thinking about it NOT to go. But once they have gone, I'm not one to discourage them.

But, again, they have traded somethings for another thing, and one of the things they have traded is the claim to objectivity, they gave that away.

I'm not your definition of "patriotic". I AM the Founding Fathers' definition of Patriotic, however. You'll forgive me if I count their opinion above yours, I'm sure.

[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=BondGuy]

[/quote]

Mike, I too find you to be a valuble contributor to the board. As I do DB. Certainly I see the religious connection to the Jihadist movement. But what i also see is Jihadist hysteria. One of the founding cornerstones of our constitution is freedom from religious persecution. Yet, as one reads through this thread we find statements telling us to deport all Muslims, Hunt them, go live in the sand lot with them, don't trust them. When talking about people who are as American as you or I, who are Muslim, DB instantly connected them to 9/11. This sounds a lot like religious persecution to me. Regardless, it is hysteria run wild. This is what got blacks lynched 90 years ago. And in my book it wrong.

When you exclude one group of people you don't like what would you call it? I call it racism. And it is far from tired. There is a movement in this country to forward the thinking put forward on this board.

I'll back off from calling anyone on this board a racist. I'll do so because I think some have not fully thought out their posts and are looking at the subject myopically. However, all should be aware of the racist nature of their comments. And I leave room that some have bought into the anti Muslim movement.

[/quote]

BG I agree with some of your comments about hysteria.

Having said that, I can understand why some of the more virulent anti-Muslims feel the way they do.  It is a fact that the 9/11 terrorists and other potential terrorists have often used mosques here as a place of refuge and networking.  It is a fact that many Imam's in this country have used their freedom of speech to preach violence against the US government.  I respect their right to free speech, but I don't have to like it.

Joe, as for Muslim leaders in this country preaching violence, where? Assuming this is true where is it different than any other group speaking out against the govt?

Not once have I seen a mainstream US Muslim group issue a condemnation of the perversion of Islam to justify terrorism.  I find this troubling. 

As I've said show me their nat'l voice? They have none. If they want to be Americans, then they need to act like it.  They are Americans! The Muslims i know are as American as you or I. You wouldn't know they are Muslims unless they told you. Which considering the anti-Islamic backlash in this country, is unlikely.

In prior generations waves of immigrants came to this country and made an effort to learn the language and embrace our culture while preserving and cherishing aspects of their own heritage.  I am afraid that is not so much the case in this generation of immigrants, Muslims or otherwise, and I think it is at the heart of many growing problems in this country. This is more an Hispanic issue. The Muslims in the demographic wouldn't move the population counter a micron. Going back to the my personal experience, the Muslims embrace american culture, and language, want to fit in and work their butts off. They are very successful. They also hold onto their own cultures and of course their religion.

Want to see a glimpse of the future if we don't address this issue head-on?  Take a look at France the last few years....Yeah, first they try to get Lance and then they file bogus charges against Floyd. Freaking frogs!  On point, the future is a scary place. With the hispanic immigrants pouring in, getting voting rights, our way of life, one culture, one langauge, may not survive. 
[/quote]

Whommit and Bond Guy are freaking blind idiots.  I’m done discussing this with them.  Might as well try to reason with my cat.

You and I were discussing something?

Gee, I didn't know.

Next time, try saying "Whomit" when you're discussing with me.

Joe, as for Muslim leaders in this country preaching violence, where? Assuming this is true where is it different than any other group speaking out against the govt?

Is urging that my parents be killed speaking out against the government?

In your frenzy to apologize for the gutter "religion" you paint yourself as a fool.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Joe,

"Not once have I seen a mainstream US Muslim group issue a condemnation of the perversion of Islam to justify terrorism.

 And how often do we hear of Jews calling for the abolishion of Israel? [/quote]

Astounding. Just when it seemed you couldn't become any more unhinged, you liken the refusal to condemn terrorism with the refusal to call for the abolision of Israel.  Yeah, there very much the same things...

Absa-friggin'-lutley amazing...

[quote=Whomitmayconcer][quote=anonymous]

The 9/11 terrorist hold the record for killing the most amercans in a terrorist act. Do you know who held that dubious record before 9/11. Timothy McVeigh. White boy american. Yet no outcry to string up white trash?

He's one White boy american trash.  He wasn't joined by 17 other White boy american trash while the rest of the White boy american trash applauded their actions or refused to speak out against their actions. 

There was certainly an outcry to string up McVeigh and there would have been an outcry to string up any group that supported his actions.

[/quote]

That's not really true. You seem to forget the "Militia" movement that decried Bush's "New World Order" and advocated overthrow of the government. [/quote]

Yeah, all, what, three of them. Got any quotes of them calling for the overthrow of the government? Do they number any greater than the loons on the left who want the same thing?

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

They applauded McVeigh (a retired military man)!

[/quote]

McVeigh was not "retired" (he served an enlistment, as did Lee Harvey Oswald, in another service), just like no one "bought" the Army. You're a profoundly foolish and ill-informed person.

I was told there was no such thing as an ex-military man, I'm just trying to keep up with the jibberish you folks jabber away in.

Your pedantic dependence on semantics aside, do you have anything to contribute perfesser Goldfish?

You go on ahead and Google Aryan Nation or Montana Militia (here, I did it for you http://www.militiaofmontana.com/) and just go on in there and see if they represent your POV. See if their definition of Patriotism, and yours and Joe's are all aligned.

As was true with the Fascists looking to "Spend half my fortune to save the other half" the militias will say they are "defending the Constitution", but their aim is really to replace it.

I know Mikebutler222, you have a problem remembering things that happened more than twenty minutes ago, so do I but if I remember, I'll be back twenty minutes from now to remind you of right now.

Are either of these whiners Caucasian or heterosexual males?

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate]

Joe, as for Muslim leaders in this country preaching violence, where? Assuming this is true where is it different than any other group speaking out against the govt?

Is urging that my parents be killed speaking out against the government?

In your frenzy to apologize for the gutter "religion" you paint yourself as a fool.

[/quote]

If you're looking for the fool who needs to issue an apology I'd suggest you look in the mirror.

Still, as a racist, at least you are honest about it. A honest racist fool. You were born 100 years too late.

" My reading comprehension is just fine, thanks.  I understand what you're trying to say, and that you are essentially talking out of both sides of your mouth.  "After all, I don't hate them individually, I just hate that the whole bunch of 'em exist collectively....."  Typical liberal nonsense."

See? You don't understand (you're so predictable)!

"Hmmmm...but when they got back from Viet Nam and people of your ilk called them "baby killers" and spat in their faces, instead of thanking them for serving their country, do you think maybe a few of our soldiers found that discouraging?"

My "Ilk"? See? You have no clue in terms of understanding what I said. There is a Gulf of Tolking between disagreeing and disrespecting. What some of our soldiers did in Viet Nam was immoral, illegal and unAmerican. But nobody of my "ilk" spat on any of them. I'm sorry, does that makes me some sort of "coward" in your book?

You bring up a good distinction in re: civilian Patriot. The line I would say is drawn by the commentor's own insistence of the relavence of his military experience. My best friend, since we were four years old (at most) spent 20+ in the military. How much action did he see? ZIP, ZERO. He worked in the garage fixing crap that other guys would break. He went around the world. He's a great guy and a wonderful friend (much better friend than I am) but his politics are poluted by his service.

I don't deny that he served and that his efforts helped keep America's enemies at bay. And he's a smart guy (well, sort of, he's smart in his own ways, but he's always been unsmart in many of the normal ways) and I love him... But when we talk politics, I need to find ways around his military training.  

Meanwhile, as relates to this thread.

I pass!

It is clear that I have "Insanity" after all, I'm doing the same danmed thing again and again expecting a different result.

Talking to the right and expecting them to consider anything out of their "box" is a waste of time.

Are either of these whiners Caucasian or heterosexual males?

[quote=Dust Bunny]Whommit and Bond Guy are freaking blind idiots.  I'm done discussing this with them.  Might as well try to reason with my cat.[/quote]

Because I disagree with you I'm a blind freaking idiot?

If you read thru my posts you will see that i am consistant. I recognise the terror threat. I see the religious connections. Yet, in the rush to crucify me you and the rest of the mob have jumped right past that. Why? Because I chose not to judge a person soley based upon their religion. And because I chose not to judge a person soley based upon their religion I've been called a lot of names today. From dufus to blind freaking idiot.

I assure you I'm not blind. And while I have my share of dufus moments what I really am is what you and many others here are not, a person who doesn't discriminate against people based upon their religion.

This has been a disappointing and ugly thread.

I am absolutely stunned by some of the things I read on this board today.

Why do you hope that?  Are you not comfortable in your beliefs?

This has been a disappointing and ugly thread.

I am absolutely stunned by some of the things I read on this board today.

Hang in there Bond Guy, and all the get respect from the sidelines for laying it all out here, a worthwhile effort.

Look at the passion and depth of perspective here. After all, this issue underlies the safety and success of our economy, and our livelihood every day.

And if DA does not speak for the subconscious fears and anger for many, at least for some, and Whomit's articulation of alternative viewpoints, Bond Guy's passion for respect and fairness, and Joe's moderate balanced viewpoint, and Dust b's passion for accountability, thanks everyone for  your investment in this thread, it demonstrates some real character, and reinforces my own favorite theme, which is that we should all stick together on certain professional issues while maintaining our unique perspectives.

[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=BondGuy]

[quote=Dust Bunny]Whommit and Bond Guy are freaking blind idiots.  I'm done discussing this with them.  Might as well try to reason with my cat.[/quote]

Because I disagree with you I'm a blind freaking idiot?

