Conservative Political Forum

And yes, there are many of you out there reading this, so here's my question.
After nearly 4 years, it's become glaringly apparent that socialism will never work in this country and after the damage obama has done to the economy as well as this spirit of this nation, will you be voting for him, or someone else?

Please, be honest, and if you say yes, give a reason.

Quote from: Solar on July 14, 2012, 05:55:58 AM
And yes, there are many of you out there reading this, so here's my question.
After nearly 4 years, it's become glaringly apparent that socialism will never work in this country and after the damage obama has done to the economy as well as this spirit of this nation, will you be voting for him, or someone else?

Please, be honest, and if you say yes, give a reason.

Because he's a Leftoid just like they are, and that fact is more important than the good of the country?  :glare:

Quote from: mdgiles on July 14, 2012, 06:12:50 AM
Because he's a Leftoid just like they are, and that fact is more important than the good of the country?  :glare:

Yeah, I know, but I was hoping to hear a lib articulate their reasons, for or against.
If it's for, they are either voting on emotion, or they simply hate the country, there can be no other explanation.

#64 Sound of Crickets Chirping (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBmkor9WF0U#ws)

Quote from: The Boo Man... on July 14, 2012, 08:02:33 AM
#64 Sound of Crickets Chirping (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBmkor9WF0U#ws)

I guess it's safe to assume from their silence, they won't be voting for hussein. :biggrin:

Quote from: Solar on July 14, 2012, 05:55:58 AM
And yes, there are many of you out there reading this, so here's my question.

Strike 1: no lurkers have replied.

QuoteAfter nearly 4 years, it's become glaringly apparent

Strike 2: loaded question.

Quotethat socialism will never work in this country

Strike 3: strawman.

Remember that the 2008 depression occurred under Bush's administration.  At the worst, Obama has worsened it; he didn't actually create it.  The Depression occurred after one of the most conservative decades in our history.  Reagan's term saw one of the worst recessions in our history; do you notice a pattern here?

From a social standpoint, my support for Obama lies in his endorsement of gay marriage and the fact that he is not a religious nut.

QuoteStrike 3: strawman.

Remember that the 2008 depression occurred under Bush's administration.  At the worst, Obama has worsened it; he didn't actually create it.  The Depression occurred after one of the most conservative decades in our history.  Reagan's term saw one of the worst recessions in our history; do you notice a pattern here?

From a social standpoint, my support for Obama lies in his endorsement of gay marriage and the fact that he is not a religious nut.

So now you're blaming Reagan for the mess created by Carter. Interesting you want to blame Bush for Obama screw ups but want to absolve Carter of any blame for the mess Reagan inherited.

I see a pattern alright. You like to blame Republicans and make excuse for Democrats.

I remember Carter's recession.  Mortgage interest rates were around 18%.  And then the peanut man hid out at the White House to mull over what the country's problem was, and he came up with deciding that the citizens of this country were just affected with "Malaise."  Barack Hussein Obama has, and I truly believe this, as his goal the complete destruction of the economic base and the culture of this country.  I believe he is a foreign born Muslim and he is obeying his pedophile "Prophet" to make the world safe for a Grand Caliphate. 

I also remember that Reagan had sent word to Iran that if they did not release the hostages by the time he took office, they would suffer dire consequences.  They released all Americans during the time Reagan was being sworn in.  Carter, when he heard the news, said, eloquent as always, "Right on, man."

Reagan was one of the greatest presidents in the history of this country.  Obama is the worst.  He's way down there with Jimmy Carter who is running a close second.

I want the time to return when I was proud of my America.  When we were prosperous and proud.  When we defended our borders and protected our country.  I long for the time when we had a president with integrity and not a foreign-born Socialist Muslim.   

I want these lily-livered craven cowards out of the Senate and Congress.  I want a real American as president.

Carter created the Department of Energy.

He should never be forgiven for that.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 14, 2012, 12:59:26 PM

From a social standpoint, my support for Obama lies in his endorsement of gay marriage and the fact that he is not a religious nut.

So it doesn't matter that he's economically incompetent? Or that he runs the country the way he'd run the city of Chicago?

Quote from: Charliemyboy on July 14, 2012, 03:00:42 PM
I remember Carter's recession.  Mortgage interest rates were around 18%.  And then the peanut man hid out at the White House to mull over what the country's problem was, and he came up with deciding that the citizens of this country were just affected with "Malaise."  Barack Hussein Obama has, and I truly believe this, as his goal the complete destruction of the economic base and the culture of this country.  I believe he is a foreign born Muslim and he is obeying his pedophile "Prophet" to make the world safe for a Grand Caliphate. 

I also remember that Reagan had sent word to Iran that if they did not release the hostages by the time he took office, they would suffer dire consequences.  They released all Americans during the time Reagan was being sworn in.  Carter, when he heard the news, said, eloquent as always, "Right on, man."

Reagan was one of the greatest presidents in the history of this country.  Obama is the worst.  He's way down there with Jimmy Carter who is running a close second.

I want the time to return when I was proud of my America.  When we were prosperous and proud.  When we defended our borders and protected our country.  I long for the time when we had a president with integrity and not a foreign-born Socialist Muslim.   

I want these lily-livered craven cowards out of the Senate and Congress.  I want a real American as president.

Very accurate and I totally agree.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 14, 2012, 12:59:26 PM
Strike 3: strawman.
From a social standpoint, my support for Obama lies in his endorsement of gay marriage and the fact that he is not a religious nut.

It simply boggles the mind that anyone could think that one's sex life or marital status has any importance whatsoever as compared to the problems this country has or that a president's opinion has any worth in the matter.  The very idea that someone would  cast one's vote for someone on that basis leaves me utterly bewildered.  It just doesn't compute.   

Quote from: Charliemyboy on July 14, 2012, 05:01:40 PM
It simply boggles the mind that anyone could think that one's sex life or marital status has any importance whatsoever as compared to the problems this country has or that a president's opinion has any worth in the matter.  The very idea that someone would  cast one's vote for someone on that basis leaves me utterly bewildered.  It just doesn't compute.

I was getting ready to respond to him, when I hit that statement.
What is the use in responding to someone so hyper focused on one issue, to completely overlook the fact that the guy is Hell bent on our destruction, yet closes his eyes to all but one social issue, screams pure selfishness.

