We Can Do Better

[SicEmBaylor]

We can do better than the choices before us. It's been many years since I posted this. I took the death of Ronald Reagan very hard -- my first real hero. This was the best tribute I've seen on YouTube. Extremely well done aside from the potato quality.
Oh, how I yearn for another Reagan. There never will be -- we're too divided and I'm too cynical to believe in reconciliation. But Reagan wouldn't have felt the way I do. He would have believed in a united America and by God he would have done it.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8_G-mlKxTY

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Best president so far in my lifetime. I thought things were good in america at the end of 1988, and had hopes that Bush Sr. would have learned that Reagan's ideas and manner of leading was the way to go. My how things have disintegrated. Here's hoping 2016 will mark the beginning of a great turnaround for us and our world.

[SicEmBaylor]

Best president so far in my lifetime. I thought things were good in america at the end of 1988, and had hopes that Bush Sr. would have learned that Reagan's ideas and manner of leading was the way to go. My how things have disintegrated. Here's hoping 2016 will mark the beginning of a great turnaround for us and our world.

He's been the only good President within my lifetime, unfortunately.

[olevetonahill]

He's been the only good President within my lifetime, unfortunately.

Ive Lived Longer , But I agree!
The rest just been Give em **** and they vote for us!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I was born during Truman's presidency, one month before the A-bomb. I would say Reagan was the only excellent president in my life, but I would be okay if we had an Ike, with a congress like Clinton had 1994-2000

[REDREX]

Its funny to watch the Sunday morning talking heads try and defend Old Granny

[Turd_Ferguson]

Its funny to watch the Sunday morning talking heads try and defend Old Granny

Yes, her and horgay rawmose as well.

[Serenity Now]

Its funny to watch the Sunday morning talking heads try and defend Old Granny

Shouldn't you guys be in church?

[olevetonahill]

Shouldn't you guys be in church?

You're the "Christian" why aint you there?

[FaninAma]

You're the CINO, why aint you there?FIFY. Anybody who supports PP or abortion is a secularist first and foremost.

[REDREX]

Shouldn't you guys be in church?---Don't leave the house until 9:15---nice of you to ask

[Serenity Now]

---Don't leave the house until 9:15---nice of you to ask
You guys have no sense of humor. I was posting from Sunday school. Rocking revelation.

[olevetonahill]

You guys have no sense of humor. I was posting from Sunday school. Rocking revelation.

Oh Great way to pay attention !

[yermom]

this is an interesting reason why everyone sucks available to vote for sucks...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo

i have yet to explore the alternatives, but it even sums up the arguments between SicEm and Rush on 3rd parties

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

sums up the arguments between SicEm and Rush on 3rd partiesRLIMC: Third party votes for a perceived conservative split the conservative ticket, giving the election to the guaranteed authoritarian socialist(democrat)
Sicem: So what! the republicans are as totally phkcd as the democrats, and IDGAS, if my candidate wants to run 3rd party, then I'll vote for his fool as*.

[Soonerjeepman]

Shouldn't you guys be in church?

Sat night...

[yermom]

RLIMC: Third party votes for a perceived conservative split the conservative ticket, giving the election to the guaranteed authoritarian socialist(democrat)
Sicem: So what! the republicans are as totally phkcd as the democrats, and IDGAS, if my candidate wants to run 3rd party, then I'll vote for his fool as*.

That still doesn't address the problem that we get terrible choices and the game is rigged to start

[Soonerjeepman]

That still doesn't address the problem that we get terrible choices and the game is rigged to start

DAMN....the world is comin to an end...lol I agree with you~

[SicEmBaylor]

RLIMC: Third party votes for a perceived conservative split the conservative ticket, giving the election to the guaranteed authoritarian socialist(democrat)
Sicem: So what! the republicans are as totally phkcd as the democrats, and IDGAS, if my candidate wants to run 3rd party, then I'll vote for his fool as*.

I don't think that sounds like me.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

That still doesn't address the problem that we get terrible choices and the game is rigged to startit really did feel rigged when bear got REELECTED IN 2012.

[Serenity Now]

it really did feel rigged when bear got REELECTED IN 2012.

You really shouldn't discuss "rigged" without mentioning 2000.

[dwarthog]

You really shouldn't discuss "rigged" without mentioning 2000.

You mean where the dem voter was complaining, to the commission that was investigating this issue, that the practice ballot didn't look nuthin' like the real ballot and they couldn't vote "correctly" because of that?

