Behold, the fruits of liberalism. What idiots Westerners are for letting the Muslims in by the millions. The culture and traditions of Islam has no place in it for Democratic institutions, liberty, and the traditional culture of others. True Islam only provides three alternatives for all those it comes into contact with; conversion, submission, or death. Western Civilization continues to slit its own throat and has no one to blame for it but itself. When will people learn?
Conservatives have been warning about the foolish policies both here and abroad that lead to such events, but the cries of the Paul Revere’s of the modern age are not heeded.It’s easy to laugh at and mock the silliness and lack of logic that our “Progressive” friend spout, but in practice the ideology they preach leaves a path of doom, death, and destruction and undermines the very foundational pillars of Western Civilization, logic, and common sense. Two tragedies have recently occurred that shine the spotlight of truth on such statements.
In London, a brave and committed soldier was massacred on a public street as passerbys gawked and even conversed with his blood-splattered killers while Sweden has now seen several nights of riots by Muslims. “Multiculturalism” and “diversity” are fun little words to banter around and are a part and parcel of the liberal agenda, but rarely do they bring forth the promised fruits of a utopian society. In fact, far too often it delivers nothing but blood, death, strife, discord, and societal fragmentation.
The reality is far darker than any like to admit. Of course, not every Muslim is a threat, and not every threat comes from a Muslim. But the religion itself was born in a flood of blood and conquest by the sword against all “infidels.” Such beliefs are as much at the heart of the religion as “love your neighbor as yourself” and the Ten Commandments are to Christianity. Islam has waged unceasing war against the West since its founding in the seventh century and it continues to this day.
This video shows the moment the two terrorists who butchered soldier Lee Rigby also tried to kill a woman cop who was first on the scene of the carnage.
[youtube]http://youtu.be/2OkzVYeNDds[/youtube]
From the video description:
“Shocking footage obtained by the Daily Mirror shows how the calculating pair lured officers to the scene by dragging the body into the middle of the road and brazenly waiting for armed police to arrive.When the first police car arrived the pair split up in a pre-planned manoeuvre with knife-wielding Michael Adebolajo charging them head-on, while his accomplice ran up alongside, aiming his revolver at them.The film of the 10 seconds of terror show how Adebolajo got within TWO FEET of the terrified female cop who was driving the armed response vehicle.She was armed with just a Taser as she sat in the driver’s seat of the BMW X5 and was only saved when a male colleague sitting in the back made a split-second decision to fire his machine-gun from point blank range through the window.As he is sent sprawling to the ground by the force of the two shots and the two cops jump out to cover him they appear to fail to spot the other suspect aiming his hand gun at them.Luckily a third SO19 marksman running round from the far side of the specialist Trojan unit spots him and he is brought to the ground as a further volley of six shots ring out in the suburban street in Woolwich, south east London.Former Det Ch Ins Peter Kirkham, an expert in firearms tactics said after watching the footage today: ” I have never seen anything like this before, or even heard of it happening before.
“For two suspects to carry out a brutal attack like this then stand around in plain sight waiting for the police is crazy.
“The instant the spot the police car come round the corner they are on it straight away. The first one is sprinting full speed towards the cops before they have even got out the car.
“The female officer only has her Taser out and must have been terrified. They had no option but to open fire to stop them.”
The dramatic climax to the horrific attack was filmed by a resident in a tower block over looking the scene in Artillery Road and captures the moment the terrorist charges the officers in a suspected death-by-cop suicide bid.
Such incidents as these, or the Boston bombing for that matter, are not mere isolated incidents but part of a vast pattern of attacks on the West and its institutions and a recurring theme that we see time and time again. To purposefully and willfully introduce these elements into Western countries and societies is a dramatic betrayal by some of their own people, culture, and nation. And we are not talking about the introduction of these potentially dangerous and radical elements into Western society in small numbers, but by the millions. It is amazingly irresponsible, dangerous, and increasingly catastrophic to entire peoples and continents. At what point will the West say “enough is enough” and stop such foolishness? Or is it too late already?
Only in small numbers have the followers of teachings of Mohammad shown themselves willing to assimilate into other cultures. Normally, the urge to subvert the dominate culture and substitute their own sharia laws and code of conduct is paramount, especially in large numbers. It causes endless friction and sometimes outright violence against the same people who, in their foolishness, offered up the hospitality of their society to them.
It is the stated goal and policy of liberalism to flood the West with such as these.
Thanks guys! It’s working out great.
Crossposted from Constitution Club
The difference between Islam’s and Christianity’s numerous verses pushing violence is pretty easy to explain.
Inside their respective Scriptures are their own rules for what to follow when dealing with older VS newer teachings.
Actually, both teachings on this matter are the same:
You keep the older but follow the newer.
In the Bible Christians are to follow Jesus’ teachings, not the Mosaic Law….although they are reminded that four main rules of conduct pre-dated the Mosaic Law and ARE TO BE FOLLOWED as well.
In the Koran, Hadith and Sura Muslims are to follow Mohammad’s most recent commands when they differ from his earlier ones.
So, since the books are not in chronological order, Muslims learn which verses have been ”abrogated” by newer commands.
When Mohammad was weak and trying to establish his group of followers, he preached peace.
Many verses can be found touting peaceableness.
But after Mohammad’s group became powerful he began preaching war; even setting down rules for fighting, for divving up spoils, for captured enemy women and children, and so on.
These latter verses abrogate his earlier ones.
Now, Greg mentioned (in #47) Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri’s Fatawa on Terrorism.
Who did he offer that idea to?
Not Muslims.
But the British media.
The British law enforcers including police, Scotland Yard and even MI5.
The Pope.
Sounds like a PR campaign to me.
But as Word points out, most Muslims are not engaged in jihad.
Almost all Muslims support jihad through their Islamic version of the tithe, however.
You have to be dirt poor to get out of paying that.
One more thing about how most Muslims are not jihadis:
Did you know that,
— 99% of the Japanese did not attack Pearl Harbor?
— 99% of the Nazis did not kill Jews or Gypsies, or invade Poland?
— 99% of the Communists did not engage in Stalin’s or Mao’s purges?
— 99% of the Germans killed in Dresden had never bombed England?
— 99% of the Italians did not invade Ethiopia?
— 99% of the Iranians did not occupy the US embassy in Teheran?
— 99% of the Al Qaeda membership did not fly airplanes into the World Trade Center or the Pentagon?
