Originally posted by Sharajat

Originally posted by Fishermage

 

Sure they did. I didn't provide evidence because I was sharing MY beliefs and views to another poster, not making a case or trying to prove anything. That being said it is very easy to prove the case and dozens of studies have been done in my favor.

You forget they brought us out if the Clinton recession, and led us into economic growth. They also did lead to GDP growth until the housing bubble burst, which was the fault of administrations and congresses prior to Bush groing back to Carter.

But, if you insist, here's one that took about 30 seconds to find:

taxesandgrowth.ncpa.org/news/are-the-bush-tax-cuts-working

 

__________________________________________________________________________________

How Has the Economy Changed Since the Tax Cuts?

*cut wall of lies*

_________________________________________________________________________________

 

The biggest problem is that they were not made permanent, and they were offset by reckless government spending.

There's more evidence. pages and pages of it.

 

Sigh, wall of text.  This is all patent nonsense.   Your beliefs are based on bad facts - tax cuts are not the be all and end all of economic stimulus, nor do they create economic boons when the money is being siphoned away from vital infrastructure.   You can pile tons of bullshit on a plate, but it still remains bullshit. 

Think critically. 

Let me show you what happens when you critically examine this crud, instead of lapping it up like a dog. 

GDP Growth

After the recession in 2001 and the first round of tax cuts, economic growth speeded up and is expected to pickup even faster in 2004:3

 

But it's 2008!  Why would they quote 2003 data?  Oh that's right.  To decieve you.

Fact:  Here's the GDP of the US:

The growth SLOWED DOWN!  It's certainly not the boom that we should be seeing.  At best we got a temporary spice, which we ALWAYS GET when we move out of a recession (just look at the graph).   2001 was anemic as hell, 2002 no better, some tax cut growth.  If they were actually any good... why didn't they work?  

 

Onto jobs:

* The unemployment rate remained steady at 5.6 percent in May 2004, well below its peak of 6.3 percent a year ago.

But once again, no historical graph!  No context.  Two numbers.  Is 5.6% good?  Is 6.3% bad?  Peak?  The peak was during the great depression, so peak relative to what?  What are we talking about?

Oh that's right, it sounds good, like the add on the side of a pop-tart box.  Lots of nutrition.  Many essential vitamins.

www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp

 

Haha!  The Bush tax cuts INCREASED UNEMPLOYMENT!  That's right.  Passed in 2001, the bush tax cuts were perfectly in line with increasing unemployment.  In may of 2001, the unemployment was 4.3.  On June 7th, the tax relief act was passed.  Unemployment has never returned to that level.

Did they actually increase unemployment?   I don't have enough evidence to say.  Too many other factors at work.  But this website picks an arbitrary point (years from June 7th, 2001 passing date) as a high point, then designates an arbitrary low point some time later, and calls it a day.  
 

There's more evidence here that they tanked the economy than helped it.

 

I could go on, but the point is made.  Quantity is not quality.  Your site lies to me, and expects me to believe. 

I don't know why you would offer me this.  I assume you consider yourself a critical thinker, this website is the antithesis of critical thinking.

5% unemployment is, as all economists know, statistically zero unemployment. It can't get any better than that. Given that, we see the economy grew at a very nice rate, expecially considering 9/11 and the Clinton recession. All with statistically zero inflation.

I don't need to show an historical graph because I expect you to know how the economy has done, after all you chose to hijack the thread and start an argument over an off topic issue.

As I said, I could find dozens of pages that continue to show this, but if YOU choose to live by your faith and not think critically, and just want to get into forum fights, then no, your religion won't let you change your mind. You just want to live by hate of all things republican so you look for what to hate. I on the other hand like neither republicans not Democrats, but always give credit where credit is due.

Either way, please stop hijacking the thread and if you wish to argue economics start another thread. You are jumping out of my context just because you enjoy starting fights until at a certain point you start flaming. let's stop now.

EDIT: actually, you started out flaming, and will continue to do so. You simmply do not know how decent people carry on a conversation, which is the main thing the evidence shows.

I can understand your fears, really. People have been listening for the last eight years to nothing more than morning, noon and night of terror talk that was spurred on by Cheney and Rumsfeld, two guys connected with Saddam and the Middle East since the 70's. Half of the things they used weren't even really facts, but conjecture. The whole Early Warning Terrorist color code chart, the cherrypicked WMD evidence, demonization of the Muslim world, etc... we've been bathed in it deep. Anyone saying anything against it was suspect.

You say that you've been studying this your whole life. One thing I would ask, is have you ever thought Obama might have as well? It's not like he has no intelligence and is unable to think about different things. If you recall, his time in the Senate wasn't just sitting around.

I mean, just look at the man's education level:

---

Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he was the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review. He served three terms in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004. He also taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. Obama was elected to the Senate in November 2004. He was Chairman of the Senate's subcommittee on European Affairs. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa. He met with Mahmoud Abbas before he became President of the Palestinian Authority.
Obama introduced two initiatives bearing his name: Lugar–Obama, which expanded the Nunn–Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons.

---

The thing is, if you are sponsoring legislation to reduce nukes in the Soviet Union, I would think he'd know where the Soviets would sell them and who/what they'd do with them. You guys really have to give him more credit than this. His record demands it. If someone like you, a layperson could think of a myriad of ways we could get nuked, he's in the briefings where they actually gave him the evidence. His willingness to talk with Iran is a result of that, and if they don't listen, he will act accordingly. Most of the stronger countries in the world will not let Iran have nukes either... its not just us.

I also see something people in this thread are doing that is wrong, is confusing Iran with people like Al Queda. This is why we need cooler heads like Obama's, because they are not the same folks. They just happen to be muslim like those nuts. Iran is ran by ultra-conservatives, but they are NOT Jihadists. Iran's president is just throwing rhetoric, that's all. The spiritual leaders who actually run the country are not dumb. They know Israel or the U.S. will bomb the heck out of them if they try to constitute nukes. They know as a government, the U.S. has always tried to overthrow them and are just looking for an excuse, which a offensive nuke program would be.

Someone with this degree of smarts knows what's at stake long before you/I ever conceived it.