There is no getting through to people like that, they come with but one agenda and that's never good for the whole of the country.

Quote from: Charliemyboy on July 14, 2012, 03:00:42 PM
I remember Carter's recession.  Mortgage interest rates were around 18%.  And then the peanut man hid out at the White House to mull over what the country's problem was, and he came up with deciding that the citizens of this country were just affected with "Malaise."  Barack Hussein Obama has, and I truly believe this, as his goal the complete destruction of the economic base and the culture of this country.  I believe he is a foreign born Muslim and he is obeying his pedophile "Prophet" to make the world safe for a Grand Caliphate. 

I also remember that Reagan had sent word to Iran that if they did not release the hostages by the time he took office, they would suffer dire consequences.  They released all Americans during the time Reagan was being sworn in.  Carter, when he heard the news, said, eloquent as always, "Right on, man."

Reagan was one of the greatest presidents in the history of this country.  Obama is the worst.  He's way down there with Jimmy Carter who is running a close second.

I want the time to return when I was proud of my America.  When we were prosperous and proud.  When we defended our borders and protected our country.  I long for the time when we had a president with integrity and not a foreign-born Socialist Muslim.   

I want these lily-livered craven cowards out of the Senate and Congress.  I want a real American as president.

I sympathize with your sentiments. I too remember the Carter "malaise." What a useless guy; still is. Actually, mortgage rates hit 24% +/- for a while, and even the prime rate was above 21% IIRC. I bought my first house in 1978 at the very ending of what was, for the time, what we would call a housing "bubble" today. Two years later, the bubble had burst, and my house was suddenly worth about 20% less than I owed on it. I finally sold it in 1987 for just about what I'd paid for it, even after making significant improvements. It was a miserable time in the late '70s. It gave us fun new vocabulary terms like "stagflation" and "ayatollah" and "crazed rabbit attack." If not for the Reagan recovery, I'd have lost my ass on the place.

The fact that there is a single person living in the US who would vote for Dear Leader again solely because he supports gay marriage is, well, bewildering to me. It puts me in mind of some of the Occupy freaks the unions were paying to be there, who didn't even know what they were protesting, just doing what they were told.

I guess it's "Screw the other 98% of the population and their problems, we must help the gays get married, and we must avoid having a POTUS who appears to be religious at all cost, nothing else matters, and DL's the guy to get it done." I suppose that sort of thinking is easy on the brain cells, since only two or three of them are doing anything.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 14, 2012, 12:59:26 PM
Strike 1: no lurkers have replied.

Strike 2: loaded question.

Strike 3: strawman.

Remember that the 2008 depression occurred under Bush's administration.  At the worst, Obama has worsened it; he didn't actually create it.  The Depression occurred after one of the most conservative decades in our history.  Reagan's term saw one of the worst recessions in our history; do you notice a pattern here?

From a social standpoint, my support for Obama lies in his endorsement of gay marriage and the fact that he is not a religious nut.

]
"From a social standpoint, my support for Obama lies in his endorsement of gay marriage and the fact that he is not a religious nut."
That truly is sad. That's your logic for voting for him? So now he has this change of heart five months before the election, you want to keep this community organizer and committed Alinskyite in office. This man has done nothing but divided this country on every issue. That's what he's trained to do his entire adult life. He's a radical who abuses his power using his pen and executive order. You have no character.

Quote from: Indy on July 14, 2012, 08:12:51 PM
]
"From a social standpoint, my support for Obama lies in his endorsement of gay marriage and the fact that he is not a religious nut."
That truly is sad. That's your logic for voting for him? So now he has this change of heart five months before the election, you want to keep this community organizer and committed Alinskyite in office. This man has done nothing but divided this country on every issue. That's what he's trained to do his entire adult life. He's a radical who abuses his power using his pen and executive order. You have no character.

It's very typical lib behavior to vote for someone because they have nice eyes, or they change with the polling attitude of the country like Clinton did by sticking his finger in the air to see what makes him most popular, screw doing what's right for the country.
Libs actually think this shows good character in a candidate, that they will do as the squeaky wheel demands.
Libs have no clue what it means to be a Republic, they only hear the word Democracy.

Quote from: Indy on July 14, 2012, 08:12:51 PM
]
"From a social standpoint, my support for Obama lies in his endorsement of gay marriage and the fact that he is not a religious nut."
That truly is sad. That's your logic for voting for him? So now he has this change of heart five months before the election, you want to keep this community organizer and committed Alinskyite in office. This man has done nothing but divided this country on every issue. That's what he's trained to do his entire adult life. He's a radical who abuses his power using his pen and executive order. You have no character.

Now, now. It wasn't a change of heart, exactly. Dear Leader's position "evolved," a word that intrinsically involves progress in a species. The media said so. It's pure coincidence that he just happened to "evolve" a few months before the election, and his "evolved" position, in the tradition of evolution in general, represents a better position than the one he had before -- which hasn't really been discussed much, and isn't really important anyway. The media said that too.

You're just not paying attention to what you're being told. /sarc

Quote from: Solar on July 14, 2012, 08:33:22 PM
It's very typical lib behavior to vote for someone because they have nice eyes

(https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSeFArfLcoRamvU3cPzIPyL3k7gZ4VYZJ-Mmrj1EnQxEJS8aG2x)




LOL, that's obviously not just a Lib thing.   :ttoung:







Question Solar, What good, IYO, will come from a Rom Presidency?

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 14, 2012, 11:12:19 PM

(https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSeFArfLcoRamvU3cPzIPyL3k7gZ4VYZJ-Mmrj1EnQxEJS8aG2x)




LOL, that's obviously not just a Lib thing.   :ttoung:







Question Solar, What good, IYO, will come from a Rom Presidency?

Only time would tell but I think he would stop the class warfare nonsense, put an economic plan together that is coherent and take responsibity, which would be refreshing once again. 

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 14, 2012, 11:12:19 PM

(https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSeFArfLcoRamvU3cPzIPyL3k7gZ4VYZJ-Mmrj1EnQxEJS8aG2x)

LOL, that's obviously not just a Lib thing.   :ttoung:

You really think that's why Conservatives back her?
No, her appearance is only a plus, in that libs hate the fact that most of their representatives are but ugly.

