obama sending more troops

[Hotdiggity11]

Reagan did not do that, Bush the Elder and Bush the Lesser did that.

Sure he did. Barry Goldwater even attacked the GOP during the Reagan Administration for allowing the Moral Majority and other groups to get into the party. Reagan could have easily denounced them but they were convenient for his voting base and accompanied his crusades on abortion, drug control, and other morality platform views. George H.W. certainly hindered the GOP even further but the entrance of the Social Conservatives into the party started during the Reagan era, and he sure as hell didn't mind it occurring as Reagan himself was one.

[curious]

Sure he did. Barry Goldwater even attacked the GOP during the Reagan Administration for allowing the Moral Majority and other groups to get into the party. Reagan could have easily denounced them but they were convenient for his voting base and accompanied his crusades on abortion, drug control, and other morality platform views. George H.W. certainly hindered the GOP even further but the entrance of the Social Conservatives into the party started during the Reagan era, and he sure as hell didn't mind it occurring as Reagan himself was one.

I was in my early 20s when President Reagan was elected. I was running my own construction business. What I remember about this period is how bad the economy was during the Carter depression and President Reagan gave everyone real hope. I remember how the stock market began moving up after so many years as a bear market. I remember how construction projects got going after so many years of double digit interest rates when NOTHING was being built.

I don't remember anything about the moral majority business. I remember thinking those right wing religious types were fruitcakes. I always thought that the talk about them taking over the Republican party was comic relief. I never took them seriously.

I thought that moral majority business got started with Bush the Elder and Gingrich.

President Reagan didn't need those assholes. He could have totally discredited them with one speech.

Why did he allow them to destroy the Republican Party?

[Hotdiggity11]

I was in my early 20s when President Reagan was elected. I was running my own construction business. What I remember about this period is how bad the economy was during the Carter depression and President Reagan gave everyone real hope. I remember how the stock market began moving up after so many years as a bear market. I remember how construction projects got going after so many years of double digit interest rates when NOTHING was being built.

I don't remember anything about the moral majority business. I remember thinking those right wing religious types were fruitcakes. I always thought that the talk about them taking over the Republican party was comic relief. I never took them seriously.

I thought that moral majority business got started with Bush the Elder and Gingrich.

President Reagan didn't need those assholes. He could have totally discredited them with one speech.

Why did he allow them to destroy the Republican Party?

Moral Majority started with Jerry Falwell and a little later Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition came along as well. Barry Goldwater became increasingly cynical towards the GOP as a result of people like Falwell having increasing influence in the party and even criticized the notion of not allowing gays in the military with the "They don't need to be straight to shoot straight" comment. As well as the Religious Right wanting the government to increase the amount of morality laws, most of which is essentially government intervention into private affairs. Newt Gingrich started the "Contract with America" in 1994, which was an entirely different matter.


As I said, Reagan was for the most part a Social Conservative. He preached fiscal responsibility but didn't mind debt. Preached small government but increased the War on Drugs which, to this day, is an absolute failure which has done little to get drugs out of the system and puts tens of thousands of people in jail just for possession and personal use [I'm in favor of putting people in jail for non-taxed distribution though].


As far as I'm concerned, there hasn't been a true Conservative Republican to reach the General Elections since Goldwater in 1964 and he got destroyed by Johnson [Which is probably why the GOP had to move away from strictly following that platform to begin with].

[curious]

Moral Majority started with Jerry Falwell and a little later Pat Robertson and the Christian Coalition came along as well. Barry Goldwater became increasingly cynical towards the GOP as a result of people like Falwell having increasing influence in the party and even criticized the notion of not allowing gays in the military with the "They don't need to be straight to shoot straight" comment. As well as the Religious Right wanting the government to increase the amount of morality laws, most of which is essentially government intervention into private affairs. Newt Gingrich started the "Contract with America" in 1994, which was an entirely different matter.


As I said, Reagan was for the most part a Social Conservative. He preached fiscal responsibility but didn't mind debt. Preached small government but increased the War on Drugs which, to this day, is an absolute failure which has done little to get drugs out of the system and puts tens of thousands of people in jail just for possession and personal use [I'm in favor of putting people in jail for non-taxed distribution though].


As far as I'm concerned, there hasn't been a true Conservative Republican to reach the General Elections since Goldwater in 1964 and he got destroyed by Johnson [Which is probably why the GOP had to move away from strictly following that platform to begin with].