Originally posted by popinjay

I can understand your fears, really. People have been listening for the last eight years to nothing more than morning, noon and night of terror talk that was spurred on by Cheney and Rumsfeld, two guys connected with Saddam and the Middle East since the 70's. Half of the things they used weren't even really facts, but conjecture. The whole Early Warning Terrorist color code chart, the cherrypicked WMD evidence, demonization of the Muslim world, etc... we've been bathed in it deep. Anyone saying anything against it was suspect.

You say that you've been studying this your whole life. One thing I would ask, is have you ever thought Obama might have as well? It's not like he has no intelligence and is unable to think about different things. If you recall, his time in the Senate wasn't just sitting around.

 

I mean, just look at the man's education level:

---

Obama is a graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he was the first African American president of the Harvard Law Review. He served three terms in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004. He also taught Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. Obama was elected to the Senate in November 2004. He was Chairman of the Senate's subcommittee on European Affairs. As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Obama made official trips to Eastern Europe, the Middle East, Central Asia and Africa. He met with Mahmoud Abbas before he became President of the Palestinian Authority.
Obama introduced two initiatives bearing his name: Lugar–Obama, which expanded the Nunn–Lugar cooperative threat reduction concept to conventional weapons.

---

 

 

The thing is, if you are sponsoring legislation to reduce nukes in the Soviet Union, I would think he'd know where the Soviets would sell them and who/what they'd do with them. You guys really have to give him more credit than this. His record demands it. If someone like you, a layperson could think of a myriad of ways we could get nuked, he's in the briefings where they actually gave him the evidence. His willingness to talk with Iran is a result of that, and if they don't listen, he will act accordingly. Most of the stronger countries in the world will not let Iran have nukes either... its not just us.

 

I also see something people in this thread are doing that is wrong, is confusing Iran with people like Al Queda. This is why we need cooler heads like Obama's, because they are not the same folks. They just happen to be muslim like those nuts. Iran is ran by ultra-conservatives, but they are NOT Jihadists. Iran's president is just throwing rhetoric, that's all. The spiritual leaders who actually run the country are not dumb. They know Israel or the U.S. will bomb the heck out of them if they try to constitute nukes. They know as a government, the U.S. has always tried to overthrow them and are just looking for an excuse, which a offensive nuke program would be.

 

Someone with this degree of smarts knows what's at stake long before you/I ever conceived it.

 

We know Obama has not been studying this his whole life -- he has been a constitutional law professor, a politician, and a community organizer. Doing well in school does not make one smart. I know far too many people who did great in Harvard that aren't very bright.

I'm not afraid of anything -- this isn't about fear. It is about being praictical in the early stages of a new kind of war we have never fought.

Iran's mullahs are not the same kind of Jihadists as Osama, but they certainly ARE Jihadist. Saddam was as secular as they come, but HE was also a Jihadist -- of a sort -- he wanted th rule a caliphate from Iraq.

Quaddafi is also a Jihadist -- of a sort -- he wanted his North Africam league to be the start of His caliphate.

He chickened out over Iraq.

Once again it is interesting that everything you are saying was said about Hitler before we entered WWII. He's just blustering! It's all rhetoric. EVERYTHING. I hope you are right but I do not think you are.

Please stop calling people afraid and thinking this is about being afraid or using fear as a political tool or any of that crap. This is about a very big, very serious war and yes, we need a cool head, something I do not see in Obama. In Obama I see an inexperienced, cunning politician with a lot of charisma. I don't see what you see. I certainly don't see a cool head. I see a man with a pretty bad temper who makes fun of his opponents in an immature manner. Nothing cool about that.

I have never heard him say anything terribly brilliant. On paper he is smart, in terms of degrees. I haven't seen much smart from him except he is a smart, shifty politician who is capable of destroying his political opponents. There's certainly something to say in that but not much when it comes to leading us in war.

I do however hope you are right -- I don' t see it.

Remember you are talking to a guy whose two favorite presidents are Clinton and Reagan -- and I was glad BOTH were successful presidents. Both made mistakes in my opinion and both did good things, but both had good presidencies. I fact, they are the only two good presidencies I've seen. Anyway it should show I am pretty free of the party bias crap that permeates this board.

I pray every night for Obama -- same as I did for Bush. I want my country, and the world, healthy, wealthy and in peace. I pray and am working for that just as you are. We just see the situation differently based upon our experiences, knowledge and inclinations. I hope you are right and these guys are a joke. I kinda used to think as you did until I studied it extensively.

Obama hasn't. Not this. He studied progressive politics and law. Either way I hope and pray you are right and I am wrong.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Once again Faxxer, we see personal attack after personal attack, from the left.

They simply seem do not know how decent people debate topics. It's all very sad. The greatest threat to the future of our nation is this terminal nastiness on the part of the left. So nasty, so unhappy, so filled with hate. Yet they claim they are tolerant. Pretty creepy. We see this in thread after thread on these boards.

It is primarily because theirs is an emotional position, not an intellectual one. Thus they must attack, attack attack.

I have asked this before, I'll ask it again:

are there any liberals on this site who know how decent people argue? I have only seen two I think. Daily Buzz and someone else, can't remember who at the moment.

People, can we try and cut the crap and stop being so freaking snotty? If you can't argue decently, stop polluting the boards with your bile.

I had pretty much passed over this thread for the first few days and have taken an interest in it only recently.  So I decided to go back and skim over some of the earlier posts to see how we got to where we are now.  I think that guy "Olgreyhat" is the primary reason the thread was originally deleted.  He just came out of nowhere and sideswiped the entire discussion.  Things had been relatively civil until he entered and started insulting everyone he disagreed with.  Glad the moderaters put it back up and hopefull put that guy on a leash.

Yes, I too enjoy having meaningful discussions with liberals with whom I disagree.  That's why I kind of miss not having Dailybuzz around.  And I think the other guy you were thinking of, Fisher, was Beatnik.  He was pretty thoughtful as well.  And then there is good ole Sepher.  He is pretty tenacious in his arguments and sometimes pushed my buttons more than was necessary, but I still didn't mind sparring with him from time to time.  I don't want to slight you, Popinjay, or any other thoughtful individual with whom I disagree on most issues, but as you said in the beginning of this thread, you are a conservative (snicker).