If you read thru my posts you will see that i am consistant. I recognise the terror threat. I see the religious connections. Yet, in the rush to crucify me you and the rest of the mob have jumped right past that. Why? Because I chose not to judge a person soley based upon their religion. And because I chose not to judge a person soley based upon their religion I've been called a lot of names today. From dufus to blind freaking idiot.

I assure you I'm not blind. And while I have my share of dufus moments what I really am is what you and many others here are not, a person who doesn't discriminate against people based upon their religion.

This has been a disappointing and ugly thread.

I am absolutely stunned by some of the things I read on this board today.

[/quote]

I do hope you do not consider me part of that 'mob'.
[/quote]

Joe, you and I sit on different sides of the political table. And on the issue at hand we see things differently. Yet, you voiced your views on the subject without the discriminatory retoric and without attacking the messenger. I can respect that. Of course I don't consider you part of the mob.

And yes i know who DA is.

[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=Devil'sAdvocate]Why do you hope that?  Are you not comfortable in your beliefs?[/quote]

I am perfectly comfortable in my beliefs.  I just don't want people to confuse them with your backwards views on the world.
[/quote]

What is something you conclude that I believe that you disagree with?

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate]

[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=Devil'sAdvocate]Why do you hope that?  Are you not comfortable in your beliefs?[/quote]

I am perfectly comfortable in my beliefs.  I just don't want people to confuse them with your backwards views on the world.
[/quote]

What is something you conclude that I believe that you disagree with?

[/quote]

I'm with Joe on this one. "Gutter religion" is a good place to start as to where we disagree.

A religion that preaches that anyone who disagrees should be killed is a gutter religion.

A religion that teaches that a daughter who has sex before marriage should be murdered by her father and brothers is a gutter religion.

A religion that calls for murdering–Salman Rushdie comes to mind–is a gutter religion.

So how about if you show us where the Qu'uran or a mainstream Muslim organization supports some of these things

Show us where they don't. 

I know that the entire Muslim population doesn't support these things, but they need to become vocal about it.   So far, the vocal part has been the extremists, CAIR, the Flying Imams and others.

if there is one way that I think they have truly erred is to take advantage of this opportunity to help draw a discerning line between moderate mainline Muslims here and abroad, and encourage those more reasonable parties to voice their opposition to the misuse of the religion to justify terrorist actions.

I agree and the ball is now in the court of the moderate Muslims to stand up and show their true colors.    I'm waiting........

Religious scholars tell us that it is impossible to be a Muslim without believing in violence.  The core of the Muslim religion is based on revenge and violence.

They, the scholars, also tell us that there is no such thing as a "Moderate Muslim."  Those who do not accept the Quran literally are considered infidels, and therefore not members of the religion.

The fools who thinkk there are moderate Muslims are simpletons who don't want to think ill of others lest they think ill of them.

Childish.

If you're bright enough to follow the links you can find them.

Are you saying that you do not believe that Islam is, at its core, a belief founded in revenge and violence?

Are you saying that you do not believe that the Quran teaches that if you don't believe it literally you are an infidel?

[quote=Dust Bunny]

So how about if you show us where the Qu'uran or a mainstream Muslim organization supports some of these things

Show us where they don't.  [/quote]

Seems to me you have the burden of proof here...

[quote=Dust Bunny]I know that the entire Muslim population doesn't support these things, but they need to become vocal about it.   So far, the vocal part has been the extremists, CAIR, the Flying Imams and others. [/quote]

That much I agree with. However, that doesn't justify the "gutter religion" slur and the assumption they're all terrorist symps until proven otherwise.

Joe, I only call people fools who are speaking foolishly.

I respect others' opinions, so long as they can back them up with evidence of a thought process. Even if I agree with the opinion, if the person can't back it up, well then that person is talking foolishly. (BTW, Mikebutler222 is NOT good at backing up "his" opinions, he's only good at insisting on their efficacy. He's also VERY VERY good at directing the flow of discussion, which is a talent I do not have and I admire it in others, Mikebutler222 included.)

I will, however, say that it is a fool's errand to try to have a reasoned, rational conversation with Devil's-Advocate. 

[quote=mikebutler222]

That much I agree with. However, that doesn't justify the "gutter religion" slur and the assumption they're all terrorist symps until proven otherwise.

[/quote]

In my never ending quest to be sensitive, what would be a better adjective than "Gutter?"

Do those of you who use the emoticons clap your hands in glee like a four year old every time you place one, or do you wait till you are about to post them then giggle and clap all at once?

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

I will, however, say that it is a fool's errand to try to have a reasoned, rational conversation with Devil's-Advocate. 

[/quote]

That would make him your twin....

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate]

[quote=mikebutler222]

That much I agree with. However, that doesn't justify the "gutter religion" slur and the assumption they're all terrorist symps until proven otherwise.

[/quote]

In my never ending quest to be sensitive, what would be a better adjective than "Gutter?"

[/quote]

Most anything that doesn't slur the entire group.

Now, you and Whom go get a room...

[quote=mikebutler222]

Most anything that doesn't slur the entire group.

[/quote]

I guess think that the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim is probably insensitive too?

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=Whomitmayconcer]

I will, however, say that it is a fool's errand to try to have a reasoned, rational conversation with Devil's-Advocate. 

[/quote]

That would make him your twin....

[/quote]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.....................

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=Dust Bunny]

So how about if you show us where the Qu'uran or a mainstream Muslim organization supports some of these things

Show us where they don't.  [/quote]

Seems to me you have the burden of proof here...

[quote=Dust Bunny]I know that the entire Muslim population doesn't support these things, but they need to become vocal about it.   So far, the vocal part has been the extremists, CAIR, the Flying Imams and others. [/quote]

That much I agree with. However, that doesn't justify the "gutter religion" slur and the assumption they're all terrorist symps until proven otherwise.

[/quote]

I've never called Islam a gutter religion or said they are all Muslims are terrorist sympathizers.  I just am pointing out that the "moderate" voices are missing.  If Catholics were bombing people in England and using the Catholic religion to justify these actions, I would expect and demand that my church offically denounce such actions.  When the IRA was doing it's dirty deeds, in fact many Catholic groups held protests and preached against these actions.  The shame is that some didn't and even supported the IRA for ethnic (Irish) identity reasons, but the Church as representing the religion denounced them.

Where are the moderate Muslims, the Imams preaching against Islamofascis? Maybe they ARE out there protesting.  Someone said they don't have their own media.  Perhaps some of the blame lies on our mainstream media for not giving air time to moderates for whatever reason.  The MSM refused to publish some innocuous cartoons yet have no difficulty covering offensive images to Christian religions. (Piss Christ, Dung Mary)  Is it political correctness bending over backwards that we don't air the opposite side of the story, or are we actually afraid for our lives?  If the latter, then that says nothing good about Islam or the strength of a supposed moderate opposition to the terrorists and says a lot about our own weaknesses and lack of convictions.

[quote=Devil'sAdvocate]A religion that preaches that anyone who disagrees should be killed is a gutter religion.[/quote]

So then, what does this mean?

Matthew 24:34-37 — Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

or this:

Exodus 35:2 — Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.

Sounds scary.

I concur.  Add to that the part about how Putsy wishes all Muslims in the U.S. were living in fear and being 'hunted'.  While I understand the anger, having lived through 9/11 in NY, the imagery both saddens and disgusts me.  I find myself once again pitying our poor, bitter, retired former wirehouse middle manager that he is so consumed with hate and resentment at his failed life.

Great point. We all see what this business can do to a person. At the personal level, the reason we pray is not to change God, but to change ourselves. We can hold "all Muslims" accountable without destroying our own humanity, that is the imperative, and in a loving manner, like the attempt in Iraq,  but for most liberals that is incompatible with their own concept of individual liberty.

The difference is, the radical "them", really mean it when they say, " a dead Christian is a Muslim ". That is why we have to take leadership and use force (Iraq is our attempt) in a loving manner. This is the language of (Christian Judaic) love that will be understood, not necessarily liked, but understood. It is a religious problem, backed up with loving military solution, and many liberals don't understand it because it requires faith and conviction. All of us may be consumed by our own hate, or lack of faith, this is a constant danger - but liberals being cynical about this having anything to do with God is really ironic, almost to the point of being comical.

[quote=pretzelhead]

So then, what does this mean?

Matthew 24:34-37 — Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

[/quote]

First, it's Matthew 10, not 24.

What Christ is doing is teaching that we are to love him more than we love our own family.  He is not teaching that we should kill those who do not believe.

As for the passage from Exodus--the Jews were not a tollerant bunch, however you will not hear Rabbis getting up in the synogogues and all but demanding that those who were not there should be killed.

That is not the case with the Mosques.  The Imams are notorious for spreading hatred, and as I said earlier.  If a Muslim does not take the Quarn literally they cannot be considered a Muslim--so by definition there can be no such thing as a "Moderate Muslim."

The term is similar to "Cafeteria Catholic."  You're not going to find priests telling their flock that it's OK to not believe in the basics of the religion.

A cafeteria Catholic is not a Catholic and a moderate Muslim is not a Muslim.

Nonetheless, you can wait for the rest of your life and probably won't hear anybody who believes themselves to be of the Islamic faith condemn what is being done in the name of that faith.

A number of years ago a guy named Jim Jones started a religion.  It was a gutter religion too--there are such things.

