Yup, Faxxer, the personal attacks have already started, at least against us "uneducated whites."

They simply can't have a discussion on a subject without attacking. Pity.

Fishermage, I saw where you mentioned you would like to eliminate most social welfare programs; Im curious which would you keep.  Would you also be in favor of increasing minimum wage?  I dont mean to assume things that are incorrect of you, but Im not sure you have any experience liviing in the rural parts of the country.  If you had then you would know that in small towns across the country minimum wage jobs make up the majority of the employment to be had.  I know this, I live in a small town.  The Americans working these jobs are barely making ends meet, sometimes having to pick up another part time job in order to feed their family.   In many of these cases, the existence of these welfare programs that conservatives seem to hate so much, are the only things keeping these families from going hungry or living on the streets.

I understand and agree, people that refuse to work shouldnt receive benefits from the governement, but those that do and find themselves in communities where work is scarce and underpaid should be able to receive help. 

Sorry about the rant, it just irritates me when conservatives condemn welfare in any forms without taking into consideration the people that desperately need it to survive month to month.  Not everyone lives in urban areas that offer high paying jobs.

Originally posted by Sabiancym

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Roosevelt

To Faxxer and Fishermage or anyone else starting threads like this. The Whole fact that you call yourselves Conservatives, Liberals, or what have you just shows how naive you really are. Why does it have to be the views of "Liberals" or "Conservatives"?. What you are doing exactly what this country has done for centuries and are just pre arranging people into set groups.

I'm not a conservative, never said I was. Nor am I a Liberal. Nor am I a "whatever."  Not sure what you are talking about. Care to elaborate a bit?

 

 

 

{ Mod Delete }

Oh yes, legalizing weed, prostitution, being pro-choice, pro-gay marriage (so pro gay marriage I'll perform the ceremony myself, even marry gay people IN CHRIST if that's what they'd like), believe in open borders, against obscenity laws, against the Patriot act -- yes, all those very conservative views I hold make me a conservative.

I agree with some conservatives on some issues, mostly economic ones. On other issues, mostly social ones, I am very liberal.

I am a small "L" libertarian. That's not conservative, nor is it liberal. It is relatively in the middle of the two.

Originally posted by comablak18

Fishermage, I saw where you mentioned you would like to eliminate most social welfare programs; Im curious which would you keep.  Would you also be in favor of increasing minimum wage?  I dont mean to assume things that are incorrect of you, but Im not sure you have any experience liviing in the rural parts of the country.  If you had then you would know that in small towns across the country minimum wage jobs make up the majority of the employment to be had.  I know this, I live in a small town.  The Americans working these jobs are barely making ends meet, sometimes having to pick up another part time job in order to feed their family.   In many of these cases, the existence of these welfare programs that conservatives seem to hate so much, are the only things keeping these families from going hungry or living on the streets.

I understand and agree, people that refuse to work shouldnt receive benefits from the governement, but those that do and find themselves in communities where work is scarce and underpaid should be able to receive help. 

Sorry about the rant, it just irritates me when conservatives condemn welfare in any forms without taking into consideration the people that desperately need it to survive month to month.  Not everyone lives in urban areas that offer high paying jobs.

I would get rid of the minimum wage. It is not a function of the government to regulate wages. That is up to the market -- through the free interaction of individuals.

I am considering the people -- all the people.

I do not believe it is the government's role to "help people." That our job as free citizens.

This is not about caring and people, but about the nature and purpose of government. I disagree with you, and believe that people should help people voluntarily, not through the force of the State. We merely have different worldviews -- no need to act like I don't care about people.

That amounts to nothing more than an attack on my person and not my views about government.

EDIT: also, I live in a rural area (although it is rapidly being developed). This has nothng to do with urban or rural either -- it has to do with what one's views on government and its function in a free society.

Can we please stop hijacking the thread?

This is what got it deleted in the first place. If people want to argue economics, they can start another thread on it, mmmmkay?

Now, for something to help bring us back to our topic, the various hijackers notwithstanding:

"We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

The person who said this was not a conservative, and I agree with him. Who else does?

Originally posted by Fishermage

Now, for something to help bring us back to our topic, the various hijackers notwithstanding:

 

"We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

 

The person who said this was not a conservative, and I agree with him. Who else does?

I doubt anybody disagrees with that.