[Serenity Now]

You mean where the dem voter was complaining, to the commission that was investigating this issue, that the practice ballot didn't look nuthin' like the real ballot and they couldn't vote "correctly" because of that?

I was thinking more in general terms of the election decided in the home state of the brother of one of the candidate's that ended up going to the Supremes and then a 5-4 vote that halted a recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court and already in process. The first election since Shep was a pup (112 years) where a president lost the popular vote but won with the electoral college. I was no huge fan of Gore but there was something fishy in Denmark there.

[dwarthog]

I was thinking more in general terms of the election decided in the home state of the brother of one of the candidate's that ended up going to the Supremes and then a 5-4 vote that halted a recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court and already in process. The first election since Shep was a pup (112 years) where a president lost the popular vote but won with the electoral college. I was no huge fan of Gore but there was something fishy in Denmark there.

Yep, the same state where the Dem voter couldn't figure out how to vote correctly because the practice ballot was different than the real one.

I think maybe you should look a bit further down the process to find where the basic problem was perhaps?

Oh, and why did they cherry pick those counties only instead of a state wide recount?

[Serenity Now]

Yep, the same state where the Dem voter couldn't figure out how to vote correctly because the practice ballot was different than the real one.

I think maybe you should look a bit further down the process to find where the basic problem was perhaps?

Oh, and why did they cherry pick those counties only instead of a state wide recount?

Possibly, with a difference of 537 votes, it really doesn't matter.

Practice makes perfect. :)

[dwarthog]

Possibly, with a difference of 537 votes, it really doesn't matter.

Practice makes perfect. :)

That does seem to be the case in 08 and in 12...

[SicEmBaylor]

I was thinking more in general terms of the election decided in the home state of the brother of one of the candidate's that ended up going to the Supremes and then a 5-4 vote that halted a recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court and already in process. The first election since Shep was a pup (112 years) where a president lost the popular vote but won with the electoral college. I was no huge fan of Gore but there was something fishy in Denmark there.

I followed every nuance of the legal proceedings down in Florida during that fiasco. There were plenty of fishy under-handed actions, but they were almost entirely on the left side of the equation. Shifting standards, arbitrary counting rules, starts and restarts, lost ballots, etc. etc. etc. were all highly questionable practices that were unethical at best and illegal at worst. The fact that the Gore campaign only requested recounts in counties he won is very telling -- any 1st year political science major can tell you that recounts almost always result in finding more votes for the candidate who won the initial count. Gore was looking to pick up votes he lost in other parts of the state by requesting a recount. Plus, there was the military ballot exclusion issue.

Let's also remember that the 5-4 decision was to stop the recount; however, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Bush on the actual merits of the case and the unconstitutionality of the Florida Supreme Court's decision (a supreme court entirely made up of Democratic appointees).

Regardless, Florida was a cluster****.

[okie52]

I followed every nuance of the legal proceedings down in Florida during that fiasco. There were plenty of fishy under-handed actions, but they were almost entirely on the left side of the equation. Shifting standards, arbitrary counting rules, starts and restarts, lost ballots, etc. etc. etc. were all highly questionable practices that were unethical at best and illegal at worst. The fact that the Gore campaign only requested recounts in counties he won is very telling -- any 1st year political science major can tell you that recounts almost always result in finding more votes for the candidate who won the initial count. Gore was looking to pick up votes he lost in other parts of the state by requesting a recount. Plus, there was the military ballot exclusion issue.

Let's also remember that the 5-4 decision was to stop the recount; however, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Bush on the actual merits of the case and the unconstitutionality of the Florida Supreme Court's decision (a supreme court entirely made up of Democratic appointees).

Regardless, Florida was a cluster****.

Didn't every recount by the various news organizations still have bush winning?

[yermom]

The point is Bush and Gore were both lame. And Nader boned Gore by out greening him.

[SicEmBaylor]

Didn't every recount by the various news organizations still have bush winning?

There was variance depending on which counting system the news organization was using. It seems like CNN, for example, had Gore winning assuming those three trouble counties were re-counted to the Gore campaign's satisfaction. However, I believe it was generally agreed that a statewide recount would result in Bush winning.