John W. Olver, D-MassQUOTE=mikebutler222][quote=Dust Bunny]

So how about if you show us where the Qu'uran or a mainstream Muslim organization supports some of these things

Show us where they don't.  [/quote]

Seems to me you have the burden of proof here...

[quote=Dust Bunny]I know that the entire Muslim population doesn't support these things, but they need to become vocal about it.   So far, the vocal part has been the extremists, CAIR, the Flying Imams and others. [/quote]

That much I agree with. However, that doesn't justify the "gutter religion" slur and the assumption they're all terrorist symps until proven otherwise.

[/quote]

I've never called Islam a gutter religionor said they are all Muslims are terrorist sympathizers. [/quote]

No, you didn't. My apologizes for lumping your comments in with  Putsy's.

Whomit: You make a lot of good points. Many of them are intellectually refined and distinctive, within the realm of intellectual freedom.

You appear to conclude that trying to influence "conservatives" is hopeless.

In the same spirit as the distinctions that you make, and your call for critical consideration of these points, please allow yourself the intellectual freedom to make a leap and consider my next point.

Many believe in God (something like 90% of Americans). Many less believe in the existence of good and evil - interesting - a much, much lower percentage. The pervert who repeatedly sexually abuses little girls and murders, the dead dictator of Iraq - many believe these humans have not been corrupted to become evil itself, rather, their behaviour is corrupted, or they are sociopathic - but not evil.

The absolutism of the concept of evil is not a very " intellectual " treatment of certain observable human behaviours. In the West, believing that evil exists as an absolute is suspect - certainly not a word that could be mentioned at the Democratic National Convention.

It appears to me that many liberals - not all, by any measure, believe that freedom comes from nature.

Many who believe in God believe that freedom - freedom to choose between good and evil - is our most basic gift from God.

Not to say that some humans are born as sociopaths - perhaps by nature, they can't " choose ", and become good or evil, and deserve compassion (as do those who choose evil).

The intellectual distinction I would make here, is not that the Christian Judeo model is good and radical Islam is evil, rather, those who would repress free choice - between good and evil - these folks are evil.

Guess what, there are intelligent, caring, loving people who have already thought through your distinctions and chosen to process the entire issue of how we handle radical Islam at a higher level - meaning the use of loving force in Iraq to handle what is basically a human behavioural issue.

But if you break it down, we have liberal leadership in this country that is in denial of the basics - 90% of folks believe in God ( is that only a sweet God, or does it include the angry God of our collective Old Testament), many are in denial of Satan (smirk, smirk, let's go get a latte and talk about something important), and most of all, many believe freedom comes from nature, that it is natural, and there is no moral imperative to dig deep into our spiritual natures to find sensible responsible duty in response to the " God-inspired " behaviour of those radical Muslims who would force their interpretation of our God given gift of free choice.

I don't expect you to understand this, because it is faith and experience based. We should have compassion with each other, and meditate on the possibility that each of us or both of us need to have a little bigger perception of the Truth, certainly in my humanity I offer this as only a starting point.

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate][quote=pretzelhead]

So then, what does this mean?

Matthew 24:34-37 — Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

[/quote]

First, it's Matthew 10, not 24.

What Christ is doing is teaching that we are to love him more than we love our own family.  He is not teaching that we should kill those who do not believe.

As for the passage from Exodus--the Jews were not a tollerant bunch, however you will not hear Rabbis getting up in the synogogues and all but demanding that those who were not there should be killed.

That is not the case with the Mosques.  The Imams are notorious for spreading hatred, and as I said earlier.  If a Muslim does not take the Quarn literally they cannot be considered a Muslim--so by definition there can be no such thing as a "Moderate Muslim."

The term is similar to "Cafeteria Catholic."  You're not going to find priests telling their flock that it's OK to not believe in the basics of the religion.

A cafeteria Catholic is not a Catholic and a moderate Muslim is not a Muslim.

Nonetheless, you can wait for the rest of your life and probably won't hear anybody who believes themselves to be of the Islamic faith condemn what is being done in the name of that faith.

A number of years ago a guy named Jim Jones started a religion.  It was a gutter religion too--there are such things.

[/quote]

They're all gutter.

1. God (uncreated, before time and eternal).

2. People who " fear " God and evil, who respect free choice for all. Affirm good and evil.  (Conservative.)

3. People who fear God and evil, who interpret choices for others. (Radical Muslim.)

3. People who fear God, who respect free choice. (Liberal.)

Liberals see themselves as reasonable moderators between conservatives and radicals. They do not recognize evil, rather, through positive affirmations (mainly just thinking) they create their own reality. From the perspective of both conservatives and radicals, they have become " baby Gods ", since liberals negative half of the basic tenet of free choice (they don't believe evil really exists).

There is no logical end to this debate - their is only faith and behavioural affirmation, and human thought.

[quote=coolshoos]

1. God (uncreated, before time and eternal).

2. People who " fear " God and evil, who respect free choice for all. Affirm good and evil.  (Conservative.)

3. People who fear God and evil, who interpret choices for others. (Radical Muslim.)

3. People who fear God, who respect free choice. (Liberal.)

Liberals see themselves as reasonable moderators between conservatives and radicals. They do not recognize evil, rather, through positive affirmations (mainly just thinking) they create their own reality. From the perspective of both conservatives and radicals, they have become " baby Gods ", since liberals negative half of the basic tenet of free choice (they don't believe evil really exists).

There is no logical end to this debate - their is only faith and behavioural affirmation, and human thought.

[/quote]

Liberals are Godless.

Coolshoos,

Let me get this straight, you want to talk religion with me?

Have I given you some sort of signal that I need saving?

Have you given me some sort of signal that your views on religion are somehow redemptive?

Religion is a very deep place for me. Religion is personal and I don't trust you enough to discuss it with you.

Suffice it to say that you seem to wear your religion like a badge of righteousness, and that by itself is enough to make me want to puke on your shoes!

Spoken like a true liberal and repeating what Shrillary had to say, “Religion is personal to me.”  Well said Whomit.  Now if the Imams and the other radicals would keep theirs personal, we could end this entire issue, but they will continue to push for subjection or destruction of the infedels (Whomit, that would be me and you!).

FFJ,

I'm sorry, was I speaking to you?

Oops, I didn’t realize that this is your private posting ground. If you want to PM cool to keep it private then go right ahead, otherwise you are subject to scrutiny.  Besides, I know you’re sorry. You didn’t have to remind me of that.

Scrutiny? Skrewtinyou!

What scrutiny? That's what you call scrutiny? "Spoken like a true Liberal"? Take your jejune commentary and cram it up you pewhole!

And put your insipid name "Shrilary" there too, I'm sure you have the room!

[quote=joedabrkr]

Do you believe that a Lutheran or a Baptist or an Episcopalian is the same as a Roman Catholic, then?

[/quote]

No, nor do I believe that Lutherns or Baptists are the same as Muslims.

The fact remains that anybody who does not take the Quran literally is considered to be an infidel--just like you and me.

I'm not a moderate Muslim?  Are you?  If not why do you think other infidels are moderate Muslims?

Why do you choose to not believe that every Muslim on earth wishes you were dead?  They may not be willing to kill you themselves, but they damn sure don't object when the killings occur.

Do they?

[quote=joedabrkr]

Why do you presume that all Muslims are the same as the radical fringe element that you continue to describe?
[/quote]

I'm saying that it's not a "fringe."  Islam is a religion based on revenge and violence and that guy who you think is your friend would not intervene if a fellow Muslim was going to cut your head off.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Coolshoos,

Let me get this straight, you want to talk religion with me?

Have I given you some sort of signal that I need saving?

Have you given me some sort of signal that your views on religion are somehow redemptive?

Religion is a very deep place for me. Religion is personal and I don't trust you enough to discuss it with you.

Suffice it to say that you seem to wear your religion like a badge of righteousness, and that by itself is enough to make me want to puke on your shoes!

[/quote]

Honestly, I expected a more intellectual response.

Instead, you attack me, and infer that I attacked you or am trying to school you.

This is disappointing, but like I said, I believe that the conservative and fundamental views do run outside of logic.

With regards to debate, take an honest look at your response to my comments. Your response is anti intellectual. I'm sorry for you.

Liberals are Godless.

When you take this comment in the Ann Coulter sense, it is a very mean comment - and also strictly true.

- In the sense, as just proved by Whomit, when you take God out of the debate, the liberal point of view is Godless.

Which is kind of interesting, considering the definition of Jiihad, and such.

But the real issue here has about as much to do with logic as does the persecution of registered reps by other interests in this industry.

(Ranting.)

[ Whomit, the self proclaimed purveyor of the wide ranging, all embracing and compassionate and reasonable liberal viewpoint, refuses to discuss " religion " (actually, it's the existence of good and evil, and whether that topic has any bearing on the fundamentalist Muslim problem as it threatens our economic well being.]

Who gets to define the playing field, then? By taking certain issues off the table, we have three distinct playing fields - liberal, conservative, and fundamentalist.

Who will come play over here, who gets dragged over to that field.

Hence, the comment, Liberals are Godless.

A phrase that recognizes the apparently inevitable conclusion: through a single phrase, the conservative position is to institutionalize the position of liberals and move on.

Still, the liberals should have a gnawing thought in the back of their minds at night, what is evil is real... could it be possible?

I'd like to see Hillary, or Obama, even have the guts to utter the word evil in public.

Godless.

Liberals are Godless. And conservatives are God? Many of those who appear to be conservatives on this board are definately not Christian - placing judgement, desiring to kill, acting as gods themselves.