I remember hearing about Falwell and Robertson, but I just thought they were clowns. Kind of like that Glenn Beck clown.

I didn't know Reagan expanded the war on drugs. That is the worst thing any politician ever did to this country.

I was too young to remember Johnson vs Goldwater.

[Hotdiggity11]

I remember hearing about Falwell and Robertson, but I just thought they were clowns. Kind of like that Glenn Beck clown.

I didn't know Reagan expanded the war on drugs. That is the worst thing any politician ever did to this country.

I was too young to remember Johnson vs Goldwater.

Falwell and Robertson had a lot of clout in the 80s-the first half of the G.W. Administration. The Christian Coalition had millions of members and subscribers in its prime of the early 90s and Robertson's 700 Club would also get a good amount of viewers. They also manufactured 10s of millions of "voter guides" and distributed them to churches.


Reagan can pretty much be pointed to as the modern figure for the War on Drugs. While it started under Nixon [Advocated and signed the Controlled Substances Act], most of the funding went towards rehabilitation programs rather than capture and incarceration operations as we see today. Carter largely just kept with the Nixon precedent, not passing any significant legislation [That I've read about] in respects to drugs. Reagan started the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, largely known as the "Drug Czar."

[ryanXL977]

maybe curious is not a dittohead, maybe i have him pegged wrong.

summary of gop: they know they wont win with minorities, so they made a grab at whites, and religious zealots. its such a dangerous mix and we saw it implode in the bush admin. these people arent fit to lead. sara palin is a true believer, if she gets in office we are talking end times shit.

she is bascially bush with a vagina hole

[curious]

maybe curious is not a dittohead, maybe i have him pegged wrong.

summary of gop: they know they wont win with minorities, so they made a grab at whites, and religious zealots. its such a dangerous mix and we saw it implode in the bush admin. these people arent fit to lead. sara palin is a true believer, if she gets in office we are talking end times shit.

she is bascially bush with a vagina hole

Dude you need to stop talking shit. First you don't know what you are talking about. Second, you insult people without knowing what they believe or don't believe. Stick to facts and keep the shit talking out of our forum or get off the board.

[reno cool]

The conditions in Russia right before the revolution were very poor due to Russia's loss in WWI. However, despite Russia's loss to Japan in another war, that happened just in 1905, the living standards in Russia in 1913 (the last year before WWI started in 1914) were indeed on par with leading European countries. Any historian knows this. Unlike you, I do not spill bullshit when I say something.

What many fields? Russia was one of the world leaders in science and culture long before the revolution. Those are the fields that heavily depend on talented individuals not a political system. They kept having success under commies not because but despite. The other field they were a leader is military. That was achieved by spending the most of their GDP on military.

They lost approximately 50 million lives due to hunger and people being killed in GULAG. During Stalin years almost one third of the population were prisoners in labor camps working for free. Is that what you call livable standards? After Stalin they got lucky with oil and that kept them going for a while. Not at any point of Russia's history under commies the living standards were even remotely close to the rest of Europe which they once a part of. People were very poor as, again, most of the money went to their military. They were successful in space discovery only because it was part of military program.

They get as much as they worth. Capitalism is not a magic wand.

I don't know, access to education, medicine, life expectancy, sport, you name it. I guess marketing and business wouldn't be on the list. There was hardly any hunger or homelessness,(at least by the 70's) which you couldn't say about the US, or other poorer capitalist countries in this hemisphere.
Look you can discuss the injustices of the Gulag, Stalin's paranoia all you want, you wont get an argument from me, but that's not to say that socialist countries cannot develop and provide for it's citizens better than capitalists. The opposite is true.

[reno cool]

Oh yes, and please tell me how much of American technological innovation is due to the govt investment in NASA. The discoveries then given out to corporations which turn a profit. Please, your idea of free willing capitalism is a good fairy tale at best.

[Data]

but that's not to say that socialist countries cannot develop and provide for it's citizens better than capitalists. The opposite is true.

I happen to be born and raised in one of the socialist countries. I witnessed first hand how wrong your beliefs are. Frankly, I am tired of your nonsense, you are a lost cause.

[andywend]

in


andywend has a very very loos grasp of whats going on in this country. minorities pay back their loans at a higher rate than do whites, so try again.