QuoteQuestion Solar, What good, IYO, will come from a Rom Presidency?

Are you seriously asking the obvious?
Mitten could be an complete incompetent, yet would still be better than a commie in the WH.

Why is it you have no problem with the Fabian socialist?
Now look up Fabian Socialist and get back to me.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 14, 2012, 11:12:19 PM

(https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSeFArfLcoRamvU3cPzIPyL3k7gZ4VYZJ-Mmrj1EnQxEJS8aG2x)




LOL, that's obviously not just a Lib thing.   :ttoung:







Question Solar, What good, IYO, will come from a Rom Presidency?

Yes she has nice eyes and the best thing she has a working brain.  It's what you libs are scared of the most.   A good looking woman with a brain. 

I wonder why so many of these Democrat women are so ugly?  Has a study ever been made as to why these women who are as ugly as five miles of bad road are Democrats?  Does it have something to do with revenge on their parents or the world or even God who made them ugly and stupid? Two of them come to mind:

Nancy Pelosi
Hillary Clinton

Nancy Pelosi: "First we have to vote for it to find out what's in it."
Hillary Clinton: (To an audience in a Muslim country) "The president respects Islam above all other religions"  Will she say anything to keep her job or is that religious philosophy acceptable to her?  Maybe she needs to read up a bit on female circumcision and then start spouting such offensive garbage.

And then there's Michelle Obama and her campaign to prevent obesity.  Has she ever even looked in a mirror at that enormous butt?  I know it's a little difficult, but if she stands  just right and the light is good, she could see that humongeous derrier.  It frightens me to say this under the circumstances, but the emperor has no clothes.  Oh, gag.

I think it's really sad that these people who call themselves "Gay," (Does that make the rest of us morose?) seem to believe that my every waking hour is devoted to contemplating what they do in bed or in public or wherever else they do it.  I have disappointing news for them.  I rarely think about them or what they do.  I don't care. Have at it. Just don't do it in the street and scare the horses.  Just leave me alone.

I have important things to think about.

Quote from: Charliemyboy on July 15, 2012, 09:05:53 AM
I think it's really sad that these people who call themselves "Gay," (Does that make the rest of us morose?) seem to believe that my every waking hour is devoted to contemplating what they do in bed or in public or wherever else they do it.  I have disappointing news for them.  I rarely think about them or what they do.  I don't care. Have at it. Just don't do it in the street and scare the horses.  Just leave me alone.

I have important things to think about.

:tounge: :tounge: :tounge: News indeed! Like all lefties, gays think the entire world revolves (or should) around them and their views. To their minds, 2% of the population dictating behaviors and attitudes to the other 98% is okey-dokey.

Quote from: Solar on July 15, 2012, 06:46:40 AM
You really think that's why Conservatives back her?

I think that's why some did. LOL, It obviously wasn't her intellect. 

Quote from: Solar on July 15, 2012, 06:46:40 AM
Mitten could be an complete incompetent, yet would still be better than a commie in the WH.

Oh, Romney might be an idiot, but anythings better than Obama, in Your opinion. Got it.  Sounds worthy of a vote to me.  :blink:

Quote from: Solar on July 15, 2012, 06:46:40 AM
Why is it you have no problem with the Fabian socialist?
Now look up Fabian Socialist and get back to me.

I've explained My issue with both Rom and Obama, why is it You choose to look past this?  I don't like either of them.

Quote from: walkstall on July 15, 2012, 06:53:54 AM

Yes she has nice eyes and the best thing she has a working brain.

LOL!   "In  what respect, Charlie"?    :laugh:


Sarah Mania! Sarah Palin's Greatest Hits (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrzXLYA_e6E#)

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 15, 2012, 10:53:14 AM


LOL!   "In  what respect, Charlie"?    :laugh:


Sarah Mania! Sarah Palin's Greatest Hits (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrzXLYA_e6E#)

She has accomplished more than Charlie Rose ever will.

Keep trying...

Quote from: taxed on July 15, 2012, 11:23:13 AM
She has accomplished more than Charlie Rose ever will.

Keep trying...

Ok. But so has Obama.  LOL, obviously an idiot can accomplish more than poor Charlie.


Keep trying...   

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 15, 2012, 10:44:52 AM
I think that's why some did. LOL, It obviously wasn't her intellect. 

Right, and the media challenged her intellect, only to show just how ignorant the left really is.
Read and learn something.

QuotePalin prompted howls of partisan derision when she said on Boston's Freedom Trail that Revere "warned the British that they weren't going to be taking away our arms by ringing those bells and making sure as he's riding his horse through town to send those warning shots and bells that we were going to be secure and we were going to be free."

Palin insisted yesterday on Fox News Sunday she was right: "Part of his ride was to warn the British that were already there. That, hey, you're not going to succeed. You're not going to take American arms."

In fact, Revere's own account of the ride in a 1798 letter seems to back up Palin's claim. Revere describes how after his capture by British officers, he warned them "there would be five hundred Americans there in a short time for I had alarmed the Country all the way up."
http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2011_0606you_betcha_she_was_right_experts_back_palins_historical_account (http://bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/2011_0606you_betcha_she_was_right_experts_back_palins_historical_account)

QuoteOh, Romney might be an idiot, but anythings better than Obama, in Your opinion. Got it.  Sounds worthy of a vote to me.  :blink:

I've explained My issue with both Rom and Obama, why is it You choose to look past this?  I don't like either of them.

Romney is neither an idiot nor is he a Marxist, Hussein is not an idiot either, but he is anti American in that he disdains Capitalism.
So which would you rather have running the country?
Honest answer, if you're capable.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 15, 2012, 11:32:10 AM

Ok. But so has Obama.  LOL, obviously an idiot can accomplish more than poor Charlie.


Keep trying...

If Obama has accomplished so much, why isn't he running for reelection of the basis of those great accomplishments. He should hardly be mentioning Romney, simply floating ad after ad telling us what a great job he's done.

Quote from: mdgiles on July 15, 2012, 11:38:42 AM
If Obama has accomplished so much, why isn't he running for reelection of the basis of those great accomplishments. He should hardly be mentioning Romney, simply floating ad after ad telling us what a great job he's done.