But allow me to compliment you Faxxer on starting this thread.  It has reached epic proportions.

Oh, and yeah, Popinjay, I've also studied all the conspiracy stuff, including Northwoods and other covert operations and rumors. I've hung out with Christic insttute dudes and been to their parties. Long time reader of covert action quarterly and other fun rags. William Cooper, Alex Jones, David Icke. For me it all started with RA Wilson many years ago and I haven't looked back.

I've traveled in the wackiest of libertarian and anarchist circles so I've seen it all. Heck I even have hung with people with connections to the whole remote viewing thing and all that wild stuff.

I knew about Dan Brown's crap before it was cool. I was practically weaned on the passover Plot and Holy Blood Holy Grail -- don't believe in that stuff either. In fact that stuff led me on the quest that actually led me to the real Holy Grail, at least as far as I am concerned.

I study it all. I am fascinated by ideas and conspiracy theories (I don't believe in very many of them). I know what you are into, it's nothing new to me.

If there is a conspiracy -- Obama is totally in on it, is part of it, and is the next stage in the plan. If there is a conspiracy, he will arrange something even BIGGER than 9/11.

He is already using fear mongering tactics so he can get his pork bill through (damn there I am hijacking this thing again with economics, but remember I am coming at it from the angle of using fear).

If there is a conspiracy -- he is their tool. You know he is related to Cheney, Brad Pitt, and a descendent of Jefferson Davis, right?

Mega-Illuminati bloodline all the way. Not sure if he is connected to Longshanks like Bush and Colin Powell, but cousins is cousins.

Fun stuff. No fear at all. I fear nothing, but I wanna know it all.  By Balaam's ass I want to know the truth, whatever it is, all the time 

Beatnik! yeah, good guy.

Originally posted by popinjay

I also see something people in this thread are doing that is wrong, is confusing Iran with people like Al Queda. This is why we need cooler heads like Obama's, because they are not the same folks.

I'm glad you pointed this out. It seems to me it is one of the two main flaws in the argument that is being put forth. 

(The other being the Idea that decentralizing federal power, increasing an already massive military, and going on a anti terrorist crusade will ever happen, or could every result in anything positive)

Most people in the Middle East want the same things we want. Jobs, to worship their God, to be able to raise their families without fear. They are just a fearful of terrorist as anyone. Much more in many cases as they are the one that truly have to live with the consequences of most terrorist acts. Unfortunately, our hardcore stance has isolated these people. 

It is not really a difficult question. Do we reach out to this group or wage war because of the other? In the long run, which answer will benefit us most? Not a hard question to answer it seems to me.


 

Originally posted by qazyman

Originally posted by popinjay

I also see something people in this thread are doing that is wrong, is confusing Iran with people like Al Queda. This is why we need cooler heads like Obama's, because they are not the same folks.

I'm glad you pointed this out. It seems to me it is one of the two main flaws in the argument that is being put forth. 

(The other being the Idea that decentralizing federal power, increasing an already massive military, and going on a anti terrorist crusade will ever happen, or could every result in anything positive)

Most people in the Middle East want the same things we want. Jobs, to worship their God, to be able to raise their families without fear. They are just a fearful of terrorist as anyone. Much more in many cases as they are the one that truly have to live with the consequences of most terrorist acts. Unfortunately, our hardcore stance has isolated these people. 

It is not really a difficult question. Do we reach out to this group or wage war because of the other? In the long run, which answer will benefit us most? Not a hard question to answer it seems to me.


 

Okay, enough with the mischaracterization of what I advocate, okay? I want less socialism, not a weak government. I want the government "strong," whatever that means, but to do its consititutional job. i also know that in war the military must increase. It was 20% of our total economy in WWII, it is but a fraction of that now.

Iran is not in the middle east, but yes most Muslims want the same things we do. They do not have it though because of their governments.

I am not saying, nor have I implied that they are the same. They are similar threats though, and in that they want a world wide caliphate. The difference for them is how they get there and who shall preside over it.

This has nothing to do with terrorism. This is about an ideology. An ideology that is shared by the leaders in Iran, by Bin Laden, and has been held by members if the Jihad for hundreds of years. This movement, in many different forms, has been practices by segments of Muslims since the beginning. It's always been a problem, and now it is even more serious.

To not take them seriously is pretty much simple bigotry. It is not believing someone non-western is capable of being as evil as us. It's a very naive approach to geopolitics.

Again, can you please refrain from the garbage? I am not calling for a crusade and you are arguing against straw men, and using appeal to ridicule as your main tactic. It's real easy to argue against an argument YOU manufacture for yourself that no one has said.

This is so silly. This could be a good discussion if a few people here didn't keep turning it into a pissing match.

---

Originally posted by Fishermage

 
We know Obama has not been studying this his whole life -- he has been a constitutional law professor, a politician, and a community organizer. Doing well in school does not make one smart. I know far too many people who did great in Harvard that aren't very bright.
I'm not afraid of anything -- this isn't about fear. It is about being praictical in the early stages of a new kind of war we have never fought.
Iran's mullahs are not the same kind of Jihadists as Osama, but they certainly ARE Jihadist. Saddam was as secular as they come, but HE was also a Jihadist -- of a sort -- he wanted th rule a caliphate from Iraq.
Quaddafi is also a Jihadist -- of a sort -- he wanted his North Africam league to be the start of His caliphate.
He chickened out over Iraq.
Once again it is interesting that everything you are saying was said about Hitler before we entered WWII. He's just blustering! It's all rhetoric. EVERYTHING. I hope you are right but I do not think you are.
Please stop calling people afraid and thinking this is about being afraid or using fear as a political tool or any of that crap. This is about a very big, very serious war and yes, we need a cool head, something I do not see in Obama. In Obama I see an inexperienced, cunning politician with a lot of charisma. I don't see what you see. I certainly don't see a cool head. I see a man with a pretty bad temper who makes fun of his opponents in an immature manner. Nothing cool about that.
I have never heard him say anything terribly brilliant. On paper he is smart, in terms of degrees. I haven't seen much smart from him except he is a smart, shifty politician who is capable of destroying his political opponents. There's certainly something to say in that but not much when it comes to leading us in war.
I do however hope you are right -- I don' t see it.
Remember you are talking to a guy whose two favorite presidents are Clinton and Reagan -- and I was glad BOTH were successful presidents. Both made mistakes in my opinion and both did good things, but both had good presidencies. I fact, they are the only two good presidencies I've seen. Anyway it should show I am pretty free of the party bias crap that permeates this board.
I pray every night for Obama -- same as I did for Bush. I want my country, and the world, healthy, wealthy and in peace. I pray and am working for that just as you are. We just see the situation differently based upon our experiences, knowledge and inclinations. I hope you are right and these guys are a joke. I kinda used to think as you did until I studied it extensively.
Obama hasn't. Not this. He studied progressive politics and law. Either way I hope and pray you are right and I am wrong.
 