Ryan, since other contributors to this forum already provided evidence that blacks/hispanics have much higher default rates than whites, there is no need for me to do the same.

Clear evidence has been provided that backs up what I said and completely discredits your claim and your only response is that the evidence wasn't from a source you trust.

Instead of ignoring the repeated requests, why don't you furnish a link from ANY SOURCE that backs up your claim that blacks/hispanics pay back their loans at a higher rate than whites.

Liberals like yourself are normally very experienced when it comes to changing the subject when proven wrong. However, when you do that, it makes you look like an absolute idiot.

Curious, I read your 12 point plan in fixing all that is wrong with our country and its an absolute masterpiece.

In my opinion, until we get a handle on illegal immigration, our country is going to deterioriate further. It really doesn't matter what else we do.

Almost every single other country has strict rules that are enforced when it comes to allowing foreigners to live within the country. With all the problems currently going on in Mexico, I suspect that illegal immigration numbers are going to skyrocket. When you take that into account with Obama increasing our deficit by 1.3 TRILLION every month, it might be quite a while (if ever) before we come out of this recession.

[Shortstop]

andywend is next to be "banned" by Ryan Pelosi.

[wtf]

great post andy

NO COUNTRY CAN WITHSTAND this attack by illegal immigration

and this TIRED old line "that is what made america great" that was before airplanes, high speed boats , cars, trucks and all other technology used to penetrate the borders

if you used that retard ryan logic then why have custom agents at the airports? we should let them walk across the rio but not via airplane?

curious' plan would pay for itself in savings in social services to illegals

[reno cool]

There is no gap in my thinking, there are several falsehoods in yours.
The US economy does not depend on the exploitation of anyone else. That used to be the case, but all resources are fungible commodities now. The days of needing hegemony in a part of the world to have access to resources are over, now you can just buy them on the open market, it is much cheaper.

The problem is that the US government still BEHAVES as if hegemony of an area where resources are located is vital to "US interests". This idea is nonsense of course. We can easily bring all military assets home and our economy will not suffer. We will still be able to buy what we need on the open market. This is cheaper in the long run.

This stopping foreign entanglements in the name of "vested national interests" is the core premise to my thinking. I want such foreign entanglements in the name of "protecting vital US interests", which are almost always exploiting some resource in a way that is bad for the people of that country to stop. The way to stop it is to develop the resources at home, being all military assets abroad home and insist on fair trade with all our trading partners. Then there would be no way to use military power or foreign affairs as a way to advance the interests of the likes of the United Fruit Co., or Shell Oil, or any of a number of other big companies that wield undue influence on these matters.

And since US foreign affairs do nothing to benefit the recipients I guess you would have no problem with eliminating all foreign aid programs at the same time that we bring all overseas military assets home . Since the recipients of this aid don't benefit from it it is in their best interests that America just pull out and have nothing further to do with them.

This is all perfectly fine with me and I even agree with most of your presidential decrees. Although, you might want to ease up on the executions.
The problem is that American Capitalism is all about fighting wars in order to protect the interests of Shell Oil, their friends and beneficiaries. Those are the significant capitalists in play. Same thing applies for bankers and their interests.
If your proposing something that limits these sob's then you'd be called a socialist, or at least liberal.

[andywend]

The problem is that American Capitalism is all about fighting wars in order to protect the interests of Shell Oil, their friends and beneficiaries. Those are the significant capitalists in play. Same thing applies for bankers and their interests.

I hear liberals say things like this all the time but I sure hope they're not stupid enough to actually believe it.

WTF, one of Bush's biggest disappointments as far as I'm concerned was his pro-illegal immigration stance. Throughout his political career, he always got an abnormally high percentage of the hispanic vote for this very reason which brings me to my next point.

There's no question that stopping illegal immigration should be the #1 priority though its crazy to believe that we are going to get any help in this area from Obama and the democrats. What bothers me is I can't see how we are going to get much help from the republican side either.

The cold hard truth is that Blacks and Hispanics are becoming a larger and larger percentage of the U.S. population with each passing year. Its a complete and total waste of time for the republican party to go after the black vote and without decent hispanic support, where will the GOP get the votes down the road to take back control of the country?

If the republican party in general takes the proper hardened stance on illegal immigration, all the democrats have to do is talk about how the GOP is anti-minority and against the "common man" and promise the voters they will stick it to the rich via tax hikes.