I think quite a few people disagree with your statement that we're on the brink of some ridiculous war. "We are at war. The biggest war in our history -- maybe the history of the world -- one we didn't start."

{ Mod Edit }

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by comablak18

Fishermage, I saw where you mentioned you would like to eliminate most social welfare programs; Im curious which would you keep.  Would you also be in favor of increasing minimum wage?  I dont mean to assume things that are incorrect of you, but Im not sure you have any experience liviing in the rural parts of the country.  If you had then you would know that in small towns across the country minimum wage jobs make up the majority of the employment to be had.  I know this, I live in a small town.  The Americans working these jobs are barely making ends meet, sometimes having to pick up another part time job in order to feed their family.   In many of these cases, the existence of these welfare programs that conservatives seem to hate so much, are the only things keeping these families from going hungry or living on the streets.

I understand and agree, people that refuse to work shouldnt receive benefits from the governement, but those that do and find themselves in communities where work is scarce and underpaid should be able to receive help. 

Sorry about the rant, it just irritates me when conservatives condemn welfare in any forms without taking into consideration the people that desperately need it to survive month to month.  Not everyone lives in urban areas that offer high paying jobs.

I would get rid of the minimum wage. It is not a function of the government to regulate wages. That is up to the market -- through the free interaction of individuals.

I am considering the people -- all the people.

I do not believe it is the government's role to "help people." That our job as free citizens.

This is not about caring and people, but about the nature and purpose of government. I disagree with you, and believe that people should help people voluntarily, not through the force of the State. We merely have different worldviews -- no need to act like I don't care about people.

That amounts to nothing more than an attack on my person and not my views about government.

EDIT: also, I live in a rural area (although it is rapidly being developed). This has nothng to do with urban or rural either -- it has to do with what one's views on government and its function in a free society.

Can we please stop hijacking the thread?

This is what got it deleted in the first place. If people want to argue economics, they can start another thread on it, mmmmkay?

      I was not attacking your person, was merely criticizing broader conservative ideals.  You shouldn't take offense where it's not warranted.  However, I take exception to your belief that governement shouldnt help those that need it most.  I dont think the market always has the best interests of the average American in mind, otherwise working families wouldnt have to get a second job to make ends meet.  I do respect your opinion though.  I just dont have as much faith in the market and the private sector to make sure we dont have families going without food and shelter as you apparently do. 

    Growing up in a family where both parents worked hard for little pay, being thankful for every penny of government assistance, knowing without it you might go to bed hungry a few nights a week.  Having lived throught those times and see everyday the same story playing out again to people I know, it's hard for me to have faith in the generosity of the market place.

     Regardless,  It doesnt matter what any of us say or do.  As long as we pay taxes, the governement will be there to help those that need it most.  Though misguided it may seem, without it we'd be in far worse condition imo.

    As for hijacking the thread, I apolgize.  I absolutely detest arguing on the internet, it's pointless and a waste of time.  I will not be replying further to this thread.  Just wanted to voice my opinon on a few things. 

Originally posted by Olgreyhat

Originally posted by Fishermage

Now, for something to help bring us back to our topic, the various hijackers notwithstanding:

 

"We shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

 

The person who said this was not a conservative, and I agree with him. Who else does?

 

I doubt anybody disagrees with that.

 

I think quite a few people disagree with your statement that we're on the brink of some ridiculous war. "We are at war. The biggest war in our history -- maybe the history of the world -- one we didn't start."

 

{ Mod Edit }

 

warmongering?  you're forgetting we've been at war for a few years now. 

But wait, let's go with this kind of thinking and just pull our troops home tomorrow eh?  What you you think will happen?  seriously, tell me.  Tell all of us just how it ends ok?

Originally posted by comablak18

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by comablak18

Fishermage, I saw where you mentioned you would like to eliminate most social welfare programs; Im curious which would you keep.  Would you also be in favor of increasing minimum wage?  I dont mean to assume things that are incorrect of you, but Im not sure you have any experience liviing in the rural parts of the country.  If you had then you would know that in small towns across the country minimum wage jobs make up the majority of the employment to be had.  I know this, I live in a small town.  The Americans working these jobs are barely making ends meet, sometimes having to pick up another part time job in order to feed their family.   In many of these cases, the existence of these welfare programs that conservatives seem to hate so much, are the only things keeping these families from going hungry or living on the streets.