I believe the Obama camp is exploiting what they believe to be a large weak spot right now, though Im sure Obama's "great accomplishments" will be aired as well, eventually.   :thumbdown:

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 15, 2012, 11:32:10 AM

Ok. But so has Obama. LOL, obviously an idiot can accomplish more than poor Charlie.


Keep trying...

No he hasn't.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 15, 2012, 11:49:35 AM

I believe the Obama camp is exploiting what they believe to be a large weak spot right now, though Im sure Obama's "great accomplishments" will be aired as well, eventually.   :thumbdown:

IF OBAMA ACCOMPLISHED SO MUCH WHY ISN'T HE RUNNING ON THE RECORD OF THOSE ACCOMPLISHMENTS.
If he has a wonderful record, the correct strategy would be  to ignore Romney, and constantly remind the people what a great job he's done. If he had such a great record to run on he should be treating Romney as a nonentity. If he is not running on his record, the question becomes WHY isn't he running on his record.

WHY is he trying to convince us Romney is bad, as opposed to just showing us why Obama is good.

Quote from: mdgiles on July 15, 2012, 12:00:08 PM
IF OBAMA ACCOMPLISHED SO MUCH WHY ISN'T HE RUNNING ON THE RECORD OF THOSE ACCOMPLISHMENTS.
If he has a wonderful record, the correct strategy would be  to ignore Romney, and constantly remind the people what a great job he's done. If he had such a great record to run on he should be treating Romney as a nonentity. If he is not running on his record, the question becomes WHY isn't he running on his record.

WHY is he trying to convince us Romney is bad, as opposed to just showing us why Obama is good.

Because they are running a political race. Obama isn't the first to see a possible weak spot and attack it.

FIFY.

Quote from: Solar on July 14, 2012, 05:19:25 PM
There is no getting through to people like that, they come with but one agenda and that's never good for the whole of the country.

But at least they won't be reproducing. 

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 15, 2012, 12:10:29 PM

Because they are running a political race. Obama isn't the first to see a possible weak spot and attack it.

He can't run on his record because he knows his record sucks.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 15, 2012, 12:10:29 PM

Because they are running a political race. Obama isn't the first to see a possible weak spot and attack it.

BULLSHIT, AND STUPID BULLSHIT AT THAT. If his record is wonderful, there's no need to waste money running negative ads. Period. End of Sentence. It's also bad politics because it's been shown over and over, that people eventual respond badly to AN INCUMBENT that is constantly going negative. Eventually people will wonder why he isn't running on his record. Going negative as an incumbent, tends to spotlight the record.

Quote from: mdgiles on July 15, 2012, 12:30:55 PM
that is constantly going negative.

I'm sure Obama will eventually boast his "great accomplishments." 

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 15, 2012, 12:51:11 PM

I'm sure Obama will eventually boast his "great accomplishments."

Care to name them? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Quote from: Solar on July 15, 2012, 12:54:15 PM
Care to name them? :lol: :lol: :lol:

No, it's Giles that spoke those words Im quoting. Maybe He does?   :popcorn:

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 15, 2012, 12:57:20 PM

No, it's Giles that spoke those words Im quoting. Maybe He does?   :popcorn:

Giles is correct, Hussein can't run on his record, the people know his accomplishment would only look good to Castro and Marx himself and he knows that's not what the American people need to hear...
So he has only one option to attack Mitten.
Critical thinking!
I will keep repeating it till you get it.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 15, 2012, 12:57:20 PM

No, it's Giles that spoke those words Im quoting. Maybe He does?   :popcorn:

Nice try.  But you need work on your reading comprehension.

Quote from: Solar on July 15, 2012, 01:03:17 PM
Giles is correct, Hussein can't run on his record, the people know his accomplishment would only look good to Castro and Marx himself and he knows that's not what the American people need to hear...
So he has only one option to attack Mitten.
Critical thinking!
I will keep repeating it till you get it.

Many believe Obama has done some good things, He'll eventually advertise that dishonesty as well.
Critical thinking, Solar. Just because You believe something doesn't mean everyone else believes the same.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: rich_t on July 15, 2012, 01:06:31 PM
Nice try.  But you need work on your reading comprehension.

Sad isn't it, when a lib has to dodge naming Husein's accomplishments, because they he hasn't any. :lol:

Quote from: Solar on July 15, 2012, 01:09:54 PM
Sad isn't it, when a lib has to dodge naming Husein's accomplishments, because they he hasn't any. :lol:

Hmmm... I can think of one.  b o is very good at deep bowing and kissing ass.  Well make that two accomplishments. 

Quote from: rich_t on July 15, 2012, 01:06:31 PM
Nice try.  But you need work on your reading comprehension.

Nice try? It was Giles who originally said that with sarcasm, I said the same with sarcasm in return. 


It's all still there.  :thumbup:

Quote from: walkstall on July 15, 2012, 01:28:25 PM
Hmmm... I can think of one.  b o is very good at deep bowing and kissing ass.  Well make that two accomplishments.

I think He will eventually run with His supposed BFD healthcare bill, the killing of Bin laden, Gay rights, blah blah etc. For now though I'm sure they'll focus on Bain, because it seems to keep the Romney camp on the defensive.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 15, 2012, 01:33:35 PM

I think He will eventually run with His supposed BFD healthcare bill, the killing of Bin laden, Gay rights, blah blah etc. For now though I'm sure they'll focus on Bain, because it seems to keep the Romney camp on the defensive.

Nope, 2/3rds of the country is against Hussein Care.
He didn't kill Bin Laden, the Military did, and the people know he was more of an interference, then there is the issue of what happened to the Seal Team that carried out the mission, the story the media buried.
Gay rights is not the accomplishment you like to think it is, every state that had a vote on it killed it dead.

Nope, try again, those are nothing to be proud of.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 15, 2012, 01:33:35 PM

I think He will eventually run with His supposed BFD healthcare bill, the killing of Bin laden, Gay rights, blah blah etc. For now though I'm sure they'll focus on Bain, because it seems to keep the Romney camp on the defensive.