There are consequences in the real world to belonging to organizations or following ideologies and leaders that commit atrocities. That’s the way it works. If a group of Muslim women hide fleeing Islamic fighters by putting them in coverings then walking in a group with them, they can expect what happens next: being shot (this case in the legs and feet so the men could be differentiated).
If a group of children surround Islamic fighters in battle, they, too can expect to perhaps be hit in return fire.
IF people want to claim these jihadists are actually just crazy folks, then their fellow Muslims need to get them help or shut them away, like other cultures do.
To put the topic here in more of a historical perspective, this is not the first time the “Muslim” issue has popped up in Europe. The Ottoman Empire fell less than 100 years ago. Is this history repeating itself? Maybe, maybe not.
http://www.mideastweb.org/Middle-East-Encyclopedia/ottoman.htm
@Tom:
I’ve never said there are not those who are smarter than me. You’re just not one of them.
But of course, if you are afraid to take on someone who can hand your ass to you to the point you will be left cowering in the corner whimpering for your momma, well, we’ll understand that you are just another dirty little coward like the one who shot Mr. Howard.
@Greg:
It also doesn’t help to ignore the dangers of foolishly allowing everyone to immigrate, without examining if each individual is someone you should allow to enter/stay in your country.
@retire05:
Wow, you’re certainly into handing peoples’ asses to them. I sure hope your friend’s blog ends up with more than four comments after all your relentless pimping. No, I think I’ll stay here.
@NathanBlue#32
“If some are serious about getting rid of the “stereotype” of Muslims as killers, they need to work within the communities and cultures to find our why this is happening and stop it. Until then, it’s OK for non-Muslims to ask questions and be critical, because innocents are literally loosing their heads for evil reasons.”
This is a great point and there is RELATIVELY FEW in the Muslim community speaking out AGAINST this type of terrorism…..I am not PC, I call it like it is… it is indeed terrorism…they have a ‘book’ that seems to be constantly evolving…to more ‘evil’ deeds…and more ‘boneheads’ sucking it all in like a drug…
There are many, no TONS in the USA of the Liberal/Progressive culture who are absolutely NOT SHY about poking “Christians” in eye at every chance they get…and as far a I am aware the leadership in the Christian Faith does not call out for death of those who do not “convert” to Christianity…nor do they ‘incite’ followers or “use a so called holy book” to hack, kill, behead, attack, oppress women, or stone people TO DEATH…the Christian Faith does not purposely have people killed in the name of Christianity…. as do the Radical Muslims Leaders [Clerics] do…
Yea, knowing what we know, in light of seeing what we have witnessed…you would surely be OMG so stupid as to not question motives of a ‘religion’ …??? is this a religion or is it politics or both??
Why do we hear so much in the news of horrible ‘negative’ [radical] Muslim happenings ? And not other ‘religions’….?? should this not raise some eyebrows?? Or should we just hide our heads in the sand??
The Bible has not ‘evolved’ the Books it is based on remain the same. The only changes are the “traditions’ Christians follow….
@Tom:
Hokum? Nice bit of projection on your part.
Specifics? To start with, read the entire koran and educate yourself as to what we are up against. Read the history of the spread of islam. Learn just how dehumanizing sharia is. Sharia is completely unconstitutionsl and as such has no place in our republic and should be banned within our borders. Next, we need to become completely independent of middle eastern oil by fracking and drilling our own resources. We need to break the shackles of PC moral relativism and stop making up excuses for muslim violence, holding people responsible when they commit these acts of violence. We must stop kowtowing to bogus muslim sensitivities and stop making up ridiculous “muslim backlash” comments (which are claimed but never proven) and refuse to allow these made up claims to be equated with muslims hacking off innocent heads, “honor” killings, and terrorist attacks against people running marathons. We must stop giving financial and military aid to Egypt or any other Muslim thugocracy. We must insist on proper labelling of things like the Ft Hood attack as muslim terrorism rather than calling it workplace violence.
And your smug sanctimony regarding internment camps is quite hypocritical. The only president who ever put people into internment camps was the leftist Roosevelt, hardly a conservative by any means.
@Tom:
Well, I will admit; when it’s people like you who think they know it all, it is something worth reading.
Well, by some standards his could be considered just an obscure blog, but then that doesn’t eliminate the fact that he has more knowledge about the Muslim mindset , or how to fight its radicalism, in his little finger than you do in your entire empty head. BTW, he’s not my friend. I don’t even know his name, any more than I know yours. But his blog is informative and I’m sure you have a strong allergy to being informed.
Understandable.
@Pete #56:
I really want to thank you for doing at bit more in this post than just shouting about how terrible Muslims are or who is to blame for letting them come here en mass. You actually proposed several solutions.
Regarding your educational suggestions and commentary, I assume that by “banning Sharia” you meant banning the U.S. government integration of Sharia Law into American statute?
(I didn’t think that you meant banning literature or documents describing or codifying Sharia Law. And I don’t think that banning the communication of Sharia Law would gain traction, as doing so would violate first amendment free speech protections. Finally, I can’t see how private adherence to principles of Sharia law could be prohibited, as most consequences of such adherence would go undetected by law enforcement.)
Per the first, I haven’t read up on Sharia Law, but I would expect that there are at least a few areas of overlap with American Law, so an outright ban may not be the most effective way to deal with it.
Your suggestion about oil independence is spot on. I think that the liberal encouragement toward ENERGY independence has the same goal, but adds to it (in theory) an environmentally friendly component. Either way, removing cash from the terrorism equation would cripple the whole Muslim world… cruel overkill perhaps, but effective.
“WE need to break the shackles of PC moral relativism and stop making up excuses for Muslim violence…stop making up ridiculous “Muslim backlash” comments”
Sounds like you want to give up your first amendment freedom of speech… don’t know if that’s such a good idea. Nice sentiment, though.
“We must stop giving financial and military aid to Egypt or any other Muslim thugocracy.’
Good. Back on track. Our record for effective use of foreign aid dollars spent in the Middle East is terrible. I’m not sure that we get our money’s worth out of what we spend on our 51st state: Israel. Is it viable without Uncle Sam’s subsidy, or isn’t it? If you REALLY want to isolate the USA from the Muslim world, you can’t leave your surrogate base armed to the teeth with YOUR weaponry smack dab in the middle of it.
After World War II, both the United States and the Soviet Union went on a bidding war trying to buy the allegiance of “thugocracies” around the world. From each perspective, it was called “containment” of the other. It was an expensive failure in many cases, but the argument always surfaces that if we stop, the other guy wins. Personally, I’d be thrilled if our vacating the Middle East left it to the communists. Let THEM try to deal with the insanity.