I understand and agree, people that refuse to work shouldnt receive benefits from the governement, but those that do and find themselves in communities where work is scarce and underpaid should be able to receive help. 

Sorry about the rant, it just irritates me when conservatives condemn welfare in any forms without taking into consideration the people that desperately need it to survive month to month.  Not everyone lives in urban areas that offer high paying jobs.

I would get rid of the minimum wage. It is not a function of the government to regulate wages. That is up to the market -- through the free interaction of individuals.

I am considering the people -- all the people.

I do not believe it is the government's role to "help people." That our job as free citizens.

This is not about caring and people, but about the nature and purpose of government. I disagree with you, and believe that people should help people voluntarily, not through the force of the State. We merely have different worldviews -- no need to act like I don't care about people.

That amounts to nothing more than an attack on my person and not my views about government.

EDIT: also, I live in a rural area (although it is rapidly being developed). This has nothng to do with urban or rural either -- it has to do with what one's views on government and its function in a free society.

Can we please stop hijacking the thread?

This is what got it deleted in the first place. If people want to argue economics, they can start another thread on it, mmmmkay?

 

      I was not attacking your person, was merely criticizing broader conservative ideals.  You shouldn't take offense where it's not warranted.  However, I take exception to your belief that governement shouldnt help those that need it most.  I dont think the market always has the best interests of the average American in mind, otherwise working families wouldnt have to get a second job to make ends meet.  I do respect your opinion though.  I just dont have as much faith in the market and the private sector to make sure we dont have families going without food and shelter as you apparently do. 

    Growing up in a family where both parents worked hard for little pay, being thankful for every penny of government assistance, knowing without it you might go to bed hungry a few nights a week.  Having lived throught those times and see everyday the same story playing out again to people I know, it's hard for me to have faith in the generosity of the market place.

     Regardless,  It doesnt matter what any of us say or do.  As long as we pay taxes, the governement will be there to help those that need it most.  Though misguided it may seem, without it we'd be in far worse condition imo.

    As for hijacking the thread, I apolgize.  I absolutely detest arguing on the internet, it's pointless and a waste of time.  I will not be replying further to this thread.  Just wanted to voice my opinon on a few things. 

I never take offense. I merely called you on your none-too-subtle personal attack. When you make the claim that I do not care about people based upon the views I hold about government that is a personal attack. I am not the least bit insulted by it, but it is what it is.

I care about people, you care about people. I just don't believe in using government to do so. That's a difference of opinion about government and its nature and purpose in a free society.

Now, if you want to continue this, please start another thread :)

Originally posted by Fishermage

Oh yes, legalizing weed, prostitution, being pro-choice, pro-gay marriage (so pro gay marriage I'll perform the ceremony myself, even marry gay people IN CHRIST if that's what they'd like), believe in open borders, against obscenity laws, against the Patriot act -- yes, all those very conservative views I hold make me a conservative.

I agree with some conservatives on some issues, mostly economic ones. On other issues, mostly social ones, I am very liberal.

I am a small "L" libertarian. That's not conservative, nor is it liberal. It is relatively in the middle of the two.

Ok, I think I've got a pretty good idea where you are coming from.  It sounds like you are personally against most of the issues you mention above, but you do not think it is the government's place to prevent individuals from practicing them if they so choose.  You think selling ones body for money is wrong, but don't think it's the government's place to say so.  You are personally against abortion, but believe it's not the government's place to prevent them.  You believe homosexuality is a sin against God, but are not against gays getting married.

I can relate to much of what you are saying, although respectfully disagree with some of it.  But I am curious to hear your explanation on why you support two of your positions.

Abortion.  I'm not sure if you've said publicly on these forums that you personally think having an abortion is wrong.  But based on your proclamation of Christ, I'm going to guess that you do.  Even so, as one who believes the state does not own the individual's body, you are OK with abortion being legal.  But your position is that government's role above all else is to protect human rights.  Based on that, isn't it the government's duty to protect the human being still within the womb?  Or is the right of the individual who carries the unborn human being paramount in that situation?

Gay marraige.  Marraige, at its root, is a religious ceremony.  And if the doctrine of that particular faith does not recognize marraige as anything other than a union between a man and a woman, is not the government intereferring in that faith's business by forcing it to recognize it as something other than what its doctrine defines it as?  I don't know if marraige is specifically defined in any faith texts outside the Bible, but I do know that marraige is discussed pretty extensively in the Bible and a union between members of the same sex ain't there.  Now, if you want to argue in favor of civil unions between gays, I would have a hard time disputing you on that because that is a civil ceremony, not a religious one.