Perhaps Curious, Data or someone else can chime in on this:

Under what scenario can the U.S. escape the current Obama/Pelosi/Reid nightmare and then work on stopping illegal immigrants from sucking whatever blood is left in our country?

Does the U.S. have to get so bad that the benefits for illegals to cross the border aren't worth the trouble any longer?

[curious]

Perhaps Curious, Data or someone else can chime in on this:

Under what scenario can the U.S. escape the current Obama/Pelosi/Reid nightmare and then work on stopping illegal immigrants from sucking whatever blood is left in our country?

Does the U.S. have to get so bad that the benefits for illegals to cross the border aren't worth the trouble any longer?

Don't worry, the leftists are sowing the seeds of their own destruction. In every country with a large middle class, when the leftists gained enough power that they could start destroying the country from within, they were successful for a while, until the middle class felt threatened. Then a far right wing "strong man" ran on a campaign of "Us First" and there was a reactionary movement that threw the leftists out of power (and executed a lot of them), and the special rights given to the "them" were not just removed, but restrictions were put on "them". The country also adopted a strong nationalist stance on all important foreign policies, trade, immigration, defense, etc.

What the leftists don't understand about the American people is that we are willing to put up with nonsense and we are very patient, but when we get riled up, we are a terrible force to behold.

It is wrong to say "blacks" as if all black people think alike on these issues. People identify themselves on socio-economic lines, not on "color".

The middle class is going to feel threatened and when they do there is going to be hell to pay. The leftists will be thrown into the trash bin of history and the US will adopt a very strong nationalist America First agenda.

The more Obama institutes these left wing radical anti-American policies the more certain the doom of the leftists becomes. I hope he takes America in a really radical direction so that the day of the leftist traitors' comeuppance is hastened.

The leftists in Europe thought that America was too nationalist before? Just wait till they see what this one world socialist agenda bullshit wreaks on their heads.

I don't think this America First movement is going to come from the Republican party. I think it is going to be a grass roots movement around someone that we have never heard of, a table pounding, venom spewing, war mongering, super patriot who will turn the anger of the middle class on "them".

I think that the terrorists will aid in hastening the coming of a super nationalistic Amerika. Obama is going to gut the intelligence community, he has already started by appointing incompetents to run them. The terrorists are going to do something really horrific and a right wing demagogue is going to step up preaching America First.

[andywend]

It is wrong to say "blacks" as if all black people think alike on these issues. People identify themselves on socio-economic lines, not on "color".

Unfortunately, the numbers don't support this.

Even if you exclude the 2008 election, haven't blacks voted over 90% democratic since the beginning of time? The democrats haven't done a damn thing for them because they know the black vote is in their hip pocket.

The republicans tried on many occassions to reach out to the black community during the Bush administration and the results were disasterous. At least, their efforts with the Hispanics bore a little more fruit but the cost of a soft stance on illegal immigration certainly isn't worth it.

[curious]

It is wrong to say "blacks" as if all black people think alike on these issues. People identify themselves on socio-economic lines, not on "color".

Unfortunately, the numbers don't support this.

Even if you exclude the 2008 election, haven't blacks voted over 90% democratic since the beginning of time?

You are talking about votes I am talking about how people see themselves. These are different things.

People see themselves first in their socio-economic class. Other considerations are always secondary.

Middle class blacks and Hispanics will turn on the leftists when they feel threatened by "them".

[Data]

Under what scenario can the U.S. escape the current Obama/Pelosi/Reid nightmare and then work on stopping illegal immigrants from sucking whatever blood is left in our country?

I disagree with the premise that "illegal immigrants ... sucking whatever blood is left in our country". As a source of cheap labor they are an asset to the economy. To the extent of benefits, they do not steal the benefits, they receive the benefits that are given to them. If you do not like the latter, do not blame them, blame people who give out those benefits.

Does the U.S. have to get so bad that the benefits for illegals to cross the border aren't worth the trouble any longer?

Yes, you pretty much got it right.

Unfortunately, the problem with illegal aliens (IAs) is going to resolve by itself. I wish we had this problem for longer but we won't.