Well now it look like b o healthcare bill will go down the drain.   And if killing Ben Laden was all his doing.  Then so is the killing of the Border Patrol agent in Fast and Furious, yep he was the president on watch both times.   Yes then the fags he is giving about 8% special privileges. So much for helping the majority of people.  Hmmm.....When will he talk about real jobs?

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 15, 2012, 01:28:45 PM

Nice try? It was Giles who originally said that with sarcasm, I said the same with sarcasm in return. 


It's all still there.  :thumbup:

Sorry, but Giles did NOT post:

QuoteI'm sure Obama will eventually boast his "great accomplishments." 

YOU did.

Those are your exact words buddy boy.

Quote from: rich_t on July 15, 2012, 02:01:14 PM
Sorry, but Giles did NOT post:

YOU did.

Those are your exact words buddy boy.

Sad isn't it? He considers those accomplishments.

Quote from: Solar on July 15, 2012, 02:09:24 PM
Sad isn't it? He considers those accomplishments.

His attempt to spin his own words is rather sad.

Quote from: rich_t on July 15, 2012, 02:11:23 PM
His attempt to spin his own words is rather sad.

Buyers remorse, he's a man without a party.
Though he hates the fact that he fell for the rhetoric of Hussein, he can't break away form the party, the chains that bind...

Quote from: Solar on July 15, 2012, 02:13:51 PM
Buyers remorse, he's a man without a party.
Though he hates the fact that he fell for the rhetoric of Hussein, he can't break away form the party, the chains that bind...

I didn't leave the Democrat party...  It left me.

Just as the Republican has been working hard to do in the past 20 years or so.

I'm not beholden to any political party these days.

Quote from: rich_t on July 15, 2012, 02:27:59 PM
I didn't leave the Democrat party...  It left me.

Just as the Republican has been working hard to do in the past 20 years or so.

I'm not beholden to any political party these days.

The Pub party left me as well, the only reason I'm a registered Pub is so I have a voice in who goes forth.
Ca is a closed primary system, I have no real option.
But one thing for certain, I don't identify with the RINO running the party into the ground.

Obama had no part in killing Bin Laden other than to say OK.  He dithered about it for months according to those in the know and even then he had a cover story ready to save his butt if it had failed.  Plausable deniability.  Not even Plausable, IMO.  And that picture of him and his motley crew watching so intently as the event was reported to be happening?  It was taken later. 

There was even a picture released of Hussein on the telephone discussing it.  Unfortunately, no one noticed that the telephone he was holding to his ear was a land line with a cord.  He was holding the part with a cord attached to his ear and the other end to his mouth.  If he was talking to anyone at all, he was talking into the earpiece.  That bunch of thugs is too dumb to even know how to hold a telephone, much less run a country.

There have been a number of incidents where his teleprompter stopped working and this idiot just stood there saying nothing.  It would seem to me that even if he couldn't read his speech, he should have some memory of what he wanted to say and ad lib it.  But I guess since he is a puppet, he can't act on his own.   Has to have his bosses' directives all written out.  He is IMO a  Manchurian Candidate, only he was elected and is a candidate again.  God help us.  God save us from those who would vote for him.  God bless America.

Whoever are his handlers should have had his ears pinned back some time ago.  God forbid he should stand in a strong wind.  Talk about the Flying Nun, how about the Flying Dumbo.

Quote from: Indy on July 14, 2012, 08:12:51 PM

That truly is sad. That's your logic for voting for him? So now he has this change of heart five months before the election, you want to keep this community organizer and committed Alinskyite in office. This man has done nothing but divided this country on every issue. That's what he's trained to do his entire adult life. He's a radical who abuses his power using his pen and executive order. You have no character.

What ridiculous nonsense is this?

It is not Obama who makes it a foundation of his rhetoric to divide America into real "Americans" and "anti-Americans"; to openly polarize people between "patriots" and pinheads; to explicitly polarize "with us" and "with the terrorists".  That is divisive.  Hell, we have an established member arguing for the forced conversion or deportation of all muslims; divisive my ass.

Your logic is that a divisive person is one in which many people have disagreements over his/her actions, not whose actions actually create divisiveness.  By this logic, Osama Bin Laden is a great unifying force, because [most of] everyone hates his guts.

Seriously; "you're either with us, or you're with the terrorists" is the single most divisive thing a president could possibly say, ever.

Quote from: Charliemyboy on July 15, 2012, 02:47:39 PM
Obama had no part in killing Bin Laden other than to say OK.  He dithered about it for months according to those in the know and even then he had a cover story ready to save his butt if it had failed.  Plausable deniability.  Not even Plausable, IMO.  And that picture of him and his motley crew watching so intently as the event was reported to be happening?  It was taken later. 

There was even a picture released of Hussein on the telephone discussing it.  Unfortunately, no one noticed that the telephone he was holding to his ear was a land line with a cord.  He was holding the part with a cord attached to his ear and the other end to his mouth.  If he was talking to anyone at all, he was talking into the earpiece.  That bunch of thugs is too dumb to even know how to hold a telephone, much less run a country.

There have been a number of incidents where his teleprompter stopped working and this idiot just stood there saying nothing.  It would seem to me that even if he couldn't read his speech, he should have some memory of what he wanted to say and ad lib it.  But I guess since he is a puppet, he can't act on his own.   Has to have his bosses' directives all written out.  He is IMO a  Manchurian Candidate, only he was elected and is a candidate again.  God help us.  God save us from those who would vote for him.  God bless America.

Whoever are his handlers should have had his ears pinned back some time ago.  God forbid he should stand in a strong wind.  Talk about the Flying Nun, how about the Flying Dumbo.

OMG!!!
How did I never hear about this?
Obviously the media buried it quickly.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imao.us%2Fimg%2Fbarack_answers_the_call.jpg&hash=decc2e82d161b03ee38382ec274804d813fc850e)

Quote from: Solar on July 15, 2012, 04:26:19 PM
OMG!!!
How did I never hear about this?
Obviously the media buried it quickly.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.imao.us%2Fimg%2Fbarack_answers_the_call.jpg&hash=decc2e82d161b03ee38382ec274804d813fc850e)

Hmm...all is see is a box with a red X 
Hope this one will load.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ft1.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcTEWczyJYX8INrtMtKGpqZngYujUge-iUKmlQm0tArT-syLuQteJg&hash=78c23ba96f4fcc831aaa2998cdb41024f3344117)

Quote from: rich_t on July 15, 2012, 02:01:14 PM
Sorry, but Giles did NOT post:

YOU did.