 

---

When I say people were afraid, that is truth, friend. I don't know if you remember or not, but I can recall when Bush was in the early stages and his administration threw the Terrorist color chart into some kind of red color, saying Anthrax was being released. Well, I remember people taking off work, running to the Home Depot and buying out all the friggin duct tape and plastic sheeting they could get their hands on to seal up all their windows, lol. I remember Y2K and all the canned goods gone in seconds and generators bought by the ton. You may call those things confidence or overcautioness, or even prepardness... I called it fear. Mass hysteria that fed itself. And I see this is where the U.S. is right now with Iran and the small amount of worldwide terrorists.

You say education does not mean someone is smart. I agree. But no one puts a dummy on the Chairmanship of that commitee.. you have to know what you are talking about. Bush was one who never had any exposure until president about that stuff. He was a governor who delegated and went to baseball games. Obama has been in on high level security stuff long before he ran for president. Everyone who comes in contact with him in Washington, press and otherwise says he's intelligent, even conservatives who hate him say he's "weak", but they don't dare say he's not smart. Hes been teaching Constitutional Law in law school for 12 years. That is not the mark of a dumb man so I think we can drop the "maybe he's just book smart" insinuation. You know as well as I do that he's extremely intelligent and well qualified and it's no crime to admit that.

Your view seems to be everyone pretty much in the Mideast is a jihadist "to some degree". This is the fear that the last admistration exploited. It's why McCain allowed people to think Obama was a terrorist until he got called for doing it, then he finally spoke up to that clueless old grandma at his rally. McCain would have done anything to be President, even let a man get branded a traitor, save someone shamed him into action.

Those guys over there do not have the delivery system to reach the U.S. They don't have the offensive nukes. They don't have the will to shoot one nuke at the U.S. and destroy ONE city, when it would mean the COMPLETE ANNIHILATION of Iran. Completely. This is what I am trying to impart on you. Iran as a country is not suicidal, nor are it's leaders.

The mullas aren't, Hamas isn't, Hezbollah isn't, the Palestian Authority isn't. It would be a Pyrric victory to destroy one U.S. city, then be elimated as a people in the next stroke. I honestly don't know how an intelligent person such as yourself cannot see that.

---

Originally posted by Fishermage

Oh, and yeah, Popinjay, I've also studied all the conspiracy stuff, including Northwoods and other covert operations and rumors. I've hung out with Christic insttute dudes and been to their parties. Long time reader of covert action quarterly and other fun rags. William Cooper, Alex Jones, David Icke. For me it all started with RA Wilson many years ago and I haven't looked back.

---

Quite interesting, because I don't follow those guys. I read James Bamford and a few other authors who have extensive working knowledge of the U.S. and the intelligence community. Try reading his books.. all fact, stats, and released documents. No spin one way or the other.

Operations Northwoods is not a *crazy invented story or a dream or some kind of irrelevant thing. For those who don't know, imagine this so you can get a clearer picture of how it relates.

---

General Colin Powell is head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington. He doesn't like Iraq. He thinks we should invade Iraq for a variety of reasons and can see only good coming from it, but the American people just don't want a war right now because things are pretty good. Jobs are plentiful, stocks are high, and standard of living is great. How do you sell everyone to go to war?

Powell comes up with a plan, along with key generals, proposed within the United States government which calls for CIA or other operatives to commit apparent acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Saddam-led Iraq. One plan was to "develop a Jihadist terror campaign in the New York area, in other Midwestern cities and even in Washington.

This operation is especially notable in that it included plans for hijackings and bombings followed by the use of phony evidence that would blame the terrorist acts on a foreign government, namely Iraq. Several other proposals were listed, including the real or simulated actions against various U.S military and civilian targets

The plan would read:

"The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Iraq and to develop an international image of a Iraqi threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere."

---

Ok, now just substitute these words "Powell/Lemnitzer", "Iraq/Cuba", "Saddam-led Iraq/Castro-led Cuba", "Jihadist/Communist", and "Midwestern cities/Florida cities". Now realize that when you do that, this really was written as a plan of action by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1962. There is nothing conspiracy about it, it's free information and the actual documents can be Googled and read.

When you understand that people in our government are not only capable of these thoughts, but put them in writing and would submit them to a sitting U.S. President (Kennedy), nothing anyone does after that will surprise you.

So no, I don't believe all the nonsense about Iran wanting to blow us up, and I'm not afraid of them either.

*Edit: Changed "conspiracy" to "crazy invented story". It was a conspiracy plot.

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by Fishermage

 