The high number of IAs indicates that economy is booming and that the jobs are plentiful. This is no longer the case. The economy crisis has not reached the bottom, the situation will either get worse or much worse. Once there are no jobs, the IAs will leave in droves. I have read the reports showing decline in the numbers of IAs. I disagree that we should expect an influx of IAs due to worsening conditions across the border. If there are no jobs in either place, the people will stay where cost of living is lower and that is going to be outside of the US.

So, if your problem is AIs then you will get what you wish for.

There is another outcome of this world wide economy crisis that many people, myself included, will find beneficial. Both US main adversaries, the Islamic world and Russia, support their military with the money they get for their oil (to the great extent from us). As the consumption and the price of oil decline during the economical downturns, we are going to see a lot of improvement in this area. We are going to witness "triumphs of diplomacy", the fighting should decline and this is certainly a good thing.

[ryanXL977]

maybe if we didnt rape mexico, if we used our resources to help build up our neighbor, they wouldnt want to leave their country for ours
has anyone addressed this?

[Data]

You are talking about votes I am talking about how people see themselves. These are different things.

People see themselves first in their socio-economic class. Other considerations are always secondary.

I do not understand how does this explain black republicans voting for a black democrat? There seem to be a contradiction.

[Bookman]

Data:

I can't say I agree with all of your posts, but regarding IAs in post #264 you nailed it.

Sorry to read so much venom toward IAs on this board....the IA problem isn't NEAR the top of the problem list in this country.

[ryanXL977]

he is right

IT is such a low priority problem, but like ive said. when things go bad (see germany 1933, etc), people always blame immigrants, everytime
and they the nation collapses.
as usual, the reason we are in this mess is bankers, and phil gramm.

[curious]

I do not understand how does this explain black republicans voting for a black democrat? There seem to be a contradiction.

Because political party does not equal socio-economic class. These are totally different things.

My point was that when the middle class becomes angry and scared enough because of "them" they will turn on the liberals with a vengeance, as has been done in every other society where a large middle class felt threatened or were made to feel threatened by "them". They turned on the leftists and gave their support to a "strong man" who promised to protect the middle class from "them".

My point was that identity with the middle class is socio-economic, not racial. The black middle class will feel just as threatened as the white, red, brown, tan, magneta, purple, blue with pink polkadots, and any other "colorful" middle class you want to name. The idea that there is a "black" community that has a single self identity is wrong. Yes, black voters have been duped into voting overwhelmingly for the DemoCong, but let the black middle class get angry enough and feel threatened enough and the America First party strongman will get their support.

[curious]

There is another outcome of this world wide economy crisis that many people, myself included, will find beneficial. Both US main adversaries, the Islamic world and Russia, support their military with the money they get for their oil (to the great extent from us). As the consumption and the price of oil decline during the economical downturns, we are going to see a lot of improvement in this area. We are going to witness "triumphs of diplomacy", the fighting should decline and this is certainly a good thing.

Data are you turning into a Kumbaya singer? "Let's all just sit in a big circle and hold hands and sing Kumbaya and the world will be a better place". You are not a closet bleeding heart are you?

Triumph by diplomacy will be a HORRIBLE thing, because the leftists will claim the credit for the turn of events and that they were right about "talking is better than fighting", and the bumper sticker media won't tell people that the real reason for the peace was the economic crisis. Then appeasement, defeatism and "peace at all costs" will become ingrained in the public conscience. I much prefer an American populace that has the attitude "**** with us at your own peril mother ****ers".

Far better that we bomb our enemies back into the stone age. Oh, wait, they are in the stone age, what age can we bomb them back into? How about the Pleistocene age?

[Data]

The idea that there is a "black" community that has a single self identity is wrong.

Why? I am not black I do not really know and I never cared much to find out but there is a tone of anecdotical evidence saying otherwise. Unless a given black person is a muslim his/her main self-identity point is being black and belonging to black community. I wonder if you have reference on this matter.

[curious]

Why? I am not black I do not really know and I never cared much to find out but there is a tone of anecdotical evidence saying otherwise. Unless a given black person is a muslim his/her main self-identity point is being black and belonging to black community. I wonder if you have reference on this matter.

So you think that the Ph.D. who lives in Cambridge and works at the physics laboratory at MIT identifies with his "brother" gang bangers in Harlem because they have the same skin color?

[Bookman]

Data are you turning into a Kumbaya singer? "Let's all just sit in a big circle and hold hands and sing Kumbaya and the world will be a better place". You are not a closet bleeding heart are you?