[Serenity Now]

There was variance depending on which counting system the news organization was using. It seems like CNN, for example, had Gore winning assuming those three trouble counties were re-counted to the Gore campaign's satisfaction. However, I believe it was generally agreed that a statewide recount would result in Bush winning. I don't want to disagree with you. You're pretty good with facts. What I read said that, if the recount that the supremes stopped were finished, that bush would have won. But, a full statewide recount would have seen gore win. Gore should really have kicked nader's arse.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

... a full statewide recount would have seen gore win. Gore should really have kicked nader's arse.Do you think America as founded is a bad country?

[dwarthog]

I don't want to disagree with you. You're pretty good with facts. What I read said that, if the recount that the supremes stopped were finished, that bush would have won. But, a full statewide recount would have seen gore win. Gore should really have kicked nader's arse.

These guys aren't so certain of that.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/


I saw this little tidbit the other day. (141 counties with more voters on the rolls than people in the county)

http://publicinterestlegal.org/election-law-live/scores-of-counties-put-on-notice-about-corrupted-voter-rolls/

This needs to get cleaned up ASAFP.

[yermom]

Do you think America as founded is a bad country?

what are you rambling about now?

[Serenity Now]

These guys aren't so certain of that.

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/



I would defer to that. I read it in some New Yorker op-ed that dealt more with the Court and their perceived over reach. I think it was a backhanded swipe to try to say that if they'd have let the recount that was happening proceed then Bush would have won anyway.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

what are you rambling about now?Crazy card tossed. Who you trying to fool?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Quote Originally Posted by yermom
what are you rambling about now?
Crazy card tossed. Who you trying to fool?Both you and serenity would impress everyone by giving an honest answer to the question of whether you are/were unhappy(please expound) with America as founded.

[yermom]

Explain the thought process of the post I responded to, and I'll answer your question.

As asked I can only imagine you'd like to go back to the days when only white land owning males could vote, and there were no labor laws, and humans could be owned as property.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Explain the thought process of the post I responded to, and I'll answer your question.

As asked I can only imagine you'd like to go back to the days when only white land owning males could vote, and there were no labor laws, and humans could be owned as property.I was not considering legal slavery. I would think in your wildest imagination you wouldn't expect neither I nor practically anyone else in America would believe that is good. I was referring to the government not abusing commerce clause as their doing so is always the case when democrats run the government. Serenity was rehashing the 2000 vote, saying he would prefer that algore would have won. Hence my asking him what he thought of America as founded. As for voting, I would expect that the founders would be aghast at open borders and no photo ID required for voting, as well as other voter fraud things going on, that attempt to get democrats into office. In other words, you can be flippant, but it's not fooling anyone, except your fellow travelers.

[yermom]

The founders were obviously wrong about a few things.

I don't seem to remember the part in the Constitution about closed borders though. What would you base the founding fathers' thoughts on that from?

[Serenity Now]

I was not considering legal slavery. I would think in your wildest imagination you wouldn't expect neither I nor practically anyone else in America would believe that is good. I was referring to the government not abusing commerce clause as their doing so is always the case when democrats run the government. Serenity was rehashing the 2000 vote, saying he would prefer that algore would have won. Hence my asking him what he thought of America as founded. As for voting, I would expect that the founders would be aghast at open borders and no photo ID required for voting, as well as other voter fraud things going on, that attempt to get democrats into office. In other words, you can be flippant, but it's not fooling anyone, except your fellow travelers.
I don't even know if I voted for gore. I was not a gore fan.

I like the America that the founders envisioned. Freedom of religion. A military that protected the country not engaged in wars all across the world drumming up enemies And creating things like Taliban, al-q, and Isis. Shock and awe baby!!!!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I don't even know if I voted for gore. I was not a gore fan.

I like the America that the founders envisioned. Freedom of religion. A military that protected the country not engaged in wars all across the world drumming up enemies And creating things like Taliban etc. Shock and awe baby!!!!Speaks for itself. Thanks.

[yermom]

Speaks for itself. Thanks.

Just keep your head in the sand and ignore facts. Where do you think they got their training and weapons from?

See also 80's Iraq.

[Serenity Now]

Speaks for itself. Thanks.

I've said here before that I voted for bush 1, bush 1, h Ross Perot, I don't remember in 2000, bush 2 in 2004, and the Obama. I don't remember who in 2000. I was not a fan of gore. How is that hard to grasp?