 
We know Obama has not been studying this his whole life -- he has been a constitutional law professor, a politician, and a community organizer. Doing well in school does not make one smart. I know far too many people who did great in Harvard that aren't very bright.
I'm not afraid of anything -- this isn't about fear. It is about being praictical in the early stages of a new kind of war we have never fought.
Iran's mullahs are not the same kind of Jihadists as Osama, but they certainly ARE Jihadist. Saddam was as secular as they come, but HE was also a Jihadist -- of a sort -- he wanted th rule a caliphate from Iraq.
Quaddafi is also a Jihadist -- of a sort -- he wanted his North Africam league to be the start of His caliphate.
He chickened out over Iraq.
Once again it is interesting that everything you are saying was said about Hitler before we entered WWII. He's just blustering! It's all rhetoric. EVERYTHING. I hope you are right but I do not think you are.
Please stop calling people afraid and thinking this is about being afraid or using fear as a political tool or any of that crap. This is about a very big, very serious war and yes, we need a cool head, something I do not see in Obama. In Obama I see an inexperienced, cunning politician with a lot of charisma. I don't see what you see. I certainly don't see a cool head. I see a man with a pretty bad temper who makes fun of his opponents in an immature manner. Nothing cool about that.
I have never heard him say anything terribly brilliant. On paper he is smart, in terms of degrees. I haven't seen much smart from him except he is a smart, shifty politician who is capable of destroying his political opponents. There's certainly something to say in that but not much when it comes to leading us in war.
I do however hope you are right -- I don' t see it.
Remember you are talking to a guy whose two favorite presidents are Clinton and Reagan -- and I was glad BOTH were successful presidents. Both made mistakes in my opinion and both did good things, but both had good presidencies. I fact, they are the only two good presidencies I've seen. Anyway it should show I am pretty free of the party bias crap that permeates this board.
I pray every night for Obama -- same as I did for Bush. I want my country, and the world, healthy, wealthy and in peace. I pray and am working for that just as you are. We just see the situation differently based upon our experiences, knowledge and inclinations. I hope you are right and these guys are a joke. I kinda used to think as you did until I studied it extensively.
Obama hasn't. Not this. He studied progressive politics and law. Either way I hope and pray you are right and I am wrong.
 
 

---

 

 

When I say people were afraid, that is truth, friend. I don't know if you remember or not, but I can recall when Bush was in the early stages and his administration threw the Terrorist color chart into some kind of red color, saying Anthrax was being released. Well, I remember people taking off work, running to the Home Depot and buying out all the friggin duct tape and plastic sheeting they could get their hands on to seal up all their windows, lol. I remember Y2K and all the canned goods gone in seconds and generators bought by the ton. You may call those things confidence or overcautioness, or even prepardness... I called it fear. Mass hysteria that fed itself. And I see this is where the U.S. is right now with Iran and the small amount of worldwide terrorists.

You say education does not mean someone is smart. I agree. But no one puts a dummy on the Chairmanship of that commitee.. you have to know what you are talking about. Bush was one who never had any exposure until president about that stuff. He was a governor who delegated and went to baseball games. Obama has been in on high level security stuff long before he ran for president. Everyone who comes in contact with him in Washington, press and otherwise says he's intelligent, even conservatives who hate him say he's "weak", but they don't dare say he's not smart. Hes been teaching Constitutional Law in law school for 12 years. That is not the mark of a dumb man so I think we can drop the "maybe he's just book smart" insinuation. You know as well as I do that he's extremely intelligent and well qualified and it's no crime to admit that.

Your view seems to be everyone pretty much in the Mideast is a jihadist "to some degree". This is the fear that the last admistration exploited. It's why McCain allowed people to think Obama was a terrorist until he got called for doing it, then he finally spoke up to that clueless old grandma at his rally. McCain would have done anything to be President, even let a man get branded a traitor, save someone shamed him into action.

Those guys over there do not have the delivery system to reach the U.S. They don't have the offensive nukes. They don't have the will to shoot one nuke at the U.S. and destroy ONE city, when it would mean the COMPLETE ANNIHILATION of Iran. Completely. This is what I am trying to impart on you. Iran as a country is not suicidal, nor are it's leaders.

The mullas aren't, Hamas isn't, Hezbollah isn't, the Palestian Authority isn't. It would be a Pyrric victory to destroy one U.S. city, then be elimated as a people in the next stroke. I honestly don't know how an intelligent person such as yourself cannot see that.

No, I have already said that by far, most Muslims are NOT Jihadist at all (this isn't about the middle east which is a geographic location).

I would say that rightly less than 5% are Jihadist. That is a lot of people. More than all the Naxis who ever existed.

the Mullahs are, Hammas is, Hezbollah is -- all by their own admissions. THEY call what they are doing part of the Jihad -- not me. they do not qualify it the way westerners do, they do not say, "we don't really mean offensive, violent Jihad," no they quite clearly say what they believe -- "Islam" as they understand it, own a certain part of the world, and it is right and proper for them to use any violence necessary to retake that land, and anything they do to take over the world is equally justified.

Once again you keep saying the same thing that people said about Hitler, because you refuse to believe what they say. Your own good nature prevents you from believing that they are telling you the truth. Your own logic and intelligence and faith in human nature tells you that it is empty rhetoric. Again that is what they said about Hitler.

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by Fishermage

 

Oh, and yeah, Popinjay, I've also studied all the conspiracy stuff, including Northwoods and other covert operations and rumors. I've hung out with Christic insttute dudes and been to their parties. Long time reader of covert action quarterly and other fun rags. William Cooper, Alex Jones, David Icke. For me it all started with RA Wilson many years ago and I haven't looked back.

---

 

 

Quite interesting, because I don't follow those guys. I read James Bamford and a few other authors who have extensive working knowledge of the U.S. and the intelligence community. Try reading his books.. all fact, stats, and released documents. No spin one way or the other.

Operations Northwoods is not a *crazy invented story or a dream or some kind of irrelevant thing. For those who don't know, imagine this so you can get a clearer picture of how it relates.

 

---

General Colin Powell is head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington. He doesn't like Iraq. He thinks we should invade Iraq for a variety of reasons and can see only good coming from it, but the American people just don't want a war right now because things are pretty good. Jobs are plentiful, stocks are high, and standard of living is great. How do you sell everyone to go to war?

 

Powell comes up with a plan, along with key generals, proposed within the United States government which calls for CIA or other operatives to commit apparent acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Saddam-led Iraq. One plan was to "develop a Jihadist terror campaign in the New York area, in other Midwestern cities and even in Washington.

This operation is especially notable in that it included plans for hijackings and bombings followed by the use of phony evidence that would blame the terrorist acts on a foreign government, namely Iraq. Several other proposals were listed, including the real or simulated actions against various U.S military and civilian targets

The plan would read:

"The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Iraq and to develop an international image of a Iraqi threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere."

---

 

 

Ok, now just substitute these words "Powell/Lemnitzer", "Iraq/Cuba", "Saddam-led Iraq/Castro-led Cuba", "Jihadist/Communist", and "Midwestern cities/Florida cities". Now realize that when you do that, this really was written as a plan of action by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1962. There is nothing conspiracy about it, it's free information and the actual documents can be Googled and read.