One who believes they can do no wrong is not a Christian. George W is the first person who comes to mind here. Maybe he is “God” with all of you sheep accepting his every word, however illiteriate it might be, as gospel.



I hope you sleep well tonight. I know I will, right after I pray for you and W.

late spell check - definitely

Another example of not listening and responding to what I said.

If you respond to the basic question of whether evil is real, and whether it has any bearing on the viewpoint of liberals, you are debating.

Saying I said that liberals are Godless, which is not my precise point, is anti-intellectual - you have twisted and ducked.

If you're not following the debate, or if you are just avoiding the question, it is obvious.

By the way, do you believe evil is real, or is it just an intellectual construct? Do you understand the importance of this question with regard to current events?

Fundamentalist Muslims believe that evil is real - this is the first premise upon which their behaviour is based.

American conservatives believe that evil is real - this is the first premise upon which their behaviour is based.

American liberals - perhaps the majority - believe that evil is an intellectual construct. They believe freedom comes from nature, because they do not recognize that free choice, the choice between good, which is real, and evil, which is real - that free choice comes from God.

Because we are made in the image of God, all of us have the potential to become Saints. Think about it, you could quit your worldly concerns and retreat to the spiritual life and become more like God. You can't do it by thinking, you have to recognize the definition of God.

The point is, evil is real, and must be dealt with as such.

I challenge anyone on this forum who is a "liberal", and who believes evil is real, to go forward in debate with regards to how to handle the radical Islam question.

I seriously doubt this will happen. But since the recognition of good and evil is important to recognizing God, the refusal to acknowledge this point or to take it off the table as being " religious discussion" makes the discussion Godless, which apparently is a characteristic of many liberals here. End of discussion?

[quote=Oldproducer]Liberals are Godless. And conservatives are God? Many of those who appear to be conservatives on this board are definately not Christian - placing judgement, desiring to kill, acting as gods themselves.

One who believes they can do no wrong is not a Christian. George W is the first person who comes to mind here. Maybe he is "God" with all of you sheep accepting his every word, however illiteriate it might be, as gospel.

I hope you sleep well tonight. I know I will, right after I pray for you and W.[/quote]

If you re read everything I said above, consider making an apology. This type of muddling is intellectual terrorism. Are you drinking or just being emotional?

Coolshoos,

I get to choose whom I speak with about what. I am solely responsible for what I say and I hold personal responsibility in very high regard.

You want to know if I believe that evil is a real thing? You mean a real thing like air? You mean a real thing like rocks? You mean a real thing like gravity. Or do you mean a real thing like time.

Do you mean a real thing like God? Do you mean as in "the power of Satan?"

What do you mean by "real"?

If you are going to ask me questions about my beliefs you'd better be sure that you  know what you're asking. You'd better know that the path for here to your enlightenment is long, hard and f**king wierd!

I have spent a big part of my life contemplating these issues and they can't be tied up in neat little bundles. Considering the crowd that gathers at this watering hole, this is not a discussion that would benefit either of us.

You mention "Free Will' as if its a throwaway line, as if its the easy answer to all our problems, unbderstand "Free Will" and understand everything. That tells me that you have a perfunctory aquaintence with the concept at best.

If you can show me that I've underestimated you, more power to ya' but I have to tell you, not yet! 

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Coolshoos,

I get to choose whom I speak with about what. I am solely responsible for what I say and I hold personal responsibility in very high regard.

You want to know if I believe that evil is a real thing? You mean a real thing like air? You mean a real thing like rocks? You mean a real thing like gravity. Or do you mean a real thing like time.

Do you mean a real thing like God? Do you mean as in "the power of Satan?"

What do you mean by "real"?

If you are going to ask me questions about my beliefs you'd better be sure that you  know what you're asking. You'd better know that the path for here to your enlightenment is long, hard and f**king wierd!

I have spent a big part of my life contemplating these issues and they can't be tied up in neat little bundles. Considering the crowd that gathers at this watering hole, this is not a discussion that would benefit either of us.

You mention "Free Will' as if its a throwaway line, as if its the easy answer to all our problems, unbderstand "Free Will" and understand everything. That tells me that you have a perfunctory aquaintence with the concept at best.

If you can show me that I've underestimated you, more power to ya' but I have to tell you, not yet! 

[/quote]

I guess that answers my question.

Like I said, think about it, and if you want to progress one inch in this debate, stop defining the playing field to exclude God.

Kind of ironic, isn't it, that the fundamentalist Islam which threatens our economic security and peace of mind does not neatly exclude God.

But I respect your right to decline the question.

Just don't paint me as some pandering kid seeking enlightenment, that is unfair.

You want to know if I believe that evil is a real thing? You mean a real thing like air? You mean a real thing like rocks? You mean a real thing like gravity. Or do you mean a real thing like time.

Do you mean a real thing like God? Do you mean as in "the power of Satan?"

Maybe this will help: can you see the fundamentalist Islamists wrestling with this question?

This question of the reality of evil defines everything. If you are being honest, trust me with your answer and I will show you. This is a fair question, if you care about the outcome of our debate.

Considering the crowd that gathers at this watering hole, this is not a discussion that would benefit either of us.

The truth is scary. Kind of like splitting the atom. The implications of entertaining the possibility that evil is real, like a rock is real, or a thought is real, or love is real - the implications can be shattering.

Love can be subtle, joy can be mild, evil can be subtle.

If evil can be real like a rock, and subtle, it can shape everything.

So can love.

The most significant shift in American thought ( do you think there is really such a thing - is it a collective reality?) today is the sanitation of God. God has become a Happy Meal to be consumed with the responsibility of confronting evil - which is real and everywhere - in all of its forms.

All I am asking is that you be open minded and meditate on that concept, maybe for a couple of years.

At least the possibility exists that the mind, with all of its creativity, and joy, is open to influence of rationalization, and ego, and the (subtle) influence of evil ... and if that is really true, then our perceptions can be colored by evil, and God can defragment that evil from our hard drives, but the denial of the existence of evil - by the political left - the implications to the continued existence of  our culture are staggering.

To say that is irrelevant to a discussion of how to handle fundamentalist terrorism takes Americans into a brave new world.

with the responsibility of confronting evil

(without)

If you can show me that I've underestimated you, more power to ya' but I have to tell you, not yet! 

No way. It's not about me, and it's not about you. The first step, one that we are all taking, is to seek understanding.

Is evil real, or is it just an idea?

Keep an open mind, and you will be rewarded. Good luck.

Is time real, or is it a concept?

Before you can even fathom the depth of the other questions, you have to be able to understand the depth of this one.

Is time real?  

Maybe this will help: can you see the fundamentalist Islamists wrestling with this question?

Maybe this will help: Fundamentalist Islamists invented Zero. You know, the thing that Christians refused to believe in because that would mean there was a place that God wasn't.

Or, maybe you just misunderstand Liberals. Or maybe you misunderstand personal responsibility.

Well Whomit, you’re apparently not a Christian or a Jew or Muslim who demonstrates even a basic level of education about what God is - eternal, existing before time, uncreated … pretty interesting stuff, if you ever delve into it - until then, let me assure you that the concept of zero is embellishment of the basics and just barely scratching the surface of what likely even a basic fundamentalist Islamic education would give you, after all, we share the Old Testament, and believe in the same God … I’m blown away by your remark.

[quote=coolshoos]

If you re read everything I said above, consider making an apology. This type of muddling is intellectual terrorism. Are you drinking or just being emotional?

Yeah coolshoos, I mean really. Your grasp is tight like a suckling babe's to it's mother's teet, and about as deep.

Your juvenile anthropomorphic God Head mythology is even less than I thought you brought to the table. It's like you think you win because you have most of the cards up to a 7, and you have all the suits!

Please. Don't.

Just for the fun of it, I'll ask you again:

Is time real?

You say God is before time (as if that's not a contradiction of terms itself). then you must understand what is time. So tell us, coolshoos, is time real?

And the terms you're looking for are

Free Will

and the three Os

Omnicient, omnipresent, omnipotent. He knows all, He is everywhere and He is all powerful.

Your Sunday school teacher will confirm this.

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Maybe this will help: can you see the fundamentalist Islamists wrestling with this question?

Maybe this will help: Fundamentalist Islamists invented Zero. You know, the thing that Christians refused to believe in because that would mean there was a place that God wasn't.

[/quote]

Wrong!

http://www.andrews.edu/~calkins/math/biograph/biozero.htm

Ok, thank you.

Will you give me this much? It was the texts of the Moors which had been left behind as they "left" Spain, that introduced Zero to the Christian translators of the books?

The very fact that there is a Zed character lets us know that this is not a western word.

Further,will you accede the notion that the Christian church resisted Zero's "existence", or lack thereof due to it's implication that there was such a place where the three O's was negated? (They felt the same way about the vacuum).

Whom,

It really amazes me that you sit there and spew your discontent and hatred towards Christianity and how all Christians are idiots, yet when someone dare to speak ill of Islam, you get bent out of shape.  You can't have it both ways.  You know as well as I do that Muslims are seeking and getting preferential treatment all over world because the world is afraid that someone might be offended them and that the Muslims will blow something up because they've been upset.  http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-25-muslim-specia l-treatment-from-schools_N.htm This is crap.

I'll give it to you that there have been some crazy folks who have done some pretty stupid things in the name of Christ but Christian leaders are pretty quick to stand up and condem that action.  Where are any Muslim leaders standing up publicly to condem the action of the radicals?  They are not speaking out because they are afraid they will be next.