Reagan helped create the Taliban by arming the mullahs against Russia. Then there's Iran contra. Remember those pics of "shock and awe" Rumsfeld chumming it up with saddam? We created Isis by The vacuum we created and the civilian casualties in excess of 100,000. That's a built in reason for jihadis. You're not that dense.

[SicEmBaylor]

I've said here before that I voted for bush 1, bush 1, h Ross Perot, I don't remember in 2000, bush 2 in 2004, and the Obama. I don't remember who in 2000. I was not a fan of gore. How is that hard to grasp?

Reagan helped create the Taliban by arming the mullahs against Russia. Then there's Iran contra. Remember those pics of "shock and awe" Rumsfeld chumming it up with saddam? We created Isis by The vacuum we created and the civilian casualties in excess of 100,000. That's a built in reason for jihadis. You're not that dense.

You're right about all of that. But, let's not be too harsh with Reagan arming the mujahadeen. Global interests constantly change. The alternative to Reagan's pragmatism is idealism -- an ideological based foreign policy is precisely how Iraq happened, how Afghanistan became a cluster****, and the insane support for the Arab Spring. The opposite of Reagan's pragmatism is this god-awful Wilsonian-Trotskyesque abomination known as neoconservatism which is also more prominent than it should be on the left.

Long story short -- nobody predicted that arming the Afghans would lead to planes being flown into the WTC little more than a decade later. At that point in time, it was absolutely in the interest of the United States to arm the Afghans against the Soviet invasion. However, I would argue that the first Gulf War is more directly responsible for the rise in anti-American sentiment in the region. The sheer number of American troops in the region combined with the fact that we kept a heavy presence in the region after the Gulf War is a major factor in the rise of jihadism.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Reagan helped create the Taliban by arming the mullahs against Russia. Then there's Iran contra. Remember those pics of "shock and awe" Rumsfeld chumming it up with saddam? We created Isis by The vacuum we created and the civilian casualties in excess of 100,000. That's a built in reason for jihadis. You're not that dense(obligatory stupid card played)I know you think radical Islam was caused by the horror that is America. Your answer here of course doesn't talk about absurd rules of engagement nor nearly completely pulling out of the area and leaving incredible amounts of armaments for the jihadis. Thanks Obear. Your love for America and freedom is quite apparent.

[SicEmBaylor]

(obligatory stupid card played)I know you think radical Islam was caused by the horror that is America. Your answer here of course doesn't talk about absurd rules of engagement nor nearly completely pulling out of the area and leaving incredible amounts of armaments for the jihadis. Thanks Obear. Your love for America and freedom is quite apparent.

United States foreign policy is *precisely* what created radical Islam and the subsequent calls for jihad against the United States and American interests. It never ceases to amaze me when the same people who say government can't do anything right at home (they can't) turn around and refuse to acknowledge that the United States has done anything wrong abroad (they have). The United States government is as inept and hamfisted abroad as they are at home. Very little of what the United States does internationally is a net-positive for the United States beyond trade agreements between economies equitable to our own. Of course they negate that with NAFTA and the TPP so that's a wash.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

United States foreign policy is *precisely* what created radical Islam and the subsequent calls for jihad against the United States and American interests. It never ceases to amaze me when the same people who say government can't do anything right at home (they can't) turn around and refuse to acknowledge that the United States has done anything wrong abroad (they have). The United States government is as inept and hamfisted abroad as they are at home. Very little of what the United States does internationally is a net-positive for the United States beyond trade agreements between economies equitable to our own. Of course they negate that with NAFTA and the TPP so that's a wash.America foreign policy as a cause for Radical Islam and jihadism that goes back to the 7th century or whenever is a primary focus of the Left, although not nearly as much when their party(democrat) is in power. It also is for Libertarians and Sicem. I fully understand that, and don't expect any of you to ever believe differently.

[yermom]

Sweet strawman bro

[Serenity Now]

America foreign policy as a cause for Radical Islam and jihadism that goes back to the 7th century or whenever is a primary focus of the Left, although not nearly as much when their party(democrat) is in power. It also is for Libertarians and Sicem. I fully understand that, and don't expect any of you to ever believe differently.

Radical Islam has always been there. If it was a small brush pile fire, we did our part to make it a dumpster fire. Take an 18 year old, place him in a country that has the infrastructure blown to bits and then have one of his innocent family members killed by "shock and awe" and it becomes less about a religious sect and more about revenge.

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/

As a chicken hawk, I wouldn't expect you to believe anything less than "We are America. We are great. It says it on my hat. They will greet us like liberators."