When you understand that people in our government are not only capable of these thoughts, but put them in writing and would submit them to a sitting U.S. President (Kennedy), nothing anyone does after that will surprise you.

So no, I don't believe all the nonsense about Iran wanting to blow us up, and I'm not afraid of them either.

*Edit: Changed "conspiracy" to "crazy invented story". It was a conspiracy plot.

It is interesting that you are so willing to believe in the most evil thinsg about us, from leaked information, rather than what Iran has actually SAID publicly.

Why are you so willing to believe that we are evil and they are not? Sounds like bigotry to me.

News: people in all governments have been capable of such thoughts. This is what governments are and what they do. That is why I am the libertarian here -- I do not trust any humans enough to give them such powers as you would.

Northwoods is nothing new. Agents Provacateur plans have been a part of many governements. It is not whether or not such things are possible, but whether such activities are actual. Guys in government come up with agent provacateur plans all the time. What evidence do YOU have that they actually did it?

Either way, if its going on, Obama is in on it, part of it, and will do another one.

I didn't say "people" aren;t afraid. You were accusing ME of being afraid and I am telling you I am not. I am just looking at what everyone says, not seeing the white americann west as the devil, and recognizing that there are bad actors on all sides, BUT I am saying the Jihad is evil and a much bigger threat than anything we have ever faced. This is our FIRST enemy as a nation.

As Thomas Jefferson reported:

"It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. "

This is nothing new. Now, you can choose to place faith in secret plans to turn America into a fascist state, but then, Jefferson was in on it too.

This is a belief system, like Nazism, that claims ownership over people.

I will repeat it again because you didn't read it the first hundred times I have written it: this is not most Muslims. This is merely a significant minority. They have power bases in most Muslim countries, and are more people than ever held to the Nazi ideology.

Once again I hope you are right, but history shows you are not.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by Fishermage

 

 
We know Obama has not been studying this his whole life -- he has been a constitutional law professor, a politician, and a community organizer. Doing well in school does not make one smart. I know far too many people who did great in Harvard that aren't very bright.
I'm not afraid of anything -- this isn't about fear. It is about being praictical in the early stages of a new kind of war we have never fought.
Iran's mullahs are not the same kind of Jihadists as Osama, but they certainly ARE Jihadist. Saddam was as secular as they come, but HE was also a Jihadist -- of a sort -- he wanted th rule a caliphate from Iraq.
Quaddafi is also a Jihadist -- of a sort -- he wanted his North Africam league to be the start of His caliphate.
He chickened out over Iraq.
Once again it is interesting that everything you are saying was said about Hitler before we entered WWII. He's just blustering! It's all rhetoric. EVERYTHING. I hope you are right but I do not think you are.
Please stop calling people afraid and thinking this is about being afraid or using fear as a political tool or any of that crap. This is about a very big, very serious war and yes, we need a cool head, something I do not see in Obama. In Obama I see an inexperienced, cunning politician with a lot of charisma. I don't see what you see. I certainly don't see a cool head. I see a man with a pretty bad temper who makes fun of his opponents in an immature manner. Nothing cool about that.
I have never heard him say anything terribly brilliant. On paper he is smart, in terms of degrees. I haven't seen much smart from him except he is a smart, shifty politician who is capable of destroying his political opponents. There's certainly something to say in that but not much when it comes to leading us in war.
I do however hope you are right -- I don' t see it.
Remember you are talking to a guy whose two favorite presidents are Clinton and Reagan -- and I was glad BOTH were successful presidents. Both made mistakes in my opinion and both did good things, but both had good presidencies. I fact, they are the only two good presidencies I've seen. Anyway it should show I am pretty free of the party bias crap that permeates this board.
I pray every night for Obama -- same as I did for Bush. I want my country, and the world, healthy, wealthy and in peace. I pray and am working for that just as you are. We just see the situation differently based upon our experiences, knowledge and inclinations. I hope you are right and these guys are a joke. I kinda used to think as you did until I studied it extensively.
Obama hasn't. Not this. He studied progressive politics and law. Either way I hope and pray you are right and I am wrong.
 
 

---

 

 

When I say people were afraid, that is truth, friend. I don't know if you remember or not, but I can recall when Bush was in the early stages and his administration threw the Terrorist color chart into some kind of red color, saying Anthrax was being released. Well, I remember people taking off work, running to the Home Depot and buying out all the friggin duct tape and plastic sheeting they could get their hands on to seal up all their windows, lol. I remember Y2K and all the canned goods gone in seconds and generators bought by the ton. You may call those things confidence or overcautioness, or even prepardness... I called it fear. Mass hysteria that fed itself. And I see this is where the U.S. is right now with Iran and the small amount of worldwide terrorists.

You say education does not mean someone is smart. I agree. But no one puts a dummy on the Chairmanship of that commitee.. you have to know what you are talking about. Bush was one who never had any exposure until president about that stuff. He was a governor who delegated and went to baseball games. Obama has been in on high level security stuff long before he ran for president. Everyone who comes in contact with him in Washington, press and otherwise says he's intelligent, even conservatives who hate him say he's "weak", but they don't dare say he's not smart. Hes been teaching Constitutional Law in law school for 12 years. That is not the mark of a dumb man so I think we can drop the "maybe he's just book smart" insinuation. You know as well as I do that he's extremely intelligent and well qualified and it's no crime to admit that.

Your view seems to be everyone pretty much in the Mideast is a jihadist "to some degree". This is the fear that the last admistration exploited. It's why McCain allowed people to think Obama was a terrorist until he got called for doing it, then he finally spoke up to that clueless old grandma at his rally. McCain would have done anything to be President, even let a man get branded a traitor, save someone shamed him into action.

Those guys over there do not have the delivery system to reach the U.S. They don't have the offensive nukes. They don't have the will to shoot one nuke at the U.S. and destroy ONE city, when it would mean the COMPLETE ANNIHILATION of Iran. Completely. This is what I am trying to impart on you. Iran as a country is not suicidal, nor are it's leaders.