Don't criticize Christianity and turn right around and tell Christians to just take it because that's just what should be expected because allChristians are idiots.

I can only imagine that little shiney things amaze you!

I don't sit here and spew hatred toward Christianity, I defend Christianity and Catholicism in particular against all sorts of callumnies. But don't let your misperceptions get int he way of a good rant.

I don't get bent out of shape when people slam Islam. The only way I mentioned islam at all was to point out Mikebutler222's assinine attempts to parse his phrases as regards them.

I can't have it both ways? You mean (aside from the fact that you don't know what you're talking about) that there are only two choices, Xtian or Islam? FreeFromJones, there is a wide wide world beyond the teachings of organizational base godworship and spirituality (supernaturality) and reality. I see no reason to restrict my "beautiful mind" to such a pitiful range.

"You know as well as I do that Muslims are seeking and getting preferential treatment all over world because the world is afraid that someone might be offended them and that the Muslims will blow something up because they've been upset. "

And what solution do you offer? Blow them up if they don't conform to your way of thinking? That seems to sum up the Western philosophy for the past 4,000 years (not that it doesn't also sum up Middle Eastern philosophy over the same time frame)

Let me ask you this, what do you think the story of Cain and Abel is about?

"Where are any Muslim leaders standing up publicly to condem the action of the radicals?  They are not speaking out because they are afraid they will be next."

So let me untwirl this one for you there freefromjones: The whole world is afraid of the Moslems because offending them might get somebody blowed up and we accept this as something that we all know. And yet there is something wrong with the "Good" Moslems because they are afraid that they might get blowed up real good if they speak out against the other Moslems, and that just goes to show that the "good" Moslems are really bad.

Can you see how stupid this sounds? Why shouldn't "good" Moslems be afraid of being blown up? Do you then see why I have little patience for people who say stupid things like this, without even realizing that they are saying it (At least with Mikebutler222, I still believe that he says stupid things on purpose, which is a different kind of stupid).

"Don't criticize Christianity and turn right around and tell Christians to just take it because that's just what should be expected because allChristians are idiots."

Convolute much?

Further,will you accede the notion that the Christian church resisted Zero's "existence", or lack thereof due to it's implication that there was such a place where the three O's was negated? (They felt the same way about the vacuum).

I've never heard such a thing.  If it did, then I was a very long time ago.  We used to believe all kinds of stupid things.  Witches, black magic, global cooling, global warming, Lindsey Lohan is going to kick her drug habit.   

The whole world is afraid of the Moslems because offending them might get somebody blowed up and we accept this as something that we all know. And yet there is something wrong with the "Good" Moslems because they are afraid that they might get blowed up real good if they speak out against the other Moslems, and that just goes to show that the "good" Moslems are really bad.

No, this goes to show either : 

a)there are no "good" (I prefer the term moderate) Muslims and that the Islamofascists do represent the teachings of Islam as a violent death cult with which the members of the religion agree.

b) the "good"  Muslims are afraid and that makes them just as big of weenies as the apologists and surrender monkeys on the left. Possibly even worse, since they are allowing their religion to be perverted

c) the moderate Muslims are out there but they are being ignored by the media for the agenda of making Bush look bad, beating the drumbeat about Iraq (no wmds etc etc etc ad nauseum) and electing a Democrat even if it means the death of our own soldiers and encouraging future attacks on the United States.

I tend to believe B and C are the correct answers.

"If it did, then I was a very long time ago."

Yeah, obviously. It was one of those concepts that the church is so infamous for clinging to, like the geocentric nature of the universe, and the creation myth.

Folks tend to overuse these examples and ignore the other facts of the church, like the university system, like hospitals, like the fact that they hid thousands of Jews from the Nazis (Godwin doesn't apply, before anyone goes shouting). No, instead the Catholics are called Nazi sympathisers for the same reasons that "good" Muslims (I prefer to use the more incendiary term "good' in that it reflects the "there's some good negroes and then there's niggers" language of the "race hysteria" era in this country!) are expected to act against their own self interest.

As for 'c', that's just delusional! What main stream press are you talking about, and what difference does it make anyway? Are there examples popping up on Fox news nightly? Are they sweeping it under the carpet there too?

Further, has there not been enough evidence for you that the MSM absolutely abrogated its responsibility to fact check the claims of the administration leading up to and after the "war" in Iraq?

You're compressing time and forgetting things that disagree with your opinion.

Meanwhile, it can mean another thing too. They see Moslems being blown up by the Xtians and they don't see a place where they can create a "Middle ground".

As I've noted before, the participants in the debate assume an "A is not equal to B and therefore A equals 'NotB'" mentality that leaves people having to decide between the lesser of two evils.

"You're either with us or you're with the terrorists!" tends to decide for people that they're against you. This is why the story of Solomon and the baby is so important, because it is a shows the deleterious effects of the ultimatum.

Some quotes to get you started on your journey... good luck!

From Wikipedia: "In Jewish belief, God is defined as the Creator of the universe: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" (Genesis 1:1); similarly, "I am God, I make all things" (Isaiah 44:24). God, as Creator, is by definition separate from the physical universe and thus exists outside of space and time."

From a book review about Eastern Orthodox Christianity on Amazon.com: " Since God exists outside of time, His grace is poured out at once to us past, present, and future. Declaring salvation an "event" in time is thus a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of grace."

From Wikipedia: "Catholic Christianity's emphasis on free will and grace is often contrasted with predestination in Protestant Christianity, especially after the Counter-Reformation, but in understanding differing conceptions of free will it is just as important to understand the differing conceptions of the nature of God, focusing on the idea that God can be all-powerful and all-knowing even while people continue to exercise free will, because God does not exist in time (see the link to Catholic Encyclopedia below for more)."

From Wikipedia, the " New Church " gives the general idea... " if God is love itself, then He must love things outside of Himself; and if people do not have the freedom to choose evil, they are simply extensions of God, and He cannot love them as something outside of Himself. In addition, Swedenborg argues that if a person does not have free will to choose goodness and faith, then all of the commandments in the Bible to love God and the neighbor are worthless, since no one can choose to do them - and it is impossible that a God who is love itself and wisdom itself would give impossible commandments."

I'm not really trying to prove much, except that many liberals believe in good, but few liberals believe that evil is real, and that tough choices have to be made - the American left mainly sugar coats these choices in terms of dealing with the rise of fundamentalist Islam, as it relates to our economic security, freedom to exist - it is because God - a true understanding of God - has been cut out of the debate. This is a relatively recent phoenomenon, it comes from ignorance, but the left is currently exploiting this ignorance at the expense of the nation.

Is time real?

[quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Just for the fun of it, I'll ask you again:

Is time real?

You say God is before time (as if that's not a contradiction of terms itself). then you must understand what is time. So tell us, coolshoos, is time real?

[/quote]

So if God exists outside time, I guess time is interesting, but I find the concept of God existing outside time to be more interesting.

Don't make it more complicated than it needs to be.

God just wants us to love God.

We get to choose love, or evil.

If you recognize that both love and evil are real, and you want to love God, you have a responsibility.

You have to decide what is love, and what is evil.

Since the American Left appears to be unwilling to draw a line, the burden is carried by the few.

This appears to be human nature. I'm just making an observation about where we stand with regard to handling the security problem of radical Islam.

This is pretty basic stuff.

Suggestion: " Liberals " might entertain the notion that some conservatives have already thought about some of the stuff they are spewing and have decided to draw a line against the " choices " that fundamentalist Islamists want to impose upon us.

Re read your posts to me, how you assumed things about me.

Show me how I assumed things about you, or called you names, or insulted your intelligence.

This is a process, it requires trust, there is a definite conclusion, it is resolvable.

"...al-Qaida now views "all the world as a battlefield open in front of us."

The Egyptian-born physician said that the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah and Palestinian militants would not be ended with "cease-fires or agreements."

"It is a jihad (holy war) for the sake of God and will last until (our) religion prevails ... from Spain to Iraq," al-Zawahri said. "We will attack everywhere."

http://haloscan.com/tb/drsanity/1447623682491303334

If we continue on the path of appeasement we will be defeated by the enemy's unrepentant ruthlessness and their endless love of death. Thomas Sowell once remarked that, "If the battle for civilization comes down to the wimps versus the barbarians, the barbarians are going to win", and he is most certainly correct

"Don't make it more complicated than it needs to be."

It's God! They've been working on this for 50,000+ years. Sweetheart, it's complicated!

I'm not asking you about how God relates to time. I'm asking you if time is real. That's all.

How about this...

Can you define these three concepts? "simple" words, use them everyday.... can you, in your own words, define them?

"Is"

"Time"

and "Real"

My sense is that the answer is no. You cannot define the meaning of any of those three words.

And you want to tell me about God! Puleese!

You keep trying to define the debate to go off topic.

Your comment typifies current Liberal political behaviour, which is an unwillingness to bear down on the problem - in this case, it might be for you to carefully consider my points, develop a conclusion, and analyze that conclusion.

You're bright, but you are avoiding the issue.

"It depends on what your definition of is is."

Alright Whomit,

We can't define anything, and everything we say is based on assumptions. Nothing and everything is true. Let's all kill ourselves like Silvia Plath.

Is is.

If people lived more in the moment, things would be a lot less complicated.

If a lot of Americans took a week off, cut themselves off from the media, really thought about this whole problem ... thought for themselves ... who knows, we might survive as a nation.

Since language is imbued with emotion and conditioning and memory, we'll never get over the Clinton connotations of your remark.