Finally, there is the question of what to do with who’s here now. The barn doors have been left open for so long that closing them now will have little effect.
Do you want to round up “all Muslims” and deport them?
Do you want to round up all immigrants originating in the Middle East and deport them?
If you intend to be selective in who gets to stay, how will you ever effectively measure loyalty? Or tell the good ones from the bad?
Much of your characterization of the Muslim problem is correct, but your solutions to the problem depend largely on abrogation of constitutional rights, and that pig won’t fly.
@Pete:
Those aren’t really specifics relative to this post. Becoming “completely independent of middle eastern oil” is a tired platitude everyone agrees on. Specifics would be explaining how you propose to preemptively deal with the members of a religion you find evil, and how liberals are allegedly foiling that plan. In other words, find that seam between what is Constitutional and the current reality of how Muslims are treated in America, point it out specifically, and explain how liberals have allowed it to exist.
@retire05:
Are you still talking about that blog where the Shangri-la coherent anti-Muslim argument you can’t muster resides? Did you ever wonder what it would be like to fight you own battles instead of cowardly outsourcing them? Tell your friend to come over here if wants to be made a fool like you.
@Tom:
What prompted such a description of the blog I recommended?
Color your cowardice in any hue of your choice. It matters not to me. But you obviously are not interested in the opinions of those who have actually walked the walk since it would not be consistent with yours. So now you want to lead us to believe that only this blog holds any interest for you, and not the writings of others who have actually had to deal with the issues being discussed here. Fine. Limiting your ability to be informed is your choice, not mine.
I merely suggested you read someone who knows more than you do. If that is a challenge for you, that really is your problem, not his, nor mine. I fully accept that you have a closed mind.
@FAITH7: Thanks!
I agree with the some that the original piece borders on being offensive, but the real struggle is in trying to find an intellectual place to stand in light of reality. In America, all are welcome and free to think, speak, and do as they like (as long as laws aren’t broken), and that includes Muslims. I can’t even begin to list the many friends and acquaintances I’ve had over the years who are Muslim: loving, caring, awesome people. Their religion isn’t even relevant, only their actions.
The post merely shows the frustration one feels when they see a certain type of violence repeatedly coming out of a general subset of a religion. Remember all the abortion clinic bombings? If you met a Christian who got a little wide-eyed and rabid when talking about abortion, you’d be concerned . . . and rightly so. That’s not prejudice, just logic.
The issues coming out about the recent terrorist attacks is that friends of the attackers never saw it coming. The attackers were doing normal things and seemed happy. In my opinion, that’s why there’s a temptation to reject Islamic cultures in a potentially non-American way. As yes, we need to have that discussion and talk people down from embracing even “soft” bigotry.
But, there is a real issue within the Muslim community, and it can only be solved by steadfast support both within and without Islam (in my opinion).
In short, a healthy level of scrutiny is needed, but also an adherence to freedom, liberty, and justice for all. I reject a call to deem criticism of Islam as bigoted, but I also reject the call to reject those of an entire religion and think they are merely trying to push everyone out. There’s way more to it than that, and the “extremist” thinking we American’s like to take isn’t helping.
@Nathan Blue #62:
Thanks for the cool-headed analysis. You are correct that the problem is complex and that many of our reactionary solutions encroach on constitutionally protected freedoms.
I think that it is very interesting that our natural inclination is to “fight fire with fire.” This tendency applies to Muslim extremism. As we are impacted by Muslim extremism, we want to respond in kind. Our “eye-for-an-eye” Biblical equation literally calls for it. Yet as we embrace Christian extremism, we abandon constitutional due process. Not a good direction to travel.
@Tom: Thank you for reminding me I’m not talking to a rational human being.
Maybe in a few years you’ll have some ideas worth discussing. Until then, perhaps you should find something constructive to do with your life other than pestering those with differing views by offering immature vitriol. I’ve offered my thoughts about the original post to well-spoken, open-minded posters in this discussion (“it’s all up there,” as you say). Just not you.
If there is one thing I try do in these discussions to enhance the overall community, it is to not feed trolls.
You are a troll, and only trolls need hidey holes, junior. I’ve been standing on your face since word one, but you seem to think if you just keep writing junk you’ll somehow be “right”, because everyone finally stops countering your weak arguments . . . because they have better things to do. Yup. Sound’s like a troll to me.
Oh, oh, let me try of your “tactics” as a conclusion:
“It only took you 5000 posts to back down, Ace. Whenever you want to man-up and . . . uh . . . talk-down to my level, you can waste your life reading my angry little posts . . . I am an awesome debater, and I WIN!”
No, doesn’t sound like serious adult conversation to me either. Any more delusional observations, bub, or are you about done?
@Nathan Blue:
You find that odd? Can you ever remember any criminal whose friends/relatives were not saying “And he was such a good boy…. He was such a “normal” person?” Most people don’t announce to their friends/family when they are going to commit a heinous crime.
And what did you expect them to do? What were the activities of the 9-11 hijackers before they used box knives and airplanes to kill almost 3,000 Americans?
.
Islamic culture is based, solely, on the Islamic religion. If that religious is in direct conflict with our standard of freedom, then yes, it is right to reject any culture that is not in keeping with our own.
If it was Dr. Zudhi Jasser making visits to the Oval Office, and not the Muslim Brotherhood founded CAIR, I would say you have a point. Even Dr. Jasser admits that the political has not been separated from the religious when it comes to Islam.
We know that not all Germans were Nazis. But that did not stop us from going to war with the entire nation. When Hitler took power in 1933, only an approx. 2 million Germans belonged to the Nazi party out of a nation of 30 million. The Germans great crime? They did not speak out against the atrocities of Hitler due to their own fear, just as Muslim, save a few, speak out against the radicalism in their midst. After the discovery of the concentration camps, American military personnel had one thing to say about the German people: they knew and they did nothing.
@Nathan Blue:
BS. Do you think rewriting reality is so easy? To the extent this thread is an indication, we have the documented record how you treat those you don’t agree with:
Is that the classy inclusive attitude you’re bragging about? Or were you talking about something from a different thread? YOU engaged ME… remember??? Do you think I would otherwise have any interest debating with a wishy washy coward? You have a problem with me because i asked the OP to provide evidence for his claims. Anyone who is interested in the truth would welcome a request for factual verification. That’s not you though.
Edit: does it make you feel hip to spell clever “clevah”? It’s ‘actually physically painful for me to read such a misguided attempt at sounding cool.
@George Wells: Thanks for your own analysis, as well! FA is a great place for great discussions, as long as we make the effort to dialogue rather than whine.