---

Originally posted by Fishermage

We are at war. The biggest war in our history -- maybe the history of the world -- one we didn't start. If we don't win this war we'll have nothing. I am being conventional and practical. This is quite a bit bigger than WWII, and if the enemy destroys on of our cities, which is their goal, we'll see how opinion changes.
The answer is to use the central government for its purpose -- to preserve and defend our liberty, and not much else. Pretty conventional.

---

How can what small things we've gone through in the last eight years on the terror front be larger than anything that happened during World War II? The Holocaust? Dresden firebombing? London bombing? Concentration camps? The Bataan death march? Malmedy? Pearl Harbor? Nagasaki/Hiroshima? Gas/food rationing? Heck, with the Cuban missile crisis we were literally a step away from the Stone Age again.

Sorry, but in no way does the penny ante stuff these guys have been doing equate with anything from WWII. The only reason they got in the country in the first place (9/11 actors) was because the U.S. intelligence system fell asleep, plain and simple. If they were doing their jobs, those guys would never have gotten in and this whole conversation would be immaterial.

WWII beats any threat we had today. Hitler was one heartbeat away from world domination and if Yamamoto doesn't allow Naguro to withdraw and orders him to find the American carriers, Hawaii would be speaking Japanese right now.

These guys are amateurs and the Western world just got fat and lazy behind technology.

These guys killed 3,000 people in one day by everything falling their way. Hitler killed over 6 million alone, not counting the war dead from other countries for years.

Given the choice between living with Osama and living with Hitler, its a no-brainer. Osama has the will/drive/limited funds to kill whomever. Hitler had the will/drive/resouces/funds/people/allies to almost pull it off.

And I think we've been through this already in this thread (fell free to look up the US history in the Middle East).. the US did start this years ago.

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Originally posted by Fishermage

Oh yes, legalizing weed, prostitution, being pro-choice, pro-gay marriage (so pro gay marriage I'll perform the ceremony myself, even marry gay people IN CHRIST if that's what they'd like), believe in open borders, against obscenity laws, against the Patriot act -- yes, all those very conservative views I hold make me a conservative.

I agree with some conservatives on some issues, mostly economic ones. On other issues, mostly social ones, I am very liberal.

I am a small "L" libertarian. That's not conservative, nor is it liberal. It is relatively in the middle of the two.

 

Ok, I think I've got a pretty good idea where you are coming from.  It sounds like you are personally against most of the issues you mention above, but you do not think it is the government's place to prevent individuals from practicing them if they so choose.  You think selling ones body for money is wrong, but don't think it's the government's place to say so.  You are personally against abortion, but believe it's not the government's place to prevent them.  You believe homosexuality is a sin against God, but are not against gays getting married.

I can relate to much of what you are saying, although respectfully disagree with some of it.  But I am curious to hear your explanation on why you support two of your positions.

Abortion.  I'm not sure if you've said publicly on these forums that you personally think having an abortion is wrong.  But based on your proclamation of Christ, I'm going to guess that you do.  Even so, as one who believes the state does not own the individual's body, you are OK with abortion being legal.  But your position is that government's role above all else is to protect human rights.  Based on that, isn't it the government's duty to protect the human being still within the womb?  Or is the right of the individual who carries the unborn human being paramount in that situation?

Gay marraige.  Marraige, at its root, is a religious ceremony.  And if the doctrine of that particular faith does not recognize marraige as anything other than a union between a man and a woman, is not the government intereferring in that faith's business by forcing it to recognize it as something other than what its doctrine defines it as?  I don't know if marraige is specifically defined in any faith texts outside the Bible, but I do know that marraige is discussed pretty extensively in the Bible and a union between members of the same sex ain't there.  Now, if you want to argue in favor of civil unions between gays, I would have a hard time disputing you on that because that is a civil ceremony, not a religious one.

Yes, I feel abortion is, in most cases, not a good choice to make. As a Christian it is not my place to tell people what non-Christians (or Christians for that matter that disagree) can or can not do with their body, and as a point of fact, a woman's body and womb are her property. That technically, in a legal sense, trumps the fetus in a legal sense.