The mullas aren't, Hamas isn't, Hezbollah isn't, the Palestian Authority isn't. It would be a Pyrric victory to destroy one U.S. city, then be elimated as a people in the next stroke. I honestly don't know how an intelligent person such as yourself cannot see that.

 

No, I have already said that by far, most Muslims are NOT Jihadist at all (this isn't about the middle east which is a geographic location).

I would say that rightly less than 5% are Jihadist. That is a lot of people. More than all the Naxis who ever existed.

the Mullahs are, Hammas is, Hezbollah is -- all by their own admissions. THEY call what they are doing part of the Jihad -- not me. they do not qualify it the way westerners do, they do not say, "we don't really mean offensive, violent Jihad," no they quite clearly say what they believe -- "Islam" as they understand it, own a certain part of the world, and it is right and proper for them to use any violence necessary to retake that land, and anything they do to take over the world is equally justified.

Once again you keep saying the same thing that people said about Hitler, because you refuse to believe what they say. Your own good nature prevents you from believing that they are telling you the truth. Your own logic and intelligence and faith in human nature tells you that it is empty rhetoric. Again that is what they said about Hitler.

This is why liberalism is dangerous... you nailed it perfectly Fishermage

They can't handle the truth.

The truth is only handled by some people when its hitting them over the head.  Sadly, its normally too late by then.  The Jews learned it the hard way with Hitler as did the rest of the world.  Its all talk we thought.  Yeah, sure it was.  In this case, I guess a nuke would have to blow up in NY for it to actually sink in.  As if the towers coming down wasn't proof enough that terrorists and countires supporting them would prefer if we are destroyed, which would lead to everyone elses destruction, which would lead to peace for all and virgins forever.  I didn't make it up.  They beleve it.  You can't reason with people who beleive death is a win/win and mutual destruction is completely acceptable.

But go on self loathing and beleiving THEY have our best interests at heart and how we brought it on ourselves .  Its the liberal way.  How ironic that the conspiracy theories come from Libs, yet they're the ones who want more and more power in the hands of those they mistrust.  Their logic is astounding=)

Originally posted by Josher

The truth is only handled by some people when its hitting them over the head.  Sadly, its normally too late by then.  The Jews learned it the hard way with Hitler as did the rest of the world.  Its all talk we thought.  Yeah, sure it was.  In this case, I guess a nuke would have to blow up in NY for it to actually sink in.  As if the towers coming down wasn't proof enough that terrorists and countires supporting them would prefer if we are destroyed, which would lead to everyone elses destruction, which would lead to peace for all and virgins forever.  I didn't make it up.  They beleve it.  You can't reason with people who beleive death is a win/win and mutual destruction is completely acceptable.

But go on self loathing and beleiving THEY have our best interests at heart and how we brought it on ourselves .  Its the liberal way.  How ironic that the conspiracy theories come from Libs, yet they're the ones who want more and more power in the hands of those they mistrust.  Their logic is astounding=)

Well, there's plenty of conspiracy theorists from my camp --the libertarians. At least however libertarian conspiracy theorists know that in order for it to be real, BOTH sides have to be in on it, and our solution is: end socialism now and restore teh government to its proper constitutional role.

This will weaken the power and motivation to conspire. The right wing conspiracy theorists tend to feel the same way.

Only the liberals want to empower the conspiracy they believe in.

However, we ought to take popinjay at his word. He said he is no liberal. I don't know what he means by "independent" though. In my experience there are only two kinds of "independents" -- libertarians and authoritarians.

Authoritarians are folks like Joe Leiberman -- they want big government for the economy, and big government in the social control sense. Bill O'Reilly also somewhat falls into that category.

I would be interested to see why popinjay considers himself an independent and what he means by that.

Did you guys catch the press conf of Obama yesterday talking about how he thinks government has a right to intervene in the realm of business?  He's trying to sound like FDR I think... The liberal Grandfather of them all.  

FDR had 18% unemployment rates for EVERY BIT of his new deal, only WWII saved his image.  (I can hear clicking now...)

Originally posted by Fishermage

5% unemployment is, as all economists know, statistically zero unemployment. It can't get any better than that. Given that, we see the economy grew at a very nice rate, expecially considering 9/11 and the Clinton recession. All with statistically zero inflation.

I don't need to show an historical graph because I expect you to know how the economy has done, after all you chose to hijack the thread and start an argument over an off topic issue.

As I said, I could find dozens of pages that continue to show this, but if YOU choose to live by your faith and not think critically, and just want to get into forum fights, then no, your religion won't let you change your mind. You just want to live by hate of all things republican so you look for what to hate. I on the other hand like neither republicans not Democrats, but always give credit where credit is due.

Either way, please stop hijacking the thread and if you wish to argue economics start another thread. You are jumping out of my context just because you enjoy starting fights until at a certain point you start flaming. let's stop now.

EDIT: actually, you started out flaming, and will continue to do so. You simmply do not know how decent people carry on a conversation, which is the main thing the evidence shows.

Statistically zero?  No.  The exact natural rate of employment is a rather hotly debated subject, even today.  Declaring it '5%, no argument' is beyond handwaving.  Yet, this appears to be not an attempt to intelligently defend your point.  You show me dozens of pages of nonsense, and wish for quantity to subsume quality.

I can hand you a thousand pages detailing how George Bush masterminded 9/11.  They'd be 1000 pages of pure bullshit.  You can hand me 1000 pages showing how the Bush Tax cuts were the best thing since sliced bread.

I'm pretty sure you're handing me documents of similar quality. 

Decent people do not attempt to overwhelm eachother with masses of links of dubious quality.  Decent people do not pretend a subject as complicated as the natural rate of employment is "baseline 5%, story over" and hope it flies because they want it to fly.  Decent people do not pretend that their opinion is fact because they say it is fact, and avoid any treatment of the subject.

If you feel you are being treated indecently, I suggest you examine why people do not treat you decently.  I submit it is a reflection for the lack of respect, discussion, or indeed even acknowledgment you show to those who do not share your narrow ideology.

Originally posted by Sharajat

Originally posted by Fishermage

5% unemployment is, as all economists know, statistically zero unemployment. It can't get any better than that. Given that, we see the economy grew at a very nice rate, expecially considering 9/11 and the Clinton recession. All with statistically zero inflation.