I am really surprised at how “sectarian” everything has become in America, especially in a culturally historic time that offers music, film, literature, and art of any kind to every taste and every want imaginable. People have never been more encouraged to be individuals, yet we’re drawn into these “clans” of politics and moral-vision that cannot live side-by-side. It’s baffling.
But back to the point: the focus should always be on the individual and their actions alone. When a crime is committed, no matter how heinous, the suspect is innocent until proved guilty in a court of law. Period. I’m still not sure how I feel about the drone attacks on Americans, even sworn traitors. That’s a whole other can of worms, though.
@Tom: You are troll looking to argue and upset people at FA, and my mirroring of your immaturity was in a effort to show you how stupid you sound whenever you write something here, or how “clevah” you sound . . . if you will.
If you want to offer counter-points, read Greg’s posts — he has class. He is honest, and isn’t simply instigating hostility by pretending to be some kind of master rhetorician. You are incredibly inept in debate, by the way, and all of your arguments end in moot nothings in which you make sure you have the last word, no matter how silly it is.
I’m not surprised by your continued efforts to parse words in the attempt to “have a point” beyond one of simple conflict. Anyone reading your diatribe at this point would see you are merely riding your non-points down into the depths for childish reasons . . . and I called you out on the BS and you don’t have a response.
You annoy, bully, and pester posters at this site and think you are “clevah” in the simple ways you change meanings and take things out of context.
Coward? I’m the troll-slayer, son. Your silly arguments are slain. At least I’m drawing your efforts away from the thoughtful posters here.
@retire05: All good points, worthy of looking at further. Thanks for pointing out the average criminal goes unnoticed until caught–never thought about it that way. I guess I sometime have a false idea of what terrorist do before an attack. They are committing a crime, like any other criminal.
One of the things I’ve never asked my Muslim friends is how the view secular laws in regard to Sharia, and also different Muslim sects are from one another. I know that Hasids and Reform Jews might seem like they are following completely different religions, but how close or far are Islamic sects? I’d have to do some more research, so thanks for the insight.
The one thing that does concern me is the Arab Spring and clearing away of all the US-Compliant regimes in favor of more fundamentalist control. What are your thoughts on that, retire?
@Nathan Blue:
I hope you have the decency to at least be mortified for that.
Prove your thesis. Here is my original comment that you took exception to. Please explain exactly what is trollish or combative about this comment.
@Nathan Blue:
To be clear, you’re a coward because you won’t come within 300 yards of any of the questions I’ve asked on this thread. For example, post 59. Your function on this thread is to white wash bigotry. “Ok, this goes a little overboard, but there is some truth to it” – is that about right? What a brave stance. At least the OP owns his views. You p*ssy foot around it, and it makes you look weak. You are weak.
@Tom: I addressed your claim and debunked it somewhere back in the sea of worthless words, but perhaps you didn’t read it.
But I will say you are very clevah, Tom. Very clevah.
@Tom:
I’m standing on your face.
Very clevah, Tom. Very clevah.
@Nathan Blue:
If they are [true] Muslims, and not apostates (most Muslims consider an apostate one who not only leaves the Islamic faith, but who also accepts secular law in preference to Sharia law), they do not accept the laws of any nation over those given them by the Quran. The Quran also promotes taqqiya, the practice of lying to the infidel in order to spread Islam across the globe.
The sects differ based on who they believe to be the legitimate heir (religiously speaking) to Mohammed.
?
I don’t know if you’re old enough to remember how the Cuban revolution, under Castro, was handled by the American press. Castro was their darling, telling Americans how evil Cuban leadership was and how the young Fidel was going to bring peace and prosperity to Cuba. It was the American press that made the murdering Che Guevara into a hero. What we were told about Cuba was as far from the truth as when Walter Duranty was penning articles about Stalinist Russia.
That is how I feel about the Arab Spring. In many conversations with friends, I predicted that the Muslim Brotherhood, no friend to the U.S., would eventually take control of Egypt. That concept was pooh-poohed by not only the Administration, but the American press, as well. Well, time has proven me correct.
Egypt will come back to bite us in the backside. As will Syria. Libya already has. In Syria, there are no good guys. It is Hezbollah fighting Al Qaeda and we seem to be arming Al Qaeda. Tough to pick a winner there. In Libya, Obama’s signature Middle East policy, well, we can now attest to its success, can’t we?
Murbark and Qadaffi (sp?) were dictators with iron fists. But they were our dictators and they kept radical Islam at bay. No more.
My thoughts? The Obama ME policy is a disaster. Radical [fundamentalist] Islam is on the march just as it was in the 1600’s and there is nothing, and no one in the ME, left to stop it. Eventually they will tire of fighting each other, and will turn to us and the rest of the West. The whole “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” thing. And if the only way to kill us is one person at a time, or 14 people at a time (a la Fort Hood) that is how they will do it.
In my humble opinion, we are less safe now than we were on September 10, 2001.
@Nathan Blue:
Another evasive lie from the coward. I didn’t ask you to debunk it. I asked you to explain how it is “trollish”. As for debunking it, let’s do away with your evasive ambiguity. Point me to exactly where you ‘debunked it… if you can.
@retire05: Thanks for the info! I am not old enough to remember the Cuban revolution, though all you’ve said about the Arab Spring echoes my thoughts. I don’t like that we play around with using dictators to stop holes in the dam of democracy, but I can only guess at what goes through politicians’ heads when they come up these ideas.
Many, many thanks for the insights. Much to ponder . . .
@Nathan Blue:
There were a few lone voices who warned that the Muslim Brotherhood was behind the Egyptian protests. They were ridiculed, mocked, called conspiracy theorists and the lames stream press blathered on how the MB was not even visible in Egypt protests. Then came the elections, and lo and behold! the MB candidate was elected.
Now Egyptians complain that their lives are, in fact, worse and Copts are fleeing their nation at the first opportunity, those that are able to. Others remain and are persecuted. And what did Obama do? He gave Morsi planes capable of raining hell down on Israel as Morsi announced at his inaugural speech “Jihad is our way.”
In Libya, we quietly pulled out most of our FSOs as the press basically ignored that action. Can’t have the press point out that Obama’s Libyan policy is a failure, now can we? In Syria, John McLame spends Memorial Day meeting with the rebels. Believe me, there are NO good guys in Syria. Assad is backed by Hezbolla and the rebels are backed by Al Qaeda. And I believe that Obama has installed a Fast & Furious plan for Syria and I think Ambassador Chris Stevens was part of it.