If a woman, however, asks me what I think, I will encourage her to have rhe baby and offer her my assistance.

All sin is forgiven in Christ, so is that one. So in terms of the sin, it is a done deal.

Now the more interesting one. Paul was technically not too big on marriage at all -- the best thing for believers is to stay single and worship God. but if you BURN, get married.

Now, gay folks who burn, in other words have passion for one another, if they do not marry, their burning will harm their relationship with Christ. Therefore I take that to mean that if they burn for one another, they TOO should get married.

I would rather gay people in stable, loving relationships and as a pastor, IF they can prove to me that they love one another and respect one another and it is a mutual decision, I'll marry them.

This was not an easy choice for me to make, but after long pondering, much prayer, and many friendships with gays and bisexuals, and also having helped bringa  few closer to Christ, I would rather let them work it out with the Lord themselves.

I understand many Christians do not agree with me, and I am fine with that. We are free in Christ to disagree.

Originally posted by popinjay

 

---

Originally posted by Fishermage

 

We are at war. The biggest war in our history -- maybe the history of the world -- one we didn't start. If we don't win this war we'll have nothing. I am being conventional and practical. This is quite a bit bigger than WWII, and if the enemy destroys on of our cities, which is their goal, we'll see how opinion changes.
The answer is to use the central government for its purpose -- to preserve and defend our liberty, and not much else. Pretty conventional.

---

 

 

How can what small things we've gone through in the last eight years on the terror front be larger than anything that happened during World War II? The Holocaust? Dresden firebombing? London bombing? Concentration camps? The Bataan death march? Malmedy? Pearl Harbor? Nagasaki/Hiroshima? Gas/food rationing? Heck, with the Cuban missile crisis we were literally a step away from the Stone Age again.

Sorry, but in no way does the penny ante stuff these guys have been doing equate with anything from WWII. The only reason they got in the country in the first place (9/11 actors) was because the U.S. intelligence system fell asleep, plain and simple. If they were doing their jobs, those guys would never have gotten in and this whole conversation would be immaterial.

WWII beats any threat we had today. Hitler was one heartbeat away from world domination and if Yamamoto doesn't allow Naguro to withdraw and orders him to find the American carriers, Hawaii would be speaking Japanese right now.

These guys are amateurs and the Western world just got fat and lazy behind technology.

These guys killed 3,000 people in one day by everything falling their way. Hitler killed over 6 million alone, not counting the war dead from other countries for years.

Given the choice between living with Osama and living with Hitler, its a no-brainer. Osama has the will/drive/limited funds to kill whomever. Hitler had the will/drive/resouces/funds/people/allies to almost pull it off.

And I think we've been through this already in this thread (fell free to look up the US history in the Middle East).. the US did start this years ago.

Well, people said the same things about Hitler as you are saying about the Jihad. Hitler did not have the potentiall of nuclear weapons with ICBMs like the Jihad has. Hitler had nowhere near the money, the resources, or the manpower the Jihad has. I am looking forward, not backward, and I see the potential of the Jihad to be far, far worse. It is a bigger movement than naziism ever was already.

Osama is one tiny part of a much larger movement that is now at ar with itself for leadership. It is farm far more dangerous than naziism, because Naziism had nothing behind it. The Jihad claims to have God.

I hope you are right but I fear you are wrong.

I've been studying this all my life -- we have made many mistakes in the region -- but we did not start the Jihad.

Here's another "I told ya so..."

Now the AP is taking a shot at the Obama savior...

begin quote after link

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090209/D968BMTO0.html

WASHINGTON (AP) - At least Route 31 is a road to somewhere.

President Barack Obama had it both ways Monday when he promoted his stimulus plan in Indiana. He bragged about getting Congress to produce a package with no pork, yet boasted it will do good things for a Hoosier highway and a downtown overpass, just the kind of local projects lawmakers lard into big spending bills.

Obama's sales pitch on the enormous package he wants Congress to make law has sizzle as well as steak. He's projecting job creation numbers that may be impossible to verify and glossing over some ethical problems that bedeviled his team.

In recent years, the so-called Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska came to symbolize the worst excesses of congressional earmarks, a device that allows a member of Congress to add money for local projects in legislation, practically under the radar.

Nothing so bold, or specific, as that now-discarded bridge project is contained in the stimulus package. That's not to say the package steers clear of waste or parochial interests. Obama played to such interests Monday, speaking at one point as if he'd come to fill potholes.