Those are your exact words buddy boy.

Um Sorry, but Giles did post this -

Quote from: mdgiles on July 15, 2012, 11:38:42 AM
If Obama has accomplished so much, why isn't he running for reelection of the basis of those great accomplishments.

I was merely quoting his words, in quotes.  I was even being sarcastic, the hint was the emo giving a thumbs down.  :thumbup:

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 15, 2012, 11:49:35 AM

I believe the Obama camp is exploiting what they believe to be a large weak spot right now, though Im sure Obama's "great accomplishments" will be aired as well, eventually.   :thumbdown:

Quote from: Solar on July 15, 2012, 01:49:20 PM
Nope, 2/3rds of the country is against Hussein Care.
He didn't kill Bin Laden, the Military did, and the people know he was more of an interference, then there is the issue of what happened to the Seal Team that carried out the mission, the story the media buried.
Gay rights is not the accomplishment you like to think it is, every state that had a vote on it killed it dead.

Nope, try again, those are nothing to be proud of.

His base, and those who don't know better, which is a lot in America, are for Obama care. Many people are being allowed back on Their parents insurance, so they see that as a plus, not to mention what they've heard about pre-existing conditions being non existent.   

They also believe Obama was ultimately in charge of the Seal team that killed Osama.

As far as Gay rights goes, under Obama's term, thus far Gays have been allowed to serve Their country openly.  Which is a big step in human rights.

The last two I actually see as good things. The first is a perversion of a good thing. Our healthcare system is broke and needs fixing, but a mandate with insurance company loopholes is not what the people need at all. 

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 15, 2012, 08:14:42 PM

His base, and those who don't know better, which is a lot in America, are for Obama care. Many people are being allowed back on Their parents insurance, so they see that as a plus, not to mention what they've heard about pre-existing conditions being non existent.   

They also believe Obama was ultimately in charge of the Seal team that killed Osama.

As far as Gay rights goes, under Obama's term, thus far Gays have been allowed to serve Their country openly.  Which is a big step in human rights.

The last two I actually see as good things. The first is a perversion of a good thing. Our healthcare system is broke and needs fixing, but a mandate with insurance company loopholes is not what the people need at all.

None of which is supported my the majority of the country, if fact all of this goes against the fabric of this Nation and the people will punish him for all of it.

Now take those few items and add all the crap he's done to the economy, which includes laws restricting business/industry, and BS if you try and claim it's all Bush' fault, this mess should have been over two and a half years ago.

Point is, he has absolutely nothing to run on, so all he has left is to attack and divert attention away form his failures.

Quote from: Solar on July 15, 2012, 08:22:53 PM
None of which is supported my the majority of the country, if fact all of this goes against the fabric of this Nation and the people will punish him for all of it.

He never lied when getting elected about his stance on gay rights, or his wanting to catch Osama, that Im aware of. The people voted for that type of change, and They won hands down. I don't know why You think He'd be punished for that?  Now his healthcare perversion and no end to bush tax cuts, maybe, but I doubt His followers will ever see the lies in there.

 

Quote from: Solar on July 15, 2012, 08:22:53 PM
Now take those few items and add all the crap he's done to the economy, which includes laws restricting business/industry, and BS if you try and claim it's all Bush' fault, this mess should have been over two and a half years ago.

Point is, he has absolutely nothing to run on, so all he has left is to attack and divert attention away form his failures.

I disagree, He has a couple good things (the couple Ive mentioned that I like already), and a few others that people believe to be good things. Not to mention it really doesn't matter, cause many people love Him. Its really scary how cultishly followed so many of these politicians are.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 15, 2012, 08:14:42 PM

His base, and those who don't know better, which is a lot in America, are for Obama care. Many people are being allowed back on Their parents insurance, so they see that as a plus, not to mention what they've heard about pre-existing conditions being non existent.   

They also believe Obama was ultimately in charge of the Seal team that killed Osama.

As far as Gay rights goes, under Obama's term, thus far Gays have been allowed to serve Their country openly.  Which is a big step in human rights.

The last two I actually see as good things. The first is a perversion of a good thing. Our healthcare system is broke and needs fixing, but a mandate with insurance company loopholes is not what the people need at all.

You're right to an extent. Ocare is widely seen as a good thing by those who think they will benefit from it. The kids up to 26 on Mom & Dad's insurance... the folks with "pre-existing" conditions who can't be denied market-priced health insurance...

But those shallow minds don't understand that they THEMSELVES are the seeds of the destruction of decent health care in the US. Your two examples are perfect instances of the ways in which Ocare is designed to destroy the private health care insurance industry, leaving good ol' Uncle Sam to come along and pick up the pieces.

And yes, lots of gullible folks think Dear Leader actually had something to do with the taking of OBL. He did not, but he just can't resist an opportunity to make a short speech with lots -- LOTS -- of "I's" and "me's" sprinkled in it.

As far as gays in the military, I'm not sure what you're talking about. There has never been a time to my knowledge when gays could NOT "serve their country openly." DADT did not prohibit such service, nor has any overt policy before or since. Perhaps you're confusing service of country and parading for publicity -- serving one's country "gaily." They are different things.

When one serves one's country, it simply doesn't matter whether one is gay or lesbian or straight or black or white or red or yellow or liberal or conservative.

If you are gay or yellow or female or albino, and find that the strictures of military service don't agree with you, get out of the service, or don't join in the first place. You don't belong. If you can't separate your wish to serve your country in the military from your wish to be openly gay, YOU are the one with a problem, because the two do not mix. Military service is a very specialized way of life, and it has its own rules. No matter what the Joint Chiefs are saying these days, openly gay soldiers do not belong in the military.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 15, 2012, 08:44:18 PM
He never lied when getting elected about his stance on gay rights, or his wanting to catch Osama, that Im aware of. The people voted for that type of change, and They won hands down. I don't know why You think He'd be punished for that?  Now his healthcare perversion and no end to bush tax cuts, maybe, but I doubt His followers will ever see the lies in there.