This ME policy will prove to be just as fool hearty as Jimmie Carter’s actions toward Iran. And generations of Americans will be put in harm’s way because of it.
@Tom: Can’t stand it, can you. Your style of debate is like a hunter trying to push a bear into a bear trap: a) the bear doesn’t get trapped, and b) the hunter will likely get hurt . . . because he doesn’t know how to hunt or trap.
I’m afraid your bear is long gone and you can’t accept it.
Maybe not so clevah, after all?
Gotta mow the lawn . . .
@George Wells:
Thank you for reasonable discussion.
My partner is my NICU is muslim. I have trained muslim medics in battlefield triage. I have given emergent and non urgent medical care to hundreds of muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan. I currently train multiple muslim residents in my hospital. I do not hate people. I do not trust an ideology that treats women as property, subjugates nonmembers to second class status (or slavery in some muslim countries) and exhorts its members to lie to khafir to gain advantage over them. Please reread my post. I don’t call for interning nor shipping muslims out of this country, nor banning free expression. I do call for banning the principles of sharia in our legal system. Allowing sharia as a legal system (which the muslim brotherhood wants) would violate our Constitution.
Again, don’t take my word for it. I am just another anonymous poster on this blog. Read the koran. Learn about the principle of abrogation as mentioned by another poster above as it relates to the koran. Read the hadith and the writings of muslim scholars on what they believe. Study the principle of taqiyah and how it is used to manipulate nonmuslims. Learn about the history of the spread of islam. Then use Occam’s razor to see for yourself what makes sense regarding the motivations of muslims.
The danger is in arbitrarily dismissing the dangers of islam simply because you don’t want to believe anyone would live their lives under such a dehumanizing belief system. Sticking your head in the sand only makes one an easier target for someone wishing to do you harm.
@Tom:
The only reason those aren’t specific enough for you is because you don’t want them to be. Becoming independent of middle eastern oil is not just a platitude, and it is the wacked out environut left that keeps blocking every proposal to do so. I specifically m entioned stopping all aid to muslim thugocracies like Egypt, which you ignored. You also made no comment as to the fact that the only US president to intern people was a leftist. George at least tries to engage in legitimate debate. You, as is abundantly clear from your postings, are only spewing ignorant antipathy towards those you smugly feel superior to.
@retire05 (#75 & 78) AND Pete #80:
Retire, it is so refreshing to hear you making rational sense instead of just raining insults. I agree fully with your assessment of the Muslim threat to Western Civilization. I agree with your analysis of U.S. failures in foreign policy vise-a-vie the Middle East. You appreciate the dilemma of the many lose-lose situations we face as we try in vain to have any useful influence over there. But why did you stop there? Tell us: What can we do?
Pete: Same question. You are as right as retire05. Right up to the point of suggesting something that will get us out of the frying pan without dropping us into the fire. Forbidding the exercise of Sharia Law will make but the teensiest difference, and certainly will not stop Muslims from raining poo on us and the rest of the infidel world at will. What can we do within the limits of our Constitution and without starting another World War?
I really feel liberated in this thread. No political agenda at all. Every president since my birth – from both sides of the isle – has tried to bring peace to the Middle East, and ALL have failed. The Middle East doesn’t WANT peace. They are following a Middle-Eastern version of Darwin’s “survival of the fittest” that has been incorporated into the religions on both sides of the conflict. It is their preferred way of life and death.
So what do we do? Not as a bunch of liberals blaming Bush’s Iraq War for stirring up anti-American sentiment, and not as a bunch of conservatives looking to impeach Obama over mistakes made at Benghazi. What do we ALL do as real Americans? What can our government do NOW and IN THE FUTURE to foil the Muslim design for America?
And just as an aside, can the USA afford to let Russia “get” the Middle East?
@Pete:
Most don’t want to know, Pete. They buy into the story line that those who want to kill us are only a small percentage of Muslims world wide. They support the “hearts and minds” ROE. When the press tells us that the reason for Islamic hatred of the Western world is that a) they are uneducated and b) because of all the harm we have done to the Arabic world and that if we win their “hearts and minds” and let those in Muslim nations know what good guys were are, all will be well. It’s all crap.
They don’t know about the bacha bazi of Afghanistan, a practice of even the most educated and wealthy among Afghanis. They are clueless about camel jockeys, small boys kidnapped to ride in camel races, and owned by educated and wealthy Saudis who were almost all educated in the finest universities in the U.S. and Europe, who are brutalized and raped and many times, killed by their abusers. Or the fact that a number of the 9-11 hijackers were well educated (Mohammed Atta was an engineer) as was Nidel Hassan. They ignore honor killings, female mutilations and everything else that has been instituted in Islam for hundreds and hundreds of years.
And they don’t understand, and really don’t want to, that deceit is large part of Islam when it comes to advancing Islam all across the globe.
Ask anyone who thinks that we are partly at fault for the Islamic attacks against Americans why Osama bin Laden picked the date of September 11th and you will get a black stare. And then asked them how they think we should change the heinous traditions of millions of Muslim to get them to act nice.
@George Wells:
What we can do is a far cry from what we will do. What can we do? We can kill them until they stop killing us. We are now in the midst of a very long, if not centuries long, war. An old war that was reconstituted on 9-11-2001. We can stop trying to win “hearts and minds” and understand what FDR understood. The war ends when we win and they lose. Until then, we take off the gloves.
Ask any combat soldier that has been to either Iraq and Afghanistan about the ROE while they were there. Those ROEs were prescriptions for failure. But all we get are platitudes from left wing journalists, and the people that you vote for, that tell us it’s all our fault.
What can we do? We can kick the shit out of them until they scream “uncle” and then we leave, or we can leave with our hats in our hands. Seems like the latter is what Obama is seeking. We are losing the war against radical [fundamentalist] Islam and it is a story we have heard before:
Viet Cong Minister of Justice Truong Nhu Tang later said that none of the Viet Cong’s five divisions retained even half of their forces after the Tet Offensive, while U.S forces suffered no militarily significant losses. However, he also recalled:
“From the political point of view, it was a very heavy blow for President Johnson’s government. The [perceived] loss made the American antiwar movement exert pressure. So what we lost on the military front, we won on the diplomatic and psychological fronts. Above all, on the fourth front, the mass media, the press, television, and the liberals in the United States.”
Heh. In other words, the North Vietnamese government played the liberal left and their media allies like a rented violin. Kind of like what the jihadis are doing now.
Remember, George, the party of appeasement and defeat is the party you vote for.