I don't need to show an historical graph because I expect you to know how the economy has done, after all you chose to hijack the thread and start an argument over an off topic issue.

As I said, I could find dozens of pages that continue to show this, but if YOU choose to live by your faith and not think critically, and just want to get into forum fights, then no, your religion won't let you change your mind. You just want to live by hate of all things republican so you look for what to hate. I on the other hand like neither republicans not Democrats, but always give credit where credit is due.

Either way, please stop hijacking the thread and if you wish to argue economics start another thread. You are jumping out of my context just because you enjoy starting fights until at a certain point you start flaming. let's stop now.

EDIT: actually, you started out flaming, and will continue to do so. You simmply do not know how decent people carry on a conversation, which is the main thing the evidence shows.

Statistically zero?  No.  The exact natural rate of employment is a rather hotly debated subject, even today.  Declaring it '5%, no argument' is beyond handwaving.  Yet, this appears to be not an attempt to intelligently defend your point.  You show me dozens of pages of nonsense, and wish for quantity to subsume quality.

I can hand you a thousand pages detailing how George Bush masterminded 9/11.  They'd be 1000 pages of pure bullshit.  You can hand me 1000 pages showing how the Bush Tax cuts were the best thing since sliced bread.

I'm pretty sure you're handing me documents of similar quality. 

Decent people do not attempt to overwhelm eachother with masses of links of dubious quality.  Decent people do not pretend a subject as complicated as the natural rate of employment is "baseline 5%, story over" and hope it flies because they want it to fly.  Decent people do not pretend that their opinion is fact because they say it is fact, and avoid any treatment of the subject.

If you feel you are being treated indecently, I suggest you examine why people do not treat you decently.  I submit it is a reflection for the lack of respect, discussion, or indeed even acknowledgment you show to those who do not share your narrow ideology.

In other words you really never wanted any evidence or me to back up my opinion. You merely wanted an excuse to launch personal attacks. Thanks for trolling by.

---

Originally posted by Fishermage

As Thomas Jefferson reported:
"It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. "
 
This is nothing new. Now, you can choose to place faith in secret plans to turn America into a fascist state, but then, Jefferson was in on it too.

---

This is the height of irony.

You quote Jefferson as he is talking about fighting people who apparently are followers of Islam (not Jihadism) as a source. Do you think you could state where this quote came from so I can read it in context? Or do I have to find it myself? (I don't mind, just figured I'd ask before I looked).

Thomas Jefferson was an intelligent man. But the problem with Thomas Jefferson is he spoke out of both sides of his mouth.

One side said all men are created equal under God's law and deserve to be treated fairly without yokes (speaking mostly about white americans in regards to England). He claims he thought slavery was immoral for one to impose on another human being.

While the other side of Jefferson's mouth was conspicuously quiet and allowed him to personally own over some two HUNDRED slaves, disregarding their freedom and rights under God. The man was a slaveowner his entire life and here in your quote above, he's talking about the Koran saying it was a muslim's right to plunder and "enslave" as a detriment? This is funny stuff you come up with sometimes, Fishermage.

Forgive me if I don't take seriously what he'd have to say about "jihadists". You DO realize he is only talking about Muslims above in relationship to Christianity, right? Because if you want to go here, we can bring up a little thing called the Crusades, which is older and even more horrible than anything you can find Muslims doing in the history books. Crusades, give that a Google.

All these stories about how he "agonized" over slavery and his own sins of doing it... he supposedly hated slavery sooooo much, and felt it was against God's law as a Christian. Yet here's a guy who didn't, not even on his deathbed, free his own slaves. He only sold some of them when he started to go broke.

Yep, your quotable guy who's talking about slavery is a slaveowner. Forgive me if I tell you, that I think Jefferson was a moral and spiritual weakling and had no moral courage at all. He simply went along with everyone else of his day even though he claims his heart and what he believes is opposed to it. Actions speak louder than words.

He was good for some nice patriotic prose though, huh? More slogans.

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by Fishermage

 

As Thomas Jefferson reported:
"It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once. "
 
This is nothing new. Now, you can choose to place faith in secret plans to turn America into a fascist state, but then, Jefferson was in on it too.

---

 

 

This is the height of irony.

You quote Jefferson as he is talking about fighting people who apparently are followers of Islam (not Jihadism) as a source. Do you think you could state where this quote came from so I can read it in context? Or do I have to find it myself? (I don't mind, just figured I'd ask before I looked).

Thomas Jefferson was an intelligent man. But the problem with Thomas Jefferson is he spoke out of both sides of his mouth.

One side said all men are created equal under God's law and deserve to be treated fairly without yokes (speaking mostly about white americans in regards to England). He claims he thought slavery was immoral for one to impose on another human being.

While the other side of Jefferson's mouth was conspicuously quiet and allowed him to personally own over some two HUNDRED slaves, disregarding their freedom and rights under God. The man was a slaveowner his entire life and here in your quote above, he's talking about the Koran saying it was a muslim's right to plunder and "enslave" as a detriment? This is funny stuff you come up with sometimes, Fishermage.

Forgive me if I don't take seriously what he'd have to say about "jihadists". You DO realize he is only talking about Muslims above in relationship to Christianity, right? Because if you want to go here, we can bring up a little thing called the Crusades, which is older and even more horrible than anything you can find Muslims doing in the history books. Crusades, give that a Google.

All these stories about how he "agonized" over slavery and his own sins of doing it... he supposedly hated slavery sooooo much, and felt it was against God's law as a Christian. Yet here's a guy who didn't, not even on his deathbed, free his own slaves. He only sold some of them when he started to go broke.

Yep, your quotable guy who's talking about slavery is a slaveowner. Forgive me if I tell you, that I think Jefferson was a moral and spiritual weakling and had no moral courage at all. He simply went along with everyone else of his day even though he claims his heart and what he believes is opposed to it. Actions speak louder than words.

He was good for some nice patriotic prose though, huh? More slogans.

Ah, good old trash the messenger instead of refuting the message. Thank you for your time.

The Crusades were a defensive war against the gowing Jihadist empire, not an offensive war of conquest. Again you have it backwards and your natural western self-loathing is showing through.