What goes around comes around - Whomit's Liberal unwillness to take the issue head on is just the current vogue, who knows, in a couple of elections, maybe we'll come back politically with some resolve.

Or another terrorist incident in the U. S., God forbid. Like a billy club to the head. Nothing like fear to help define words like is.

[quote=farotech]

Alright Whomit,

We can't define anything, and everything we say is based on assumptions. Nothing and everything is true. Let's all kill ourselves like Silvia Plath.

[/quote]

We have a lot of people in the media and in Congress working on that for us. All very poetic, though.

Anyway, Whomit, for right now,  I'm just asking you to take some time off and consider the possibility that this debate, which you choose not to allow to run to a conclusion, is an example that some Liberals act like baby Gods, in that they choose to refuse to acknowledge the existence of evil, in the presence of God.

Some ninety percent of Americans "believe" in God, a much smaller percentage believes that good and bad are real, that we are continuously choosing, each moment.

The fundamentalist Islamist believe this, so do Jews and Christians, and Hindus and so on, but not the modern American Liberal.

You first, Faro.

Coolshoos,

Darling, You are the one who is insisting that "evil' is "real". I want to know if you have the capacity to know what the eff you're talking about.

Apparently, you don't. How can you say that "Evil is real" when you can't define "real"? I can define real, but I'm not sure that my definition of real is the same as yours. I'm simply asking you to define your terms. If I were the one to bring the issue to the table, then it would be up to me to define my terms, but I'm not, you are, so it is your job to lay the ground. Define the terms.

You have defined God by referring to "Him" in anthropomorphic terms. I don't need you to define any further, I know what you mean.

You've alluded to evil and you think you have given a clear definition of what it isn't. We'll deal with that later.

You've insisted on the word Real and you pivot your political distinctions based on the belief in evil's realness. But you refuse to define real.

I use Time as a qualifier in that it shares many of the properties of religious blather without the human, emotional element. But since you are not able to take that first step and intellectualize a single concept, how can you expect to be taken seriously on something as grand and ethereal as God ?

You're a low rank novice in the realm of religious thought Coolshoos, i assumed this at the beginning and then you have gone on to prove me right with every post. From not knowing the the term is Free Will (you thought it had to do with pro choice) to not knowing the 3 O's to not knowing the difference yourself between "before time" and "outside time" it is obvious that you are new to this exciting journey. I'm happy for you, but I'm sad too because I can see from your direction that you will go no further than the pew does (and its in church all the time!).

In another time in another place I'd be glad to take you for a stroll along the path, but this is neither the right time nor place. 

I'm going to ignore your personal attacks. Where do they come from?

Wikipedia:

" In Judaism and Christianity, evil is the result of dissociating from God's will.

As Plato observed, there are relatively few ways to do good, but there are countless ways to do evil...

It is not uncommon to find people in power who are indifferent to good or evil, taking actions based solely on practicality...

Evil is sometimes defined as the opposite of good, or anything that opposes the force of life... "

Anyway, you are right, I'm a lightweight when it comes to ontological debate.

You seem angry.

In another time in another place I'd be glad to take you for a stroll along the path, but this is neither the right time nor place. 

This feels like a patronizing, liberal dismissal. I think you are making my broader point about liberal behaviour in America today.

And you still managed to avoid engaging in the broader argument, which would be the implications of turning away from the reality of evil with regards to the behaviour of fundamental Islam.

Personal attacks? It’s not a personal attack to point out that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

If you don't understand evil, how am I supposed to engage you in "broader argument".

This is the trouble with people who replace faith with thought, they want to be able to discuss "the broader" while ignoring the facts that create the broader.

It's like the notion that one might miss the forest for the trees. In this case you refuse to recognize that the forest is made of trees. The only way to recognize a given forest as a pine forest is to know what pine trees are.

"You seem angry." CS

"...I'd be glad to take you for a stroll along the path...," WC

" ...I'm happy for you..."

".... I'm sad too ..."

Perhaps you don't know what "angry" means either.

  You're a low rank novice in the realm of religious thought Coolshoos, i assumed this at the beginning ... I'm happy for you, but I'm sad too because I can see from your direction that you will go no further than the pew does (and its in church all the time!).

Talk about schadenfreude.

Now we are really getting somewhere.

You want to define time, but think the stuff in bold is not meant to be insulting?

Admit it, you are avoiding the issue. I didn't expect you to come 'round...

Not a reasonable word of logical refutation, or creative synthesis, or validation or reasonable negation ... are you feeling exposed and do you represent your liberal viewpoint eloquently?

This is the trouble with people who replace faith with thought, they want to be able to discuss "the broader" while ignoring the facts that create the broader.

Please clarify your attack, do you mean I am replacing thought with faith, it's not what you said. These are terms we can discuss.

On second thought, forget it. I learned a lot here about one liberal mind. I’m awe struck. Good luck to you in your spiritual quest and political quest, whomit.

Good luck to you coolshoos, in your quest to bring concepts you have grasp of into some focus and structure.

Apparently, Shadenfreude is another of the many many many words you don't know what means.

Thank you for the copycheck, you are right, I would have been more correct if I had said 'Faith for thought" or "thought with Faith".

You can go try to convert someone else now, I suggest you start with someone young, bring chocolate bars, you're likely to need them! 

"Admit it, you are avoiding the issue...."

No, if you ever learn how to define the issue, I'll be glad to join you on the next step.

You remind me of the joke...

Stosh is in church, he's praying "God please God, let me win the lottery! I'm good God, you know that! God let me prove to you thatI'm good, let me show you how good I'll be with that money!

"I'll give 10, no 20% to the church in thithing, I'll give money to the orphans, I'll send my children to Catholic School, I'll even be good to my wife, but please God, let me win the lottery, just this once!

'God, you know I ask the same thing every week. Every week god I'm here in church, God, praying and praying for just this one thing. Please God this one ime, Do not foresake me.

I ask this through Jesus Christ your son our lord, amen."

And a voice comes down.."Stosh! Meet me halfway; buy a ticket!"

Allright, then, kick my a** out the door with some more patronizing remarks. I'm staggered at the assumptions you made about me and my intent. I'm sure if we were sitting around a summer campfire with a drink, there would be a lot more respect. 

Shadenfreude was a joke, you were happy for me and insulted me in the same sentence. :). You're a pretty serious fellow.

I like you. You don't have to try to destroy people who don't agree with you. Maybe that is not your intent, but you come across that way and lower your own respectability.

( My previous post was put up before I saw your joke - I see that you feel bad.)

I’m not really trying to prove much, except that many liberals believe in good, but few liberals believe that evil is real, and that tough choices have to be made - the American left mainly sugar coats these choices in terms of dealing with the rise of fundamentalist Islam, as it relates to our economic security, freedom to exist - it is because God - a true understanding of God - has been cut out of the debate. This is a relatively recent phoenomenon, it comes from ignorance, but the left is currently exploiting this ignorance at the expense of the nation.

I don't see where you understand my point. What does Bush have to do with it?

What makes you different than the liberals is that you give the impression that you can never be wrong. Sorry, you are human.

Of course I am a piddling human. I'm sorry if you have the impression that I think I can do no wrong. If I'm not claiming to be God, which I am not, why would you have that impression?

[quote=coolshoos]

I don’t see where you understand my point. What does Bush have to do with it?

[quote=coolshoos]

What makes you different than the liberals is that you give the impression that you can never be wrong. Sorry, you are human.

Of course I am a piddling human. I’m sorry if you have the impression that I think I can do no wrong. If I’m not claiming to be God, which I am not, why would you have that impression?

Correction - not what I see in your posts, but what I perceive in your posts.

Not at all. I thought we were way beyond that. Whomit proclaims that I am a neophyte at ontological discussion, which is what this is, but he does not know my qualifications or experience or even my political affiliation. Like I said, his assumptions about me blew me away.

I think the holier than thou perception might be left over from a bad experience at Sunday school, or a bad experience with conservatives?

I think the holier than thou perception might be left over from a bad experience at Sunday school, or a bad experience with conservatives?

Like I said, I don't think I'm more holy than anyone here.

I think you might be projecting, in case that was not clear.

If you can't prove that I think I better than you, why make the assumption?

If you just want to be pissed off and snitty, just be pissed off and snitty.

Happy trails, everyone.

The red words are my contemporaneous thoughts from when I first read the thread.

[quote=coolshoos]  ... We can hold "all Muslims" accountable without destroying our own humanity, that is the imperative, and in a loving manner, like the attempt in <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Iraq, (HUH? Murder in a loving manner, what is this person nuts?) but for most liberals that is incompatible with their own concept of individual liberty. (Liberals, where does she get off talking about Liberals? She doesn’t know about Liberals) <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[/quote] [quote=coolshoos] That is why we have to take leadership and use force (Iraq is our attempt) in a loving manner. (Uh, that’s pretty crazy, that there) This is the language of (Christian Judaic) love that will be understood, not necessarily liked, but understood.(WWJD? Bomb their asses?) It is a religious problem, backed up with loving military solution, and many liberals don't understand it because it requires faith and conviction. (I wonder if a Liberal would be insulted by that?) All of us may be consumed by our own hate, or lack of faith, this is a constant danger - but liberals (yeah, that’s pretty insulting all right.) being cynical about this having anything to do with God is really ironic, almost to the point of being comical.

[/quote] [quote=coolshoos] Whomit: (Ah gee, she’s talking to me now, do I haveta?)

You appear to conclude that trying to influence "conservatives" is hopeless. (No, I know lots of smart Conservatives that ...who am I kidding, no I don’t, all the conservatives I know are boneheads, just like these guys.)  