@Pete:
No, the reason they aren’t specific enough is because they aren’t specific enough, because these aren’t responses to to my question. That’s your right, not to respond, but you stray into dishonestly when you pretend that you have. You haven’t addressed my question in post 60.
@retire05 #84:
“Remember, George, the party of appeasement and defeat is the party you vote for.”
OK, retire, you know the deal. Your party gets MY vote when they give up screwing with MY rights. You want my vote to help you save America’s FUTURE? I’d love to help you with that, but I can’t because given the chance, you’d criminalize MY behavior in a heartbeat. I can’t vote for that, and you know it, so why bring it up?
Remember, I’m not leaving any children to suffer in YOUR future. I don’t have a dog in that race. You’re exactly right about the Muslim threat to Western Civilization – every bit of it. But you don’t care enough about it to build a coalition that includes gays, so I question your resolve. You’d rather deny marriage equality than have gays at your side fighting Muslim extremism. But you ARE free to make that choice. God bless America!
“We can kick the shit out of them until they scream “uncle” and then we leave.”
“THEY?”
And then we leave WHERE?
There are 1.6 BILLION Muslims in the world, and they are everywhere. Are you planning to kick the shit out of ALL of them, or just the bad ones? And how do you tell them apart? Are you going to justify this end-game crusade by invoking Bush’s doctrine of preemptive war? And do you expect the rest of the World to sit idly by as you come digging for Muslims in their countries? As you start World War III?
Please don’t give me your “bleeding heart liberal” crap answer to these questions. I’m a PRAGMATIST. Means I know what we CAN do and what we can’t get away with and what is beyond our capability TO do. We can’t round up 10 or 20 million illegal immigrants, and they are all right here under our noses. And you think we can pull off a world-wide Crusade while nobody’s looking?
I think that there IS no win-win scenario. Maybe committing suicide IS the only answer, but it isn’t one I’d vote for.
@George Wells:
Oh, pleeeeeeeze, stop with the “my rights” bullshit. You support Democrats because they pander to you. Well, guess what, George? Mohammed Atta, and his band of jolly jihadists, didn’t give a shit that there were gays working in the World Trade Center buildings, and they don’t give a damn about you. But you are too friggin self-centered to understand that the very same danger that applies to me, also applies to you. If some jihadist decides to release a dirty bomb in your area, oh well? You helped to elect those who felt appeasement was the way to go.
Afghanistan, for starters.
I’m for kicking the shit out of any of them that start messing with us. How’s that? And if there is collateral damage, so what? Don’t want your people to die? Don’t let your people attack us, either here or on foreign soil. It’s just that damn simple. You think Jefferson sent the Marines to Tripoli because he wanted them to learn how to speak Arabic?
WWIII? Do you think the Eurowennies are so far gone that they will never wake up to the fact that they are on the jihadists hit list just like us? Sweden and Holland are reaping the benefits of their Godless, negative population growth policies. Sooner or later even the Europeans have to wake up to the 800 pound gorilla in their bed.
No need to deport them. Just deny them any social welfare and deny federal money to any state that does give them social welfare or allows sanctuary cities violating federal law. Punish to the MAX any employer that knowingly hires illegal immigrants. SECURE THE BORDER. ENFORCE THE LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS. You think when the illegals that come here will not return to their native lands when they can’t suck off our system? They will. But then, Obama and his administration is now working with the Mexican government to educated Mexicans on how to collect food stamps once they get here. Nice.
I know you used “Crusade” as a pejorative. Perhaps you should educate yourself as to why the Crusades even began. It wasn’t to just kill Muslims.
@George Wells:
Although I’m not an expert on the Middle East, some of my suggestions are:
#1 We only provide Muslim nations with humanity aid, and only if they follow specific conditions (such as equal rights, free speech etc. that meet our American ideals.) No more free military aid whatsoever to any regime that does not recognize Israel’s right to exist!!!
#2 No more aid to dictators or to “resistance fighters” who provide support/align themselves with terrorists organizations. If there is ambiguity, we just say no.
#3 We concentrate on all home energy productions options possible so that we are no longer dependent on any nation for our energy needs. It is time to stop sending our energy dollars to nations that give support to terrorists. We must however, do so with sensible oversight and audits on new energy industries that receive government funding for their experimental projects. The latest crony capitalist “stimulus spending” and “renewable energy investments” was not a wise use of taxpayer funds. There should be an inspector general investigation (with possible criminal charges,) as to what went wrong with all the companies that took the people’s money, gave bonuses to their officers, and then went belly-up.
#4 The United Nations has become a den of corruption that only serves each nation-state’s leadership statis quo, and nowhere is this more evident than in the Middle East and Africa. I think it’s time that we stop subsidizing the UN. Personally I think that we should also withdraw from it’s global treaties, and instead make treaties only with individual nations.
#5 Reward for good behavior of special funding to nations that make strides towards those Middle East and African nations granting rights to it’s people that mirror our own bill of rights.
#6 Automatic and harsh sanctions (that will hurt the government not the people,) to any nation that uses chemical warfare on it’s own people.
@retire05 #87:
“Oh, pleeeeeeeze, stop with the “my rights” bullshit. You support Democrats because they pander to you.”
Your rights are worthy, my rights are not. Glad you cleared that up.
“Pander” – to attend to the needs or desires of, (with a sense of vulgarity thrown in)”. As you consider gays vulgar, I can see why you would use that word. I will happily accept pandering instead of the criminalization you offer. Reset your priorities.
A “dirty bomb” in my area? Not likely. I’ll take my chances that I’ll die old, married and free, no thanks to you.
“Leave Afghanistan, for starters?”
I thought we were there to keep the good fight off of American soil. Isn’t that job unfinished? Aren’t we destined to sit on the Taliban for 100 years? Isn’t Al Qaida moving back in as we leave? Have we “kicked the shit out of them” enough that they’ve been taught a good lesson? (No, No, Yes, and No.) Is that a good starter?
“WWIII? Do you think the Eurowennies are so far gone that they will never wake up to the fact that they are on the jihadists hit list just like us? Sweden and Holland are reaping the benefits of their Godless, negative population growth policies. Sooner or later even the Europeans have to wake up to the 800 pound gorilla in their bed.”
Well, that about nails the WWIII posit. With a theater of operation way too big for conventional forces to handle, we’ll be left with only the nuclear option. Once we start nuking, wonder what Russia and China are going to do…
That 800-pound gorilla is in EVERYBODY’S bed, not just the “Euroweenies’.” But your “Euroweenies” are smart enough to NOT risk WWIII, so it’d be another “go it alone” adventure. When we’d get bogged down, someone would step in for an easy kill. Russia or China, which one would it be? (If China starts selling off its hoard of US Treasuries, I’d take that as a hint.)