[Serenity Now]

I was not considering legal slavery. I would think in your wildest imagination you wouldn't expect neither I nor practically anyone else in America would believe that is good. I was referring to the government not abusing commerce clause as their doing so is always the case when democrats run the government. Serenity was rehashing the 2000 vote, saying he would prefer that algore would have won. Hence my asking him what he thought of America as founded. As for voting, I would expect that the founders would be aghast at open borders and no photo ID required for voting, as well as other voter fraud things going on, that attempt to get democrats into office. In other words, you can be flippant, but it's not fooling anyone, except your fellow travelers.

Our founders would be aghast at the Texas model of requiring voter ID's but then not making voter ID's more accessible. I think, much like Jesus, they'd be aghast at a lot that's going on in both parties.

[TAFBSooner]

The founders were obviously wrong about a few things.

I don't seem to remember the part in the Constitution about closed borders though. What would you base the founding fathers' thoughts on that from?

Let me answer that for Rush: "The Founding Fathers were great men, I am a good man, I believe in closed borders, therefore the FF would have been aghast at open borders."

Personally, I'm pretty sure a controlling faction of the FF were in favor of at least one sort of "immigration," as the Constitution as written prohibited interference in the importation of slaves "prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight."

[TAFBSooner]

You're right about all of that. But, let's not be too harsh with Reagan arming the mujahadeen. Global interests constantly change. The alternative to Reagan's pragmatism is idealism -- an ideological based foreign policy is precisely how Iraq happened, how Afghanistan became a cluster****, and the insane support for the Arab Spring. The opposite of Reagan's pragmatism is this god-awful Wilsonian-Trotskyesque abomination known as neoconservatism which is also more prominent than it should be on the left.

Long story short -- nobody predicted that arming the Afghans would lead to planes being flown into the WTC little more than a decade later. At that point in time, it was absolutely in the interest of the United States to arm the Afghans against the Soviet invasion. However, I would argue that the first Gulf War is more directly responsible for the rise in anti-American sentiment in the region. The sheer number of American troops in the region combined with the fact that we kept a heavy presence in the region after the Gulf War is a major factor in the rise of jihadism.

Two decades, FWIW, but ol' Zbig stands by the decision, the spalpeen.

[SoonerProphet]

You're right about all of that. But, let's not be too harsh with Reagan arming the mujahadeen. Global interests constantly change. The alternative to Reagan's pragmatism is idealism -- an ideological based foreign policy is precisely how Iraq happened, how Afghanistan became a cluster****, and the insane support for the Arab Spring. The opposite of Reagan's pragmatism is this god-awful Wilsonian-Trotskyesque abomination known as neoconservatism which is also more prominent than it should be on the left.

Long story short -- nobody predicted that arming the Afghans would lead to planes being flown into the WTC little more than a decade later. At that point in time, it was absolutely in the interest of the United States to arm the Afghans against the Soviet invasion. However, I would argue that the first Gulf War is more directly responsible for the rise in anti-American sentiment in the region. The sheer number of American troops in the region combined with the fact that we kept a heavy presence in the region after the Gulf War is a major factor in the rise of jihadism.

I get the affinity for Saint Ronnie and the reluctance to associate him with political stupidity but your are letting him off the hook. Or meddling and overt support of ISI in Pakistan leads directly to the world wide jihadi movement we see today. No massive funding of the jihadi groups, no looking the other way as Arab nationals flood in as "freedom fighters"' no CIA training manuals, etc...I am hard pressed to find any pragmatic thought in giving massive amounts of weapons and cash to a bunch of Islamic nuts. I will agree with the notion the GW1 gave the likes of OBL the fuel to feed his hatred of the infidel. Our presence on holy soil and our support of the corrupt House of Saud was further ammo for jihad against us.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Long before Reagan, the sheet heads in the middle east were screwing with each other and terrorizing around the globe.

[hawaii 5-0]

Can't we all just get along and let Dlck and Lez Cheney re-write history the way they see fit ?


5-0

[Serenity Now]

Long before Reagan, the sheet heads in the middle east were screwing with each other and terrorizing around the globe.

True. There's always been a flame there. We've provided fuel and wind.

[Ton Loc]

True. There's always been a flame there. We've provided fuel and wind.

And a new target. Reagan wasn't any better than the rest of them. It's just that what he screwed up didn't really affect the people in power (whitey). Plus, there was no internet, forums, information, 24 hour news cycle, etc. to screw him over.