A look at some of Obama's claims in Elkhart, Ind., in advance of a prime-time news conference called to make his case to the largest possible audience:

OBAMA: "I know that there are a lot of folks out there who've been saying, 'Oh, this is pork, and this is money that's going to be wasted,' and et cetera, et cetera. Understand, this bill does not have a single earmark in it, which is unprecedented for a bill of this size. ... There aren't individual pork projects that members of Congress are putting into this bill."

THE FACTS: There are no "earmarks," as they are usually defined, inserted by lawmakers in the bill. Still, some of the projects bear the prime characteristics of pork - tailored to benefit specific interests or to have thinly disguised links to local projects.

For example, the latest version contains $2 billion for a clean-coal power plant with specifications matching one in Mattoon, Ill., $10 million for urban canals, $2 billion for manufacturing advanced batteries for hybrid cars, and $255 million for a polar icebreaker and other "priority procurements" by the Coast Guard.

Obama told his Elkhart audience that Indiana will benefit from work on "roads like U.S. 31 here in Indiana that Hoosiers count on." He added: "And I know that a new overpass downtown would make a big difference for businesses and families right here in Elkhart."

U.S. 31 is a north-south highway serving South Bend, 15 miles from Elkhart in the northern part of the state.

OBAMA: "I've appointed hundreds of people, all of whom are outstanding Americans who are doing a great job. There are a couple who had problems before they came into my administration, in terms of their taxes. ... I made a mistake ... I don't want to send the signal that there are two sets of rules."

He added: "Everybody will acknowledge that we have set up the highest standard ever for lobbyists not working in the administration."

THE FACTS: Two of his appointees, former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle for secretary of health and human services and Nancy Killefer as his chief compliance officer, dropped out after reports they had not paid a portion of their taxes.

Obama previously acknowledged he "screwed up" in making it seem to Americans that there is one set of tax compliance rules for VIPs and another set for everyone else. Yet his choice for treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, hung in and achieved the post despite having belatedly paid $34,000 to the IRS, an agency Geithner now oversees.

That could leave the perception that there is one set of rules for Geithner and another set for everyone else.

On lobbyists, Obama has in fact established tough new rules barring them from working for his administration. But the ban is not absolute.

William J. Lynn III, tapped to be the No. 2 official at the Defense Department, recently lobbied for military contractor Raytheon. William Corr, chosen as deputy secretary at Health and Human Services, has lobbied as an anti-tobacco advocate. And Geithner's choice for chief of staff, Mark Patterson, is an ex-lobbyist from Goldman Sachs.

OBAMA: "The plan that we've put forward will save or create 3 million to 4 million jobs over the next two years."

THE FACTS: Job creation projections are uncertain even in stable times, and some of the economists relied on by Obama in making his forecast acknowledge a great deal of uncertainty in their numbers.

Beyond that, it's unlikely the nation will ever know how many jobs are saved as a result of the stimulus. While it's clear when jobs are abolished, there's no economic gauge that tracks job preservation.
 

end quote.

I hope Obama doesn't think they are going to magically create jobs like they've been magically creating money out of thin air for the past 8 years.

Originally posted by Briansho

I hope Obama doesn't think they are going to magically create jobs like they've been magically creating money out of thin air for the past 8 years.

He knows better.  That's just it... He's pushing this on a lie down the throats of those that blindly follow him.

sadly, most dems in power know it too...but this bill along with the census can allow them to set themselves up for power .......forever.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by popinjay

 How can what small things we've gone through in the last eight years on the terror front be larger than anything that happened during World War II? The Holocaust? Dresden firebombing? London bombing? Concentration camps? The Bataan death march? Malmedy? Pearl Harbor? Nagasaki/Hiroshima? Gas/food rationing? Heck, with the Cuban missile crisis we were literally a step away from the Stone Age again.

Sorry, but in no way does the penny ante stuff these guys have been doing equate with anything from WWII. The only reason they got in the country in the first place (9/11 actors) was because the U.S. intelligence system fell asleep, plain and simple. If they were doing their jobs, those guys would never have gotten in and this whole conversation would be immaterial.

WWII beats any threat we had today. Hitler was one heartbeat away from world domination and if Yamamoto doesn't allow Naguro to withdraw and orders him to find the American carriers, Hawaii would be speaking Japanese right now.