… please allow yourself the intellectual freedom to make a leap and consider my next point. (Uh yi yi, when they start off with this crap, you know where it’s going.)

Many believe in God (something like 90% of Americans) (straight from the buereau of made up statistics, it’s around 70%, and even at that it’s a matter of speculation.). Many less believe in the existence of good and evil - interesting - a much, much lower percentage. (Much much lower many is an accurate estimation) The pervert who repeatedly sexually abuses little girls and murders, the dead dictator of Iraq - many believe these humans have not been corrupted to become evil itself (Evil itself, I like the concept of “itself” I guess I’ll give this person the benefit of the doubt and assume she knows what “itself” means), rather, their behaviour is corrupted, or they are sociopathic - but not evil. (Uhhh, what the hell did she say? People don’t believe that sociopaths are evil? But the much much fewer many  don’t believe in evil.)

The absolutism of the concept of evil is not a very " intellectual "( what’s with the “” around intellectual, is there something wrong with being intellectual?) treatment of certain observable human behaviours. In the West, believing that evil exists as an absolute is suspect - certainly not a word that could be mentioned at the Democratic National Convention.(Translation, everybody in the west, especially Democrats,are wrong and my political party and I are right about evil, and the loving bombs we tuck it in at night with. I wonder if that is insulting to western thinkers and Democrats in particular?)

It appears to me that many liberals - not all, by any measure, believe that freedom comes from nature. (Yeah, damn those Founding Fathers! Is it too soon to label this woman a nutjob?)

Many who believe in God believe that freedom - freedom to choose between good and evil - is our most basic gift from God. (The 90%. “Gift from God” huh? Well there’s no denying it, this is a religious screwball!)

Not to say that some humans are born as sociopaths - perhaps by nature, they can't " choose ", and become good or evil, and deserve compassion (as do those who choose evil). (With a big o dose of New Age nutjobitis too!)

The intellectual distinction I would make here, is not that the Christian Judeo model is good and radical Islam is evil, rather, those who would repress free choice - between good and evil - these folks are evil. (Free choice? What the hell is “free choice” must be something that stuck in her head from her trip to the grocery store or something.)

Guess what, there are intelligent, caring, loving people who have already thought through your distinctions and chosen to process the entire issue of how we handle radical Islam at a higher level (Oh boy, you mean I don’t have to do anymore of that pesky “thinking for myself” anymore? Joy to the world!) - meaning the use of loving force in Iraq to handle what is basically a human behavioural issue. (And they’re loving people too, as long as you don’t mind defining love as blowing some little kid’s brains outs. The ends must justify the means, why not love annihilate an entire village to cure a behavioral issue? Like the way she used a u though, very brit! This person doesn’t seem to be able to make up her mind whether she thinks evil exists as an “itself” or not. I think she’s a little loupie!)

But if you break it down, we have liberal leadership in this country ( What? We do? George Bush is a Liberal? ) that is in denial of the basics - 90% of folks believe in God (SO?) ( is that only a sweet God (Chocolate Jesus?), or does it include the angry God of our collective Old Testament (Apparently this person thinks that everybody thinks that there is only one God. I was right, she’s a religious screwball who doesn’t even grasp that a large number of people view the concept of God completely differently from the dude with the beard. Uh yi yi, what have I gotten myself into?), many are in denial of Satan (smirk, smirk, let's go get a latte and talk about something important), and most of all, many believe freedom comes from nature, that it is natural, and there is no moral imperative to dig deep into our spiritual natures to find sensible responsible duty in response to the " God-inspired " behaviour of those radical Muslims who would force their interpretation of our God given gift of free choice. (There’s that free choice again. I can only assume that the “denial of Satan’s lactose intolerance” line means that this person figures that Satan is the god of evil. Nice to see the Pagan religions being represented! I won’t even bother wondering if this person knows where this mythology comes from. I love it that these people will laugh at the old religions. Like theirs is somehow different.)

I don't expect you to understand this, because it is faith and experience based (Oh, so someone who doesn’t know f**kall about me is sure that I don’t know about faith and experience. I wonde if I should be insulted by that?) We should have compassion with each other, and meditate (Oh a little TM on the New Age old timey religion. This one is a fruit cake, heavy on the nuts!) on the possibility that each of us or both of us need to have a little bigger perception of the Truth( oooh the capital T truth, the truth itself, God’s spoken Truth! Somebody who hasn’t a firm grasp on reality wants to lecture me on the Truth.), certainly in my humanity I offer this as only a starting point.

[/quote] [quote=coolshoos]

1. God (uncreated, before time and eternal). (Ooh Before time, how cute. I remember that one from first grade catechism. I’ll bet this one doesn’t even know “when” “before time” “is”. I love talking about time. I love talking about religion. I love talking about religion with people who know more about it than I do, I love getting lost in spirituality. Too bad this person doesn’t qualify.)

2. People who " fear " God and evil, who respect free choice for all. Affirm good and evil.  (Conservative.) (Fear, fear is good “yea though I walk … I fear no evil” Free choice and a chicken in every pot!)

3. People who fear God and evil, who interpret choices for others. (Radical Muslim.)(Where does she come up with this stuff?)

3. People who fear God, who respect free choice. (Liberal.)(Why do I get the feeling she doesn’t mean this? Oh yeah, that’s right because of the “Liberal Leadership” that was denying the 90% of the country blah blah blah. This one’s got real consistency issues not to mention the consistency problem!)

Liberals see themselves as reasonable moderators between conservatives and radicals. They do not recognize evil,(I see, so Liberals are dangerous idiots, I wonder if Liberals might find that offensive? Well if they’re offended by the truth, it just goes to show how much evil has crept into their eternal souls!) rather, through positive affirmations(So a positive is a negative thing, I love when they play George orwell on me!)(mainly just thinking) they create their own reality. From the perspective of both conservatives and radicals, they have become " baby Gods ", since liberals negative half of the basic tenet of free choice(Free WILL you moron it’s Free WILL! It’s a basic tenet could you please know the name of the basic tenet before you try to lecture me about it??) (they don't believe evil really exists). (well, if much much lower many people think so, maybe you ought to consider that maybe they know something you don’t.)

There is no logical end to this debate - their is only faith and behavioural affirmation, and human thought. (Thank God that one’s over)

[/quote] [quote=Whomitmayconcer] Coolshoos,

Let me get this straight, you want to talk religion with me? (I know the answer is yes, but please say no! Please say no!)

Have I given you some sort of signal that I need saving? (Please say no please say no!)

Have you given me some sort of signal that your views on religion are somehow redemptive? (Redemptive, that’s a good word, that’ll confuse her, she won’t be able to resist it!)

Religion is a very deep place for me. Religion is personal and I don't trust you enough to discuss it with you. (True THAT! When go spirit, I go fricken all the way, and you are not a person that could keep up! Not to mention, I’m not 100% sure you’re not a guy!)

Suffice it to say that you seem to wear your religion like a badge of righteousness, and that by itself is enough to make me want to puke on your shoes! (“Puke on your shoes”, good one whom! ‘Conseravtive are this and Liberals are that and God is a Conservative.’  Politcs is a bad discussion, religion is a bad discussion, religiopolitics is only for professionals. Religiopolitics with a wizzbing is insanity.

[/quote] [quote=coolshoos]

Honestly, I expected a more intellectual response. (I didn’t get the impression that anything was a better policy than honesty. I thought I was letting you down easy.)

Instead, you attack me, and infer that I attacked you or am trying to school you. (”We got a bleeder here!” Attack? This person lays out insult after insult which I leave alone, I make a gentle observation and she says I attacked her? Abort Abort! End discussion! You sit there and lecture me about God how Liberals are wrong and conservative are right with the lord and I’m not supposed to think you’re trying to preach/teach?)

This is disappointing, but like I said, I believe that the conservative and fundamental views do run outside of logic. (That makes no effin sense! That’s nonsense that’s not just “Outside of logic”.)

With regards to debate, take an honest look at your response to my comments. Your response is anti intellectual. I'm sorry for you. (WOOOHOOO! It worked! She’s dropping it!)

[/quote] [quote=coolshoos]

Liberals are Godless. (Thus spake Bobby Hull)

When you take this comment in the Ann Coulter sense, it is a very mean comment - and also strictly true. (Awsh*t, and she was going to drop it too! I wonder if Liberals might find this comment by Coolshoos insulting. I won’t even bother to wondeer what Coolshoos knows about Liberalism and the Church, I’m sure she read Utopia NOT!)

- In the sense, as just proved by Whomit, when you take God out of the debate, the liberal point of view is Godless. (I didn’t put God into the debate, because I didn’t want to get into a debate with someone who has no idea what she’s talking about!)

Which is kind of interesting, considering the definition of Jiihad, and such. (Yeah, I’ll grant you that, real interesting! Yup, reeeeaaal innerestin’!)

But the real issue here has about as much to do with logic as does the persecution of registered reps by other interests in this industry. (I was just thinking the same thing!)

[/quote] [quote=coolshoos]

(Ranting.)

[ Whomit, the self proclaimed purveyor of the wide ranging, all embracing and compassionate and reasonable liberal viewpoint (Did I do that? I don’t think so. I spend half my time trying to point out that my opinions are my own and not those of any other party. If it so happens that my opinions are in concert with someone else’s all the better for them. That whole routine about the Catholic priests ought to have put the lie to this line of baloney.) , refuses to discuss " religion " (actually, it's the existence of good and evil, and whether that topic has any bearing on the fundamentalist Muslim problem as it threatens our economic well being.] (No, it’s actually religion I refuse to discuss, and it’s that I refuse to discuss it with the likes of you in particular. This nutzo bitch is trying to call me out!)