You got the Illegal Immigrant part right, mostly. Dems are essentially buying votes, and Republicans seem ready to give them a “pass” on it because they can’t get enough support for the alternative you suggest, which WOULD work. Better luck next time.
“I know you used “Crusade” as a pejorative.”
I used “Crusade” the same way George Bush used it until his PC handlers woke him up. It is what it is. As you so clearly pointed out, this war has been going on for centuries. Their Jihad, our Crusade. Honest admission, not pejorative.
@Ditto #88:
Thanks for something useful to work with. I certainly agree with much of what you suggest.
#’s 1, 2, and 5: unqualified “YES!”
#3: “ There should be an inspector general investigation…”
If this is really the War retire05 says it is (and I’ll stipulate that it is) then we need to set about winning it. Political recriminations are distractions that bleed energy away from the task at hand – they can wait until later.
#4: “Withdraw from (the UN’s) global treaties.”
Perhaps too broad. We can stop financially propping up the UN without scuttling everything that came out of it. I’m going to go out on an uninformed limb and suggest that just possibly there is something there worth saving. But don’t hold me to that.
#6: “Automatic and harsh sanctions (that will hurt the government not the people,) to any nation that uses chemical warfare on it’s own people.”
I’m not sure that this falls under “ways to win the War.” Not that it’s a bad idea. But beside the fact that your conditional is hard to meet, there ARE non-Muslim countries that use chemical warfare, and when you add “on its own people,” you are adding a police job to a military that will already be overburdened by war. Similarly, it would not be a good time to reinvigorate the global war on drugs. Right?
@George Wells:
#3 You may consider it a distraction, but I think that Americans are able to multitask very well. Let’s not forget the cries from the Democratic side against Black Water and Haliburton while Bush was in. They threw a ton of “distractions” at his administration. Meanwhile, politicians on both sides practice crony capitalism, and it’s not uncommon for these interests to “play to play” and buddy up to key players on each side. This nation can no longer afford sweetheart deals for big campaign contributors and we certainly can’t expect the power-drunk members of the Mutual-Backscratching Club to clean up Washington DC, (which is has become the favored home to the 1%).
#4 Sure it may be a pretty broad brush, but to be honest I really don’t see where the UN is worth keeping. I can’t recall anything that the UN has done in the last decade at least, that has really made much of a difference. I propose that it’s negatives far outnumber any positive influence it has had. (Come to think of it, I kind of feel the same about Washington DC.)
#6 It doesn’t have to apply only to Muslim nations, but the rest of the world is pretty much already on the anti-WMD bandwagon between nations. Yet the UN and most nations have pretty much taken a “What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas” attitude when leaders of a nation have used chemical weapons against their people. Sanctions are not police actions, nor do you necessarily have to us the military to enforce sanctions unless a blockade is the sanction or it is to impose a “no-fly zone”.
@Ditto #91
Re: answer to #3: I just don’t think that the politics of blame have served either [party – or the American public – very well. I don’t want to see our country degenerate into one of those third-world countries where each incumbent president throws his predecessor into jail for “crimes.” Are all politicians criminals? Just about. But spending a lot of time proving the point is wasteful. Nero fiddles while Rome burns. The American public can “multitask?” Hardly. If you can’t package your message in a third-grade comprehension-ready, thirty-second sound bite, you’re lost. But if your kick is witch-hunting, go for it. You’ve got plenty of crooks to choose from.
Re: answer to #6: I REALLY want to hear about how sanctions have ever worked. Seems to me they are like throwing pebbles at a hornets’ nest. The more we squeeze, the more those nasty despots pass along the grief to their (innocent or not) people, and they learn only to hate us more. I LOVE sanctions, because I have both a sadistic and a masochistic streak, but that doesn’t mitigate the fact that they don’t work they way we’d like them to.
@Tom:
Your reply holds the same worth as a 6 year old saying “I know you are but what am I”
You are nothing but a troll and unworthy of engaging. Though George and I clearly have differences of opinion, he seems to be interested in genuine discussion and fruitful debate. You are but a monkey interested in flinging excrement.
@retire05:
Alas, those old saying about those not knowing their history being doomed to repeat it seems glaringly relevent. I am not even shocked anymore when people do not know who the Barbary Pirates were and why the marines were fighting in Tripoli in the early 1800s. It is shocking to me that people so willingly accept the false propaganda that islam is a religion of peace, because the history of the spread of this tyrannical belief system clearly has nothing to do with peace.
But then my saying such things in the exercise of free speech automatically makes me an islamophobic bigot in the eyes of my leftwing superiors.
@Ditto:
Nice start. But you will never get the left to recognize the UN for the worthless den of thugs and dictators it is. Would that we could get out of the UN and get back to being a true constitutional republic.
Wordsmith I would love to hear your thoughts on this post.
Thanks RW
@George Wells:
Let’s say you have two candidates for the same office. Candidate #1 supports open borders, amnesty for those who committed a criminal act by entering our nation without permission, “green” policy that denies the San Joaquin Valley farmers the water needed to grow crops, abortion on demand, reduction in our military, supplying arms to rebels that hold AQ loyalty, higher taxes on even the middle class workers and driving our national debt into even more dangerous territory but he supports same sex marriage.
Candidate #2 supports a balanced budget amendment, providing for our military all that is required to defeat our enemies, lower taxes on everyone, fiscal responsibility by the federal government, an end to abortion, at least after the 12th week, believes in the 2nd Amendment and that it means what it says, secure borders and enforcing the laws on the books now when it comes to illegals, but he is against same sex marriage.
You would vote for #1. I would not. Now, let’s say that Candidate #2 supports same sex marriage. I would still vote for him because I am more interested in the safety and health of this nation more than I am your petty grievances, and am not a one-issue voter.
OK, make it an airliner flown into your office building or the block you live on. I’m sure every gay that worked in the Twin Towers felt they, also, would die old and free.
You sound like the isolationists of the early 1940’s that claimed we could not fight on more than one front. They were wrong. So are you and you seem to have little faith in our military.
I don’t believe that the Europeans have become so socialist that they would rather live on their knees than die on their feet. If they have, we are all doomed to the new Islamic war on the Western world.
Are you actually admitting that we are in a war against Islam?
@retire05 #97:
First a thanks for your reasonable post. I would enjoy more of the same.