These guys are amateurs and the Western world just got fat and lazy behind technology.

These guys killed 3,000 people in one day by everything falling their way. Hitler killed over 6 million alone, not counting the war dead from other countries for years.

Given the choice between living with Osama and living with Hitler, its a no-brainer. Osama has the will/drive/limited funds to kill whomever. Hitler had the will/drive/resouces/funds/people/allies to almost pull it off.

And I think we've been through this already in this thread (fell free to look up the US history in the Middle East).. the US did start this years ago.

 Well, people said the same things about Hitler as you are saying about the Jihad. Hitler did not have the potentiall of nuclear weapons with ICBMs like the Jihad has. Hitler had nowhere near the money, the resources, or the manpower the Jihad has. I am looking forward, not backward, and I see the potential of the Jihad to be far, far worse. It is a bigger movement than naziism ever was already.

Osama is one tiny part of a much larger movement that is now at ar with itself for leadership. It is farm far more dangerous than naziism, because Naziism had nothing behind it. The Jihad claims to have God.

I hope you are right but I fear you are wrong.

I've been studying this all my life -- we have made many mistakes in the region -- but we did not start the Jihad.

The existence of nuclear weapons is the great equalizer.  In relative terms, Iran is nowhere near as strong today as Germany was in the 30's and 40's.  Germany had the most powerful military in the world at the begininng of WWII.  Iran, by comparison, could never compete conventionaly with the United States or ,say, China.  But if it develops a nuclear weapon, it wouldn't have to.  Relatively weak Iran could virtually hold the world hostage with a nuclear bomb.  With the threat of using it against Israel or selling it to a terrorist group like Al Qaida, it could manipulate world affairs on its own terms.  That's why it is absolutely vital that Iran never gets nuclear weapons.  Of course the cost of preventing it from doing so would be high, but the cost of letting it get them is much, much higher.  There's not clean way to accomplish this.  Somebody's going to have to get bloody to stop them.  I'm sure not many people want to hear that, but Iran is going to force the decision upon us whether we want to make it or not.  My guess is that's what Fisher is referring to when he says this is bigger than even WWII.  For one thing, WWII is over, this conflict is not.

Oh, and by the way Popinjay, I think Hitler killed closer to 9 million people.  6 million of them just happened to be Jews.  Stalin killed probably 20 million.  It's hard for me to even grasp mass murder on that scale.

Originally posted by Faxxer

Originally posted by Briansho

I hope Obama doesn't think they are going to magically create jobs like they've been magically creating money out of thin air for the past 8 years.

 

He knows better.  That's just it... He's pushing this on a lie down the throats of those that blindly follow him.

sadly, most dems in power know it too...but this bill along with the census can allow them to set themselves up for power .......forever.

The census issue is a whole nother can of worms.  Probably deserves its own thread.  You are right though, the democrats are going to try to manipulate it in order to hang onto to power for as long as they can.

Originally posted by Zindaihas

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by popinjay

 How can what small things we've gone through in the last eight years on the terror front be larger than anything that happened during World War II? The Holocaust? Dresden firebombing? London bombing? Concentration camps? The Bataan death march? Malmedy? Pearl Harbor? Nagasaki/Hiroshima? Gas/food rationing? Heck, with the Cuban missile crisis we were literally a step away from the Stone Age again.

Sorry, but in no way does the penny ante stuff these guys have been doing equate with anything from WWII. The only reason they got in the country in the first place (9/11 actors) was because the U.S. intelligence system fell asleep, plain and simple. If they were doing their jobs, those guys would never have gotten in and this whole conversation would be immaterial.

WWII beats any threat we had today. Hitler was one heartbeat away from world domination and if Yamamoto doesn't allow Naguro to withdraw and orders him to find the American carriers, Hawaii would be speaking Japanese right now.

These guys are amateurs and the Western world just got fat and lazy behind technology.

These guys killed 3,000 people in one day by everything falling their way. Hitler killed over 6 million alone, not counting the war dead from other countries for years.

Given the choice between living with Osama and living with Hitler, its a no-brainer. Osama has the will/drive/limited funds to kill whomever. Hitler had the will/drive/resouces/funds/people/allies to almost pull it off.

And I think we've been through this already in this thread (fell free to look up the US history in the Middle East).. the US did start this years ago.