Triumph by diplomacy will be a HORRIBLE thing, because the leftists will claim the credit for the turn of events and that they were right about "talking is better than fighting", and the bumper sticker media won't tell people that the real reason for the peace was the economic crisis. Then appeasement, defeatism and "peace at all costs" will become ingrained in the public conscience. I much prefer an American populace that has the attitude "**** with us at your own peril mother ****ers".

Far better that we bomb our enemies back into the stone age. Oh, wait, they are in the stone age, what age can we bomb them back into? How about the Pleistocene age?

Actually, 'Stone Age' is not an official term in archaeology because the progression to metals occurred at different times in different regions. Most say, however, that the general stone-tool era began 2.5 million years ago, which means it began before the Pleistocene (1.75 million years ago to approximately 10,000 years ago). Interestingly, 4 GOP presidential primary candidates acknowledged publicly in one of the debates that they believe the Earth is but 5,000 years old, meaning they do not believe in a Pleistocene --- or Stone --- age. It is that level of ignorance, founded mainly in the beliefs of the religious right as curious pointed out, that leaves a well informed and open minded voter such as myself only one party to choose from, be it for good or bad.

As for the 'talk vs. war'....you seem to want to blow a lot of people up, curious. Take it from someone who has SEEN the fight and SEEN the unnecessary death (have you?), discussion and diplomacy is CRITICAL if humanity is to survive and thrive in peace. For someone who is so ready to launch the nukes and wipe out half the world, I hope you have served in the military, or encourage your offspring to do so, because no matter how bad-ass a soldier one might be, SEEING war is the only way to know how truly BAD war is.

Peace.

[ryanXL977]

only a madman would talk about death and bombs as opposed to trying to figure it out. as if humans are worth more in the usa, and more deserving of living simply bc of where they were born. anyone who talks like that is a ****ing moron, there is very little reason to talk to someone who says others must die for his causes, while he sits on his cpu and types.
what a pussy

[curious]

As for the 'talk vs. war'....you seem to want to blow a lot of people up, curious. Take it from someone who has SEEN the fight and SEEN the unnecessary death (have you?), discussion and diplomacy is CRITICAL if humanity is to survive and thrive in peace. For someone who is so ready to launch the nukes and wipe out half the world, I hope you have served in the military, or encourage your offspring to do so, because no matter how bad-ass a soldier one might be, SEEING war is the only way to know how truly BAD war is.

Peace.

Never said anything about nukes. Never said anything about wiping out half the world. We are not at war with half the world. We know who are enemies are and we know where they are. I love how any discussion of responding to terrorists attacks with overwhelming force is always turned into "you want to have a nuclear war". I never said that so please do not put words in my mouth.

As Clausewitz said "If you want peace, prepare for war". He did NOT say go sing Kumbaya with your enemies.

History has too many examples of the false security that idiots have been lured into by believing this nonsense that appeasement at all costs is the best policy for it to have any credibility. Our enemies don't want to negotiate with us, they don't want something we have, they don't want a better trade deal, they don't want to take over some land we have. They want to KILL US. All of us, men, women, children, dogs, cats, everyone. They only negotiate to attain some advantage.

Appeasement only makes your enemy stronger while you grow weaker. The enemy we face today is tenacious, dedicated, zealous, and ingenious. They view diplomacy as a weapon to be used against us, and they view us as weak for being stupid enough to fall for that trick. The lesson that Hitler should have taught us only too well.

For our so-called leaders to allow our enemies to obtain nuclear weapons while all they do is talk and talk is treason. Our enemies should have been taught a very clear, very memorable lesson, a lesson so horrific that they would have abandoned forever the idea that they could attain the means to destroy us, which is precisely what they are planning to do.

What do you want to negotiate with the Islamic Jihadists about? The only thing they want to talk to you about is what kind of coffin you want.

Yes, I have seen war up close. I have two bullet holes in my back courtesy of the Iraqi army. I have seen first hand what our enemies do to civilians. I have seen the aftermath of a marketplace blown up by a lunatic Islamic Jihadist because some mullah used the idiot in the great game.

I have seen the hole where the twin towers used to be.

It is the pussies who are willing to talk and talk and talk and not act who embolden these cowards to carry out their attacks on women and children, to use civilians as human shields, to behead female schoolteachers in front of the children because the teachers are working outside the home.