Who gets to define the playing field, then? (What? Which playing field, the playing field that I play on? I get to choose which playing field I play on, it’s ah its called Free choice!) By taking certain issues off the table, (Wait? Is it a field or is it a table. Are we playing on the table? Is it ping pong? Or pool? In either case, stop bustin my balls, I don’t want to have this discussion with you, because you don’t know what you’re talking about!) we have three distinct playing fields - liberal, conservative, and fundamentalist. (So now the Conservative is the moderate eh?Whatever sweetheart, you’re ranting.)

Who will come play over here, who gets dragged over to that field.

Hence, the comment, Liberals are Godless. 9The comment is only meant to inflame the Liberals and get them to “Play”, I see. I wonder if Liberals might find that insulting? Do they find it insulting tht they were insulted, or do they find it insulting that they were insulted just to get them to jumd, or is it that they find it insulting that this moron thinks that Liberals are too stupid to know what she’s doing? It’s pretty insulting, but I’m not gonna bother trying to explain why. I’ll just let it slide.)

A phrase that recognizes the apparently inevitable conclusion: through a single phrase, the conservative position is to institutionalize the position of liberals and move on.

Still, the liberals should have a gnawing thought in the back of their minds at night, what is evil is real... could it be possible? (Is she actually admitting that she doesn’t know Liberals after all? I wonder if a liberal might find this statement insulting?)

I'd like to see Hillary, or Obama, even have the guts to utter the word evil in public.

Godless. (You mean Gutless, don’tcha? I wonder if I was wrong about this person? Maybe I should debate her after all, she seems reasonable!)

[/quote] [quote=coolshoos]  (oh look, she’s saying nasty things to Oldproducer now)

Another example of not listening and responding to what I said.

If you respond to the basic question of whether evil is real, and whether it has any bearing on the viewpoint of liberals, you are debating.

Saying I said that liberals are Godless, which is not my precise point, is anti-intellectual - you have twisted and ducked.

If you're not following the debate, or if you are just avoiding the question, it is obvious.

By the way, do you believe evil is real, (Here we go with the “real’ thing again, I mean, what does she think that there is a force, the Dark Side that just waits for a rose’s stem not to be looking and then it jumps thorns all over it? ) or is it just an intellectual construct ( You gotta love that when they say “Just’ and intellectual construct, cause it goes to show the value those people put on intellect. I wonder if intellectuals find that insulting, I know they say “consider the sourse” I don’t ask if it is an insult that hurts, I just wonder if they find it to be an insult? YES)? Do you understand the importance of this question with regard to current events? 

[/quote] [quote=coolshoos]

Fundamentalist Muslims believe that evil is real - this is the first premise upon which their behaviour is based.

American conservatives believe that evil is real - this is the first premise upon which their behaviour is based.

American liberals - perhaps the majority - believe that evil is an intellectual construct. They believe freedom comes from nature, because they do not recognize that free choice, the choice between good, which is real, and evil, which is real - that free choice comes from God.( which is why the 90% number is really probably not as important as it might seem.)

Because we are made in the image of God,(I’m supposed to accept this as axiomatic, I know, “… Then if we’re dumb then God is dumb, and maybe een a little bit ugly on the side!” this is embarrassing, this woman is in melt down) all of us have the potential to become Saints. Think about it, you could quit your worldly concerns and retreat to the spiritual life and become more like God. You can't do it by thinking, (all those monk been wasting their effin time!) you have to recognize the definition (Definitions, gotta have definitions!) of God.

The point is, evil is real, and must be dealt with as such. (By laying some loving bomb on they asses!)

I challenge anyone on this forum who is a "liberal", and who believes evil is real, to go forward in debate with regards to how to handle the radical Islam question. (We’ll get right on that there coolshoos!)

I seriously doubt this will happen. But since the recognition of good and evil is important to recognizing God, the refusal to acknowledge this point or to take it off the table as being " religious discussion" makes the discussion Godless, which apparently is a characteristic of many liberals here. End of discussion? (God I hope so!)

[/quote] [quote=coolshoos] (Apparently not!)

[quote=Oldproducer]Liberals are Godless. And conservatives are God? Many of those who appear to be conservatives on this board are definately not Christian - placing judgement, desiring to kill, acting as gods themselves.

One who believes they can do no wrong is not a Christian. George W is the first person who comes to mind here. Maybe he is "God" with all of you sheep accepting his every word, however illiteriate it might be, as gospel.

I hope you sleep well tonight. I know I will, right after I pray for you and W.[/quote]

If you re read everything I said above, consider making an apology. This type of muddling is intellectual terrorism. Are you drinking or just being emotional?

[/quote] [quote=Whomitmayconcer]

Coolshoos,

I get to choose whom I speak with about what. I am solely responsible for what I say and I hold personal responsibility in very high regard. (I’ll say “Personal responsibility” that’ll drive the rightie’s whitey tighties right up their butt cracks! Heheheheh.)

You want to know if I believe that evil is a real thing? You mean a real thing like air? (Air’s real, can’t see it, but it’s real!)You mean a real thing like rocks?(Rocks are real, you can see em they can be used for good and bad!) You mean a real thing like gravity (Gravity, there’s a good one! Is evil a force, like gravity is? Always working on stuuf, trying to make things bunk into each other, you can’t stop gravity, and it’s the one force that we know of that we really don’t know anything about!). Or do you mean a real thing like time. (Ha ha ha heyyyy. I love “time” Time ties science and religion together. Science has to deal with the same “before” question as the God folks. You want to pretend you understand science, you got to understand time , which you do not! Oh boy do I love discussing time! I love chopping up Scientismists and deists with time. I’ll ask her about that one.)

Do you mean a real thing like God (If God can do anything, can he make a sentence so loaded that even He can answr it without getting himself in trouble?)? Do you mean as in "the power of Satan?" (I know this is the one she’s really taking about.0

What do you mean by "real"?

If you are going to ask me questions about my beliefs you'd better be sure that you  know what you're asking. You'd better know that the path for here to your enlightenment is long, hard and f**king wierd!

I have spent a big part of my life contemplating these issues and they can't be tied up in neat little bundles. Considering the crowd that gathers at this watering hole, this is not a discussion that would benefit either of us. (That ought to scare her off. She don’t know crap about any of it and if she’s smart she’ll see that she’s dealing with a genuine nutcase when it comes to this stuff.)

You mention "Free Will' as if its a throwaway line, as if its the easy answer to all our problems, understand "Free Will" and understand everything. That tells me that you have a perfunctory acquaintance with the concept at best. (At least I get to tell her that it’s free will, not free choice, this is serious stuff, not some game show! If she’s smart, she’ll be embarrassed and go away!)

If you can show me that I've underestimated you, more power to ya' but I have to tell you, not yet! (I had good reason to estimate you as I did!)

[/quote] [quote=coolshoos]

I guess that answers my question. (Good, she’s leaving!)

Like I said, think about it, and if you want to progress one inch in this debate, stop defining the playing field to exclude God. (Exclude God, I didn’t exclude God you ditz! I said God is real!  Didn’t you see that? Go back and read again! It’s not God I’m trying to exclude, its YOU! Me and God, we’re fine! It’s you that we have a problem with! I don’t need a Muslem, but a muzzle would be good!)

Kind of ironic, isn't it, that the fundamentalist Islam which threatens our economic security and peace of mind does not neatly exclude God. (whatever! Can you go now?)

But I respect your right to decline the question. (No you don’t, you conservative Christians are always lying!)

Just don't paint me as some pandering kid seeking enlightenment, that is unfair. (Proselytizing, not pandering proselytizing. As to seeking enlightenment, you ought to!)

[/quote] [quote=coolshoos]

You want to know if I believe that evil is a real thing? You mean a real thing like air? You mean a real thing like rocks? You mean a real thing like gravity. Or do you mean a real thing like time.

Do you mean a real thing like God? Do you mean as in "the power of Satan?"

Maybe this will help: can you see the fundamentalist Islamists wrestling with this question? (Oh I’m so lucky, my Socratic method teacher is giving me clues instead of answering my direct questions that was supposed to show her that I already knew more about this whole issue than she does.Great!)

This question of the reality of evil defines everything. If you are being honest, trust me with your answer and I will show you. (How many times did I tell you that I don’t trust you? Did I tell you today that I don’t trust you? I’m not going to change my mind because you insulted me severalteen times in the meanwhile.) This is a fair question, if you care about the outcome of our debate. (Just a tad dense aren’t we?)

[/quote]

I will admit I don’t know much about politics but I know this…Bush is an eyesore to look at. I hope Americans roll with Obama. I would love to see him on TV daily. Eyecandy!

Democrats all suffer from a birth defect of not being born with a common sense gene. Problem is there are so many of them. It is fruitless to debate them as they do not have the capacity to understand common sense.

Lakers - thanks for proving that you’re a kook. It was the ‘all’, btw.





Check out these stories - Each suggesting that the stock market does better(or at least not worse) under Democrat presidents than Republican. If Dem’s were missing a common sense gene, how is this possible?



http://finance.yahoo.com/expert/article/futureinvest/3022

http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/21/markets/election_demsvreps/

http://www.slate.com/id/2071929/

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/columnist/krantz/2005-12-02-presidents_x.htm

http://www.frbsf.org/econrsrch/wklyltr/wklyltr98/el98-19.html