 Well, people said the same things about Hitler as you are saying about the Jihad. Hitler did not have the potentiall of nuclear weapons with ICBMs like the Jihad has. Hitler had nowhere near the money, the resources, or the manpower the Jihad has. I am looking forward, not backward, and I see the potential of the Jihad to be far, far worse. It is a bigger movement than naziism ever was already.

Osama is one tiny part of a much larger movement that is now at ar with itself for leadership. It is farm far more dangerous than naziism, because Naziism had nothing behind it. The Jihad claims to have God.

I hope you are right but I fear you are wrong.

I've been studying this all my life -- we have made many mistakes in the region -- but we did not start the Jihad.

 

The existence of nuclear weapons is the great equalizer.  In relative terms, Iran is nowhere near as strong today as Germany was in the 30's and 40's.  Germany had the most powerful military in the world at the begininng of WWII.  Iran, by comparison, could never compete conventionaly with the United States or ,say, China.  But if it develops a nuclear weapon, it wouldn't have to.  Relatively weak Iran could virtually hold the world hostage with a nuclear bomb.  With the threat of using it against Israel or selling it to a terrorist group like Al Qaida, it could manipulate world affairs on its own terms.  That's why it is absolutely vital that Iran never gets nuclear weapons.  Of course the cost of preventing it from doing so would be high, but the cost of letting it get them is much, much higher.  There's not clean way to accomplish this.  Somebody's going to have to get bloody to stop them.  I'm sure not many people want to hear that, but Iran is going to force the decision upon us whether we want to make it or not.  My guess is that's what Fisher is referring to when he says this is bigger than even WWII.  For one thing, WWII is over, this conflict is not.

Oh, and by the way Popinjay, I think Hitler killed closer to 9 million people.  6 million of them just happened to be Jews.  Stalin killed probably 20 million.  It's hard for me to even grasp mass murder on that scale.

Yup, you are swimming in the waters I am thinking of. This is not a game, this is not war-mongering. I used to be a military islolationist, like Ron Paul and many of my libertarian brethren.

Until I studied militant Islam, its various factions and what they say they want. What they say they are willing to do. Hitler did not count on paradise to reward him for his evil actions. he was a secular monster, concerned with the here and now. He wanted power for himself, and would never risk himself, or germany, for his power.

Same with mussolini. same with Imperial Japan. same with Stalin. Same with Mao and his followers. These were all secular monsters -- they did not count on an afterlife to reward them, so it mattered if they died or not.

The Jihad doesn't care how many die. They openly worship death. they do not care how many of their own they lose. Now remember this is not all musilms, this is a faction within a religion taht is divided into factions themselves.

The big problem is the moderates will not fight them unless we help them. This is what happened in Iraq. After removing Saddam from power, there was a real danger there of Islamic Militants taking over. had we bugged out as Obama wanted to do, as the democrats wanted to do, we would have lost Iraq to them.

What happened? We decisively beat the Islamic Militants and what did that lead to? They voted in moderates.

This is what happens when we fight the Jihad consistently. Now, we can not occupy this country for long, but 5-10 years is not a long time, historically speaking, for nation building.

We need to gradually disengage and maintain good relations all the way. Bush Made mistakes. Obama will make mistakes. The next president will make mistakes, but we can't let our mistakes rule us, and we can't let politics, or our own good nature divide us. This is what the enemy is counting on and will be counting on, perhaps for generations. They take a long view, while we do not. That is their greatest strength.

That and we hate each other more than we love ourselves. there is a sickness in this country, and in the western world -- this ridiculous self loathing that is seen by them as a pathetic weakness to be explaoited. It is good to be self critical -- in fact, it's part of what makes us great. It is a terrible mistake though when we use that natural inclination to self critique to destroy ourselves from within. This is what I see in a microcosm every day on these boards.

This war we are in is a long war. It is not some internet argument. It is the real thing. I pray everyone reading this takes some time and learns what the heck is going on away from their computers. So far, not so good around here.

If you do not agree with me, fine. Please take some time and study, and please, try and be an adult and stop the namecalling. Take your life seriously for just a moment. Look at the people you love and ask yourself, are they worth living for? Are they worth fighting for? Are they worth setting aside namecaling people who disagree with me, and learning about what is going on in other parts of the workd for?

Our enemy will kill over a damn cartoon. Think about it. Give them Nukes....where will that get us?

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.