So he didn't lie?
Obama told MTV he believes marriage is "between a man and a woman" and that he is "not in favor of gay marriage." 
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/obama-on-mtv-i/ (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/obama-on-mtv-i/)
 

QuoteI disagree, He has a couple good things (the couple Ive mentioned that I like already), and a few others that people believe to be good things. Not to mention it really doesn't matter, cause many people love Him. Its really scary how cultishly followed so many of these politicians are.

So you would vote for a man with no core values, other than Marxist ideals?

Quote from: tbone0106 on July 15, 2012, 09:17:27 PM
As far as gays in the military, I'm not sure what you're talking about. There has never been a time to my knowledge when gays could NOT "serve their country openly." DADT did not prohibit such service, nor has any overt policy before or since. Perhaps you're confusing service of country and parading for publicity -- serving one's country "gaily." They are different things.

Don't ask don't tell meant exactly that. If You were gay and said You were gay then You were kicked out.

IDK, It seems You may be confusing sexual preference with parades.  :tounge:

Quote from: Solar on July 15, 2012, 09:30:00 PM
So he didn't lie?

I don't believe He lied when He said He was for gay rights. And He has done much in that area.   

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/obama-gay-marriage_n_1503245.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/obama-gay-marriage_n_1503245.html)
"Barack Obama on Wednesday became the first sitting president to announce his support for same-sex marriage."

Quote from: Solar on July 15, 2012, 09:30:00 PM
Obama told MTV he believes marriage is "between a man and a woman" and that he is "not in favor of gay marriage." 
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/obama-on-mtv-i/ (http://abcne-ws.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/obama-on-mtvi/)
  So you would vote for a man with no core values, other than Marxist ideals?

I've said that neither Men are worthy of a vote.  I don't believe that either Rom, or Obama,  has "core values." Their willingness to play in an obviously bought game makes them both worthless in the long run.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 15, 2012, 09:42:41 PM
I don't believe He lied when He said He was for gay rights. And He has done much in that area.   

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/obama-gay-marriage_n_1503245.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/obama-gay-marriage_n_1503245.html)
"Barack Obama on Wednesday became the first sitting president to announce his support for same-sex marriage."


I've said that neither Men are worthy of a vote.  I don't believe that either Rom, or Obama,  has "core values." Their willingness to play in an obviously bought game makes them both worthless in the long run.

Then why are you here?
I give you proof he lies, you dismiss it as if nonexistent, then try your best to refute it.
I prove Mitten never lied, yet you want to believe he did.
I give you evidence of of a marxist, while the other has Americas best interest at heart and ask which you'd rather have leading the country, and you expect me to swallow the lie you won't vote for either?
You will support the Marxist one more time, like a gambler in debt for life.

Give it up lib, as soon as you joined, I took it as incumbent to see if you were a spammer or real person before your first post, so I did an in depth search of hfishjr81.
Care to guess what it revealed, Lib?

So drop the facade, you are not fooling anyone, you think socialism would be great to live under, as long as you don't have to pay for it, you're just disappointed the Hussein was such a weak intellect and failed your wildest wet dreams only to awake in a nightmare.
Yet you for some strange hypnotic reason, can't bring yourself to reject the loser, you have so much emotion invested in him, that admitting he is a failure, would surely mean you must be a failure as well.

There will come a time when you libs are going to have to fact the fact you all fucked up by backing socialism, it will never, ever work, EVER!
Now you have buyers remorse and it truly hurts, but guess what?
Real men own up to their mistakes and make amends for it, not repeat the same stupidity again.

Truth hurts son, but if I don't say it, you'll never amount to anything, now take responsibility for your actions for a change, that's what separates Conservatives from libs.
We recognize mistakes and own it and make it right.
It's an adult thing to do.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 15, 2012, 08:14:42 PM

His base, and those who don't know better, which is a lot in America, are for Obama care.

His base is hard core leftists who have always been a small minority, and the stupid, which form a slightly larger group.

QuoteMany people are being allowed back on Their parents insurance, so they see that as a plus,

IOW now someone else has to subsidize their insurance. Luckily they young and probably healthy, and most likely don't even need insurance, which means Obama didn't really give them anything. And of course those youngsters who are on their own are now being forced to by insurance in order to subsidize...

Quotenot to mention what they've heard about pre-existing conditions being non existent

An insurance company will cover ANYTHING if you're willing to pay the premiums. When people complain about pre-existing conditions, what the are complaining about is not being able to get insurance at the same premium as someone who is healthy. That's along the line oc complaining yo can't get a reasonable rate on your home owners when you house is already on fire. Or auto for a reasonable rate after you've wrapped your vehicle around a tree. Why would an insurance company give you a policy when they know UPFRONT that the policy earnings are not going to cover the KNOWN costs. None of you Libtoids ever took an economics course right.

QuoteThey also believe Obama was ultimately in charge of the Seal team that killed Osama.

Locating him via the Bush Era tactics that Obama had promised to abolish. And after Obama had delay for months, weighing POLITICAL advantage. And the next time Obozo holds a Medal of Honor ceremony, I expect to see him claim credit for that persons bravery, after all he is CIC. I can see that you were never in the military, you don't seem to understand that no DECENT officer claims credit for acts of bravery by his men.

QuoteAs far as Gay rights goes, under Obama's term, thus far Gays have been allowed to serve Their country openly.  Which is a big step in human rights.

The military isn't about human rights. It's about defending our country from it's enemies. As long as gays don't interfere with that mission, I don't give a f**k who they're porking. Any that decide their sex life is more important, than the mission should be discharged. And if the military - because of PC - refuses, then they should have an "accident". Nobody life should be put at risk just so clowns like you can feel good about "Human Rights".

QuoteThe last two I actually see as good things. The first is a perversion of a good thing. Our healthcare system is broke and needs fixing, but a mandate with insurance company loopholes is not what the people need at all.

What people need is for government to get out of the insurance business. For example it's government dictates that state that all health insurance should cover prenatal care. Shouldn't that be between the customer and the insurance company. Obviously I, a 60 something male, don't need that coverage. Each customer should be allowed to negotiate the policy they want - wherever they want. Often businesses would find that type of coverage of employees,  cheaper. One size doesn't fit all.

Quote from: Solar on July 16, 2012, 05:58:49 AM
Then why are you here?
I give you proof he lies, you dismiss it as if nonexistent, then try your best to refute it.