[Tear Down This Wall]

True. There's always been a flame there. We've provided fuel and wind.

It might be fun to pretend that. But, underage boy-raping muslims have been terrorizing for over a thousand years, long before America was even discovered and settled.

Buy a history book or two.

[SicEmBaylor]

America foreign policy as a cause for Radical Islam and jihadism that goes back to the 7th century or whenever is a primary focus of the Left, although not nearly as much when their party(democrat) is in power. It also is for Libertarians and Sicem. I fully understand that, and don't expect any of you to ever believe differently.

Jihadism certainly pre-dates the existence of the United States, but jihadism directed at the United States does not. Clearly, I was speaking of the latter. American policies in the mid-east are directly responsible for anti-American sentiment which has destabilized the region and threatened our security. There's no arguing otherwise.

[FaninAma]

Radical Islam has always been there. If it was a small brush pile fire, we did our part to make it a dumpster fire. Take an 18 year old, place him in a country that has the infrastructure blown to bits and then have one of his innocent family members killed by "shock and awe" and it becomes less about a religious sect and more about revenge.

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/

As a chicken hawk, I wouldn't expect you to believe anything less than "We are America. We are great. It says it on my hat. They will greet us like liberators."

I think our involvement in the Middle East since WWII has certainly destabilized the political dynamics of that part of the world but let's not forget why the Middle East became so important in the first place....the discovery of oil and the ever increasing demand of said resource by the rest of the world.

But even before the world sought to control this important resource Islam has been a source of instability to both the countries in the region and those outside of the region. The sectarian war between the Shias and the Sunnis has been going on for centuries and when they weren't at each others' throats they were attacking other countires. In fact if not for the Franks defeating the Muslims(Moors) at the Battle of Tours, Europe may well have fallen under the sway of Islam. Thank God(literally) for the Franks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours

The point being, Islam is not the religion that stable societies are built on. If the US and the West had not initiated the current unrest with the overthrow of Mossadeq and continuing until the current Iraq/ISIS disaster there would have been some other country or incident that started this whole mess into motion because that's just how Islam rolls which means the region and the countries under the influence of that religion will always be a tinder box.

Personally, I would prefer the US stay out of that quagmire as much as possible and let the ancient shiekdoms fight it out to the death among themselves.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Jihadism certainly pre-dates the existence of the United States, but jihadism directed at the United States does not. Clearly, I was speaking of the latter. American policies in the mid-east are directly responsible for anti-American sentiment which has destabilized the region and threatened our security. There's no arguing otherwise.

Anti-American baloney. They rape and kill each other and always have. If it doesn't turn east and stick its butt up in the air five times a day to their liking, they kill it, American or not.

They are gross, backward savages who deserve their perpetually unsettled state of living. If any Western leader had a shred of ball hair left, the whole region would have been turned to glass under a hail of nuclear weaponry decades ago.

Their countries are so sh*tty and their savagery against one another is so fierce that their citizenry is desperately trying to emigrate to Europe, causing a crises there.

[Serenity Now]

I think our involvement in the Middle East since WWII has certainly destabilized the political dynamics of that part of the world but let's not forget why the Middle East became so important in the first place....the discovery of oil and the ever increasing demand of said resource by the rest of the world.

But even before the world sought to control this important resource Islam has been a source of instability to both the countries in the region and those outside of the region. The sectarian war between the Shias and the Sunnis has been going on for centuries and when they weren't at each others' throats they were attacking other countires. In fact if not for the Franks defeating the Muslims(Moors) at the Battle of Tours, Europe may well have fallen under the sway of Islam. Thank God(literally) for the Franks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tours

The point being, Islam is not the religion that stable societies are built on. If the US and the West had not initiated the current unrest with the overthrow of Mossadeq and continuing until the current Iraq/ISIS disaster there would have been some other country or incident that started this whole mess into motion because that's just how Islam rolls which means the region and the countries under the influence of that religion will always be a tinder box.

Personally, I would prefer the US stay out of that quagmire as much as possible and let the ancient shiekdoms fight it out to the death among themselves.

Good points. English coloniolism should take a turn at the table as well. Countries like Iraq should have been divided up culturally and not by some map maker in London.

[FaninAma]

Good points. English coloniolism should take a turn at the table as well. Countries like Iraq should have been divided up culturally and not by some map maker in London.
Yep, the stupid Brits started most of this current mess then just dropped the bag of flaming dog crap into good ol' Uncle Sam's lap shortly after WWII.

I am not a big fan of the British.

[SoonerProphet]

H


Their countries are so sh*tty and their savagery against one another is so fierce that their citizenry is desperately trying to emigrate to Europe, causing a crises there.

So the peoples of Syria, Libya, and Iraq are fleeing their homelands because they are inherently prone to "savagery". In your mind it has nothing to do with what Western powers unleashed on their nations? Seems reasonable.

[SicEmBaylor]

H

So the peoples of Syria, Libya, and Iraq are fleeing their homelands because they are inherently prone to "savagery". In your mind it has nothing to do with what Western powers unleashed on their nations? Seems reasonable.

The ideological inconsistency of believing government can do no right at home and no wrong abroad never ceases to amaze me. The fact that people can honestly make these arguments astounds me. Government is even more inept, ham fisted, and evil abroad as it is at home. Our actions have consequences. Denying there are consequences for our actions is an argument an 8 year old would make. One of the most important contributing factors to our Revolution was the presence of British 'boots on the ground' in our streets and our homes. In the mid-east, we are foreign boots on their ground and in their homes. They're going to resist it every bit as much as we resisted it in 1775.

Surprise, surprise...manipulating mid-east governments, toppling regimes (covertly or otherwise), placing troops on their soil, busting down their doors with squads of marines, the death of civilians (whether intentional or not), bombings, cruise missile attacks, etc. does not lead to pro-American good will type sentiment.

[Serenity Now]

The ideological inconsistency of believing government can do no right at home and no wrong abroad never ceases to amaze me. The fact that people can honestly make these arguments astounds me. Government is even more inept, ham fisted, and evil abroad as it is at home. Our actions have consequences. Denying there are consequences for our actions is an argument an 8 year old would make. One of the most important contributing factors to our Revolution was the presence of British 'boots on the ground' in our streets and our homes. In the mid-east, we are foreign boots on their ground and in their homes. They're going to resist it every bit as much as we resisted it in 1775.

Surprise, surprise...manipulating mid-east governments, toppling regimes (covertly or otherwise), placing troops on their soil, busting down their doors with squads of marines, the death of civilians (whether intentional or not), bombings, cruise missile attacks, etc. does not lead to pro-American good will type sentiment.

Think about a 17 year old british colonist who lost a sister to a british army shelling. That 17 year old boy would lose all sense of rationalism and fight those that killed his innocent family members, those boots on the ground.


"Shock and awe". I was a W. supporter from 9/11 forward. When Rumsfeld said that I got the look my pug gets when I whistle/hum. The lack of any understanding that the actions that they took in "revenge" would have consequences long into the future is really hurting us now.

[Tear Down This Wall]

H

So the peoples of Syria, Libya, and Iraq are fleeing their homelands because they are inherently prone to "savagery". In your mind it has nothing to do with what Western powers unleashed on their nations? Seems reasonable.

Yes. That is exactly right. If their countries weren't such sh*tholes with government who could not give less of a crap about them, groups like ISIS wouldn't spring up and drive them out.

On the whole, these people are ignorant as f*ck. They allow the most ignorant among them to arm up and terrorize them while their governments/dictatorships stand by and watch it all unfold.

They get what they deserve. They are wholly unable to govern or protect themselves. And, so, there they are, scattering like the cockroaches they are into Europe...where their kids will bomb, rape, cut off heads, kill their own daughters, etc. just as they do everywhere they go.

Islam a sick "religion" full of vile savages.

[Serenity Now]

Yes. That is exactly right. If their countries weren't such sh*tholes with government who could not give less of a crap about them, groups like ISIS wouldn't spring up and drive them out.

On the whole, these people are ignorant as f*ck. They allow the most ignorant among them to arm up and terrorize them while their governments/dictatorships stand by and watch it all unfold.

They get what they deserve. They are wholly unable to govern or protect themselves. And, so, there they are, scattering like the cockroaches they are into Europe...where their kids will bomb, rape, cut off heads, kill their own daughters, etc. just as they do everywhere they go.

Islam a sick "religion" full of vile savages.

I like your platform Mr. Trump.

I was gonna go with a Dick Cheney reference but this seemed more timely.

[Tear Down This Wall]

Think about a 17 year old british colonist who lost a sister to a british army shelling. That 17 year old boy would lose all sense of rationalism and fight those that killed his innocent family members, those boots on the ground.


"Shock and awe". I was a W. supporter from 9/11 forward. When Rumsfeld said that I got the look my pug gets when I whistle/hum. The lack of any understanding that the actions that they took in "revenge" would have consequences long into the future is really hurting us now.

Bullsh*t. The problem is, unlike a South Korea, or any number of other countries we saved or freed during WWI and WWII, these people are too stupid to govern themselves because they give their fate to these ignorant as f*ck islamic leaders at their mosques.

The lesson of Iraq is that the islamic masses are too stupid to know what to do with the freedom you give them. As for Syria, it was long ago established that their dictator couldn't give less of of a f*ck about his own citizenry.

[Serenity Now]

Bullsh*t. The problem is, unlike a South Korea, or any number of other countries we saved or freed during WWI and WWII, these people are too stupid to govern themselves because they give their fate to these ignorant as f*ck islamic leaders at their mosques.

The lesson of Iraq is that the islamic masses are too stupid to know what to do with the freedom you give them. As for Syria, it was long ago established that their dictator couldn't give less of of a f*ck about his own citizenry.

Or, it might be that we still have a presence in Japan, Germany and South Korea...

[Serenity Now]

Bullsh*t. The problem is, unlike a South Korea, or any number of other countries we saved or freed during WWI and WWII, these people are too stupid to govern themselves because they give their fate to these ignorant as f*ck islamic leaders at their mosques.

The lesson of Iraq is that the islamic masses are too stupid to know what to do with the freedom you give them. As for Syria, it was long ago established that their dictator couldn't give less of of a f*ck about his own citizenry.

I think you're ignoring what we've learned from some captured "jihadis".

[SoonerProphet]

Talk about needing to read a history book or two, geez.

[Tear Down This Wall]

I think you're ignoring what we've learned from some captured "jihadis".

Yes, because I'm not to be naive enough to believe that Near and Middle East were peaceful until 2003. The buggers of islam will use any excuse they can to kill each other over the way one faction or another worship the underage boy screwing mohammed.

If their countries were so f'ing great, why do they want to go to Europe? Canada? America? Why do they try so hard to get into our universities and not the other way around?

Stupid, dirt breathing inbreeds.

[Ton Loc]

Yes, because I'm not to be naive enough to believe that Near and Middle East were peaceful until 2003. The buggers of islam will use any excuse they can to kill each other over the way one faction or another worship the underage boy screwing mohammed.

If their countries were so f'ing great, why do they want to go to Europe? Canada? America? Why do they try so hard to get into our universities and not the other way around?

Stupid, dirt breathing inbreeds.

I sorta wish some people (you) could have been born on the other side of an imaginary line drawn on a map. I imagine this would change their perspective and opinion pretty quickly.

[Tear Down This Wall]

I sorta wish some people (you) could have been born on the other side of an imaginary line drawn on a map. I imagine this would change their perspective and opinion pretty quickly.

SO, if only I'd been born in an islamic country, I'd understand and better accept the raping of young boys, female genital mutilation, cutting off hands for theft, killing for adultery, not allowing women to attend school, beheading people, murdering of daughters, burning alive other muslims in cages if they don't agree with me, etc.?

Yeah, sure. Keep wishing. Be thankful you weren't born into such trash because that's all it is.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

SO, if only I'd been born in an islamic country, I'd understand and better accept the raping of young boys, female genital mutilation, cutting off hands for theft, killing for adultery, not allowing women to attend school, beheading people, murdering of daughters, burning alive other muslims in cages if they don't agree with me, etc.?

Yeah, sure. Keep wishing. Be thankful you weren't born into such trash because that's all it is.Amazing that those who go after Christians so aggressively don't seem to deliver anywhere near that aggression towards Islam, the real perpetrator of terror in the 21st century.

[TAFBSooner]

SO, if only I'd been born in an islamic country, I'd understand and better accept the raping of young boys, female genital mutilation, cutting off hands for theft, killing for adultery, not allowing women to attend school, beheading people, murdering of daughters, burning alive other muslims in cages if they don't agree with me, etc.?

Yeah, sure. Keep wishing. Be thankful you weren't born into such trash because that's all it is.

Not necessarily. More likely you would understand wanting to get across the line and away from the fundamentalist Islamic mofos.