Make the consequences of such monstrous acts horrific to behold and the cowards that are murdering us and our friends will be forced to stop. Nothing else is going to stop them.

What would you have talked to Ben Laden about on 9/12? The only discussion I want to have with him is does he want a blindfold and a last meal before being shot.

No sir, peace at all costs and talking talking talking instead of acting in the face of a determined enemy is suicide. Suicide by idiocy.

[Data]

Data are you turning into a Kumbaya singer? "Let's all just sit in a big circle and hold hands and sing Kumbaya and the world will be a better place". You are not a closet bleeding heart are you?

Unlikely, I post what I think, you be the judge.

Triumph by diplomacy will be a HORRIBLE thing, because the leftists will claim the credit for the turn of events and that they were right about "talking is better than fighting", and the bumper sticker media won't tell people that the real reason for the peace was the economic crisis. Then appeasement, defeatism and "peace at all costs" will become ingrained in the public conscience. I much prefer an American populace that has the attitude "**** with us at your own peril mother ****ers".

Don't you worry, the economical conditions are going to be so bad that nobody is going to notice. The masses are going to give very hard time to the administration.

On a serious note, whatever weakens my enemies is good for me. It is like an invert version of Reagan's Star Wars which caused Soviet Union's collapse.

Far better that we bomb our enemies back into the stone age. Oh, wait, they are in the stone age, what age can we bomb them back into? How about the Pleistocene age?

Sounds like a good plan. Do I wish my enemies dead? I sure do. As the crisis deepens, we may reach a point when the administration may try waging a large scale war to deflect the attention from an imminent complete economical collapse. The administration will need a very strong enemy to line up the masses and blame the economical struggles on that war. Yes, we do have The Bomb but this will not help avoiding terrorist style retaliation with some sort of a bio-weapon or another type of compact warfare that causes high casualties. This is a scenario that I do not want to see coming true.

I would prefer to see Mecca and Medina becoming one of the tourist destination cities just like Vatican. I refuse to see much of ideological difference between Islam and Catholic Church. If Islam loses the resources to fight the Holy War, just like Catholic Church did, it will become just another "peaceful" religion. So, if people can now live along with Catholic Church after all the bloody murders it committed why can't the same happen to Islam? As soon as they stop killing people, I will have very little problem with them. That would be ideal solution. I am a big time pessimist, can't I have something nice to hope for?

[ryanXL977]

first of all,the last administration started a war to deflect attention from the imminent collapse, are you aware of iraq?

and secondly, reagans star wars had as much to do with the soviet collapse as them losing the 1980 hockey gold

it may have sped it up by a week

[curious]

Actually, 'Stone Age' is not an official term in archaeology because the progression to metals occurred at different times in different regions. Most say, however, that the general stone-tool era began 2.5 million years ago, which means it began before the Pleistocene (1.75 million years ago to approximately 10,000 years ago).

Okay, so we will bomb them back into the Pliocene age.

Interestingly, 4 GOP presidential primary candidates acknowledged publicly in one of the debates that they believe the Earth is but 5,000 years old, meaning they do not believe in a Pleistocene --- or Stone --- age. It is that level of ignorance, founded mainly in the beliefs of the religious right as curious pointed out, that leaves a well informed and open minded voter such as myself only one party to choose from, be it for good or bad.
Peace.

I'm not sure what this has to be with me since I'm not a Republican and I detest these fundamentalist, "the Bible is literal", types.

So you now follow the party that is pushing this climate change nonsense. They had to change the name of their nonsense from global warming to climate change because the earth is not warming, so with this new bumper sticker label they can now blame anything on humans. "It is colder than normal this year", "SEEEE, that nasty climate change at work". "It is warmer than normal this year", "SEEEE, that nasty climage change at work".

And the party that is pushing world wide socialism.

And the party that is pushing a long list of equally idiotic ideas.

[Data]

So you think that the Ph.D. who lives in Cambridge and works at the physics laboratory at MIT identifies with his "brother" gang bangers in Harlem because they have the same skin color?

I am not sure what you mean by "identifies with". No matter what, he does likely feel some bond with that person and you saying "brother" did not come out of nowhere, there is a reason to it.

[ryanXL977]

the reason is that every man is a brother, colored or not
you guys seem to think the world is supposed to look at everyone as another person standing in their way

interesting viewpoint, but what that will probably end humanity soon enough