I didn't try my best to refute anything.
Do You believe gay rights only stand for gay marriage?
Plus Obama is the first Prez to ever come out and say He's for gay marriage now.
However, If He's said that He was against the gay marriage portion of gay rights, than He flip flopped, I can certainly see a politician doing that.

Quote from: Solar on July 16, 2012, 05:58:49 AM
I prove Mitten never lied, yet you want to believe he did.

You havent proven that at all.  I don't think anyone has, and until real evidence comes into play, then the question will still be on peoples minds, making it harder on Romney.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/mitt-romneys-unsolvable-bain-problem/2012/07/16/gJQADzFkoW_blog.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/mitt-romneys-unsolvable-bain-problem/2012/07/16/gJQADzFkoW_blog.html)

"Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney continues to struggle to get out from under questions regarding just when he departed from his job at Bain Capital. And there's reason to believe that he won't be able to solve his Bain problem anytime soon."

Quote from: Solar on July 16, 2012, 05:58:49 AM
I give you evidence of of a marxist, while the other has Americas best interest at heart and ask which you'd rather have leading the country, and you expect me to swallow the lie you won't vote for either?

Im not voting for either, and I don't care what You "swallow".   :blink:

Quote from: Solar on July 16, 2012, 05:58:49 AM
You will support the Marxist one more time, like a gambler in debt for life.

Give it up lib, as soon as you joined, I took it as incumbent to see if you were a spammer or real person before your first post, so I did an in depth search of hfishjr81.
Care to guess what it revealed, Lib?

That I've been on Lib and Conservative sites and don't like politicians? Ive said that here, more than once.

Quote from: Solar on July 16, 2012, 05:58:49 AM
So drop the facade, you are not fooling anyone, you think socialism would be great to live under, as long as you don't have to pay for it, you're just disappointed the Hussein was such a weak intellect and failed your wildest wet dreams only to awake in a nightmare.
Yet you for some strange hypnotic reason, can't bring yourself to reject the loser, you have so much emotion invested in him, that admitting he is a failure, would surely mean you must be a failure as well.

There will come a time when you libs are going to have to fact the fact you all fucked up by backing socialism, it will never, ever work, EVER!
Now you have buyers remorse and it truly hurts, but guess what?
Real men own up to their mistakes and make amends for it, not repeat the same stupidity again.

Truth hurts son, but if I don't say it, you'll never amount to anything, now take responsibility for your actions for a change, that's what separates Conservatives from libs.
We recognize mistakes and own it and make it right.
It's an adult thing to do.

I've never thought Obama was going to do anything good for the Nation as a whole. I've always been of the mind that politicians do not have Our best interest at heart. 

Quote from: mdgiles on July 16, 2012, 06:10:16 AM
I can see that you were never in the military

Wrong.

Calm down, Giles. Presidents, Generals, whatever,  have taken more credit than their due for victories through-out the ages. That's nothing new.  The little guy does the work the big guy gets most of the credit. 

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 16, 2012, 10:52:49 AM
I didn't try my best to refute anything.
Do You believe gay rights only stand for gay marriage?
Plus Obama is the first Prez to ever come out and say He's for gay marriage now.
However, If He's said that He was against the gay marriage portion of gay rights, than He flip flopped, I can certainly see a politician doing that.

You havent proven that at all.  I don't think anyone has, and until real evidence comes into play, then the question will still be on peoples minds, making it harder on Romney.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/mitt-romneys-unsolvable-bain-problem/2012/07/16/gJQADzFkoW_blog.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/mitt-romneys-unsolvable-bain-problem/2012/07/16/gJQADzFkoW_blog.html)

"Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney continues to struggle to get out from under questions regarding just when he departed from his job at Bain Capital. And there's reason to believe that he won't be able to solve his Bain problem anytime soon."


Im not voting for either, and I don't care what You "swallow".   :blink:

That I've been on Lib and Conservative sites and don't like politicians? Ive said that here, more than once.

I've never thought Obama was going to do anything good for the Nation as a whole. I've always been of the mind that politicians do not have Our best interest at heart.

Pure hypocrisy!!!! And don't insult my intelligence by asking how or where in your post, that would be pure intellectual dishonesty on your part.

Quote from: Solar on July 16, 2012, 11:51:13 AM
Pure hypocrisy!!!! And don't insult my intelligence by asking how or where in your post, that would be pure intellectual dishonesty on your part.

Oh, so You can call what I wrote "pure hypocrisy", but I cant ask why? LOL, talk about " pure hypocrisy".

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 16, 2012, 12:26:53 PM

Oh, so You can call what I wrote "pure hypocrisy", but I cant ask why? LOL, talk about " pure hypocrisy".

To not see it, would mean one of two things.
1) You are being intellectually dishonest with yourself , or to be more blunt, Lying.
2) You are too stupid to see the problem in what you wrote.

You choose.
And I suggest you apply critical thinking when reviewing what you wrote to find the answer.
Ya know, it's really sad when everyone here sees it, yet you can't.

Quote from: Solar on July 16, 2012, 12:31:49 PM
To not see it, would mean one of two things.
1) You are being intellectually dishonest with yourself , or to be more blunt, Lying.
2) You are too stupid to see the problem in what you wrote.

You choose.
And I suggest you apply critical thinking when reviewing what you wrote to find the answer.
Ya know, it's really sad when everyone here sees it, yet you can't.

You can either

1.) Explain what You believe that I wrote to be "pure hypocrisy".

or

2.) Keep dodging the question with nasty rhetoric and bad debate tactics.



I suggest You go with the first, the second choice is just very unbecoming. 

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 16, 2012, 12:49:35 PM

You can either

1.) Explain what You believe that I wrote to be "pure hypocrisy".

or

2.) Keep dodging the question with nasty rhetoric and bad debate tactics.



I suggest You go with the first, the second choice is just very unbecoming.

Seriously, reread what you've written with an open mind, and use critical thinking and you should be able to figure it out on your own.
If not, then it will be years before you actually get it.

This is not some debate tactic, it's my way of getting you to think for yourself for a change.

Quote from: Solar on July 16, 2012, 12:53:58 PM
Seriously, reread what you've written with