As for your “choice” of diametrically opposed candidates, I find both of their “positions” to be seriously flawed.
Candidate #1 wants open borders and blanket amnesty of illegals. Both are bad ideas and would never pass congress. And “green” policy in the San Joaquin Valley is too late – the salt is already built up enough that crops are beginning to fail from its toxicity, and there’s no way to get rid of it. The Western part of the Valley is nearly dead already. Pumping water faster just hastens the end, as there is nowhere for the salt to go. So that point is just about moot. He supports abortion on demand, and I’m fine with that – life is not “sacred” in my book.
Both Democratic and Republican presidents have made a habit of supplying arms to friends and enemies alike, so I would expect more of the same from either candidate. If #1 raises taxes and lowers military expenditures (one of our biggest costs) I would expect the deficit to go down, not up. I think that’s just happened in Obama’s case, and I think it’s movement in the right direction. Bear in mind that neither candidate can do much without congress’ agreement.
Candidate #2 wants a balanced budget amendment. I don’t. In extremis, Uncle Sam must reach into the red. The alternative is dire. We are not on the gold standard anymore – the money supply is fluid. When we print more money, prices inflate, and inflation diminishes the real impact of the national debt.
He wants to” give the military everything it needs to defeat the enemy,” and to lower taxes on everyone at the same time. To do that, he’ll have to end Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and I don’t want that. And he wants to end abortion. I don’t. The rest of the things he “supports” are already the Law and not at issue.
After weighing your two hypothetical candidates, I am not at all conflicted with my choice to vote for #1, as you predicted. Even on the issue of same-sex marriage, he can only “support” it. He cannot legislate it, or mandate it or executive order it. But Obama’s recent “support” has been a significant help to gays, and I am glad for it. I would also point out that you did NOT state YOUR candidate’s position on the criminalization of homosexual sex. Even without that clarification, I would expect from YOUR side a move to criminalize, and I will guard against that until it is no longer an option.
“I am more interested in the safety and health of this nation more than I am your petty grievances…”
I refer to my last sentence above. The possibility of incarceration is not a “petty grievance.”
“Are you actually admitting that we are in a war against Islam?”
At this point in time, we are somewhere between a mutually-agreed-upon state of perpetual antagonism and a full-blown, all-out World War against Islam. Maybe it’s like the “war-on-drugs, ” some sort of “war-lite.” Both sides (them and us, not Dems and Reps.) are complicit in the existing state of affairs, and while we would dial down the fight, they would not. We have way more to lose than they do, and they know it, and that doesn’t help us.
Parallels to WWII? Not many. Germany was one, small country with one dictator. Easy target. Radical Islam is everywhere and nowhere, and our European “allies” know that eliminating it will never happen. (Remember how the Romans tried to wipe out Christianity?) So I wouldn’t count on too much help from them on your “Crusade.”
@Richard Wheeler:
Ha….I pretty much offered my tuppence or thripence (threepence) earlier; and Mata pretty well sums up my impression of the overall thrust of this post, as well.
Right now I don’t have the time nor patience to get tied down in a back-and-forth that more than likely offers nothing new that hasn’t already been hashed and debated in countless other threads that have come before.
I will throw out this incendiary, however, as I make my cowardly exit:
Some of my fellow conservatives really need to take a good long, hard stare at themselves in the mirror; or read back what they write when their inflamed emotions aren’t running high. Because if circumstances were such that instead of being born American/western/Christian, they were instead born into the Middle East and raised in Islamic cultural beliefs of the fundamentalist salafi/wahhabi strain….influenced by conspiracy theories, feelings of persecution and encroachment…..you see where I’m going with this?
Two sides of the same coin.
I have no problems with surgically targeting the problem. But the lashing out….
It only serves to throw more kerosene onto the fire and achieves exactly what bin Laden and Zawahiri failed to do: Unite the Muslim world into a clash of civilizations and a call to Jihad against the west and infidel world. If the al Qaeda network and affiliates failed to stir the majority of 1.5 billion to rise up against us (and they did fail), maybe anti-Islam conservatives and groups like the EDL (who can’t tell a lick of difference between various Islamic groups) will help in their recruitment efforts, alongside their Islamic firebrand counterparts (e.g., Omar Bakri); each side thinking they are fighting “the good fight”, to preserve and protect their civilizations from the western/Islamic threat.
@George Wells:
Really? And just exactly do you think the Gang of 8 has been trying to achieve if not blanket amnesty? Let me give you an example of the questions that will be asked:
Were you here on or before Jan. 1, 2012? Si.
Were you working? Si.
Can you prove it? No.
Why? I was paid in cash.
Who did you work for? Don’t know. The guy picked me up at Home Depot, took me to the job site, I worked, he paid in cash.
Did you live here? Si
Where? In an apartment.
Was it in your name? No.
So you can’t prove you have been here since Jan. 1, 2012? No.
OK, you’re approved to stay.
As to the San Joaquin Valley; every article I have read is that the water was cut due to the Delta smelt, not salt.
That puts you right in line with the Spartans, the ancient Romans and the Nazis. All failed societies.
I believe life has importance, George. Even yours which you tried to end.
That is not true. A nation that spends more than it takes in is unsustainable. It will eventually crater, just as Greece is doing. And what nation[s] will be there to bail out the U.S.? China? We are already beholding to them more than is wise.
You really are a total fool. You think the Dems will want to pay down the deficit? Or will they find more and more welfare programs to fund in order to make Americans more and more dependent on them for support, and consequently gaining those votes? You think Obama has lowered the deficit? Really? Do you ever turn on a TV? One of the big arguments going on right now in the Senate is raising the debt ceiling. My God, man, get a clue. Or have someone buy you one.
.
That canard has become old, and tired. Congress cannot overturn Lawrence, so your argument there is truly moot. I don’t see conservatives yelling for criminalization of homosexuality and I am getting pretty damn tired of you making the claim that they do/will. Again, all I get from you is dishonesty.
I don’t think I have ever debated with anyone as clueless as you. Germany was one, small country (like Iran, perhaps?)? In 1940, the population of the U.S. was around 132 million. The population of Great Britain was 46 million in 1939. Germany’s population in 1940 was approx. 70M, which included Austria and the Sudetenland. Add the other Axis powers, Japan, 73M and Italy, 42 M. Yeah, Germany was one small country with 31M more than Great Britain (including England, Scotland and Wales) who had friends.
Why don’t you give us just a bit of honesty and admit that you would never vote for a Republican, under any circumstances. Not one thing you say you support is conservative in any manner. And you wonder why I call you the “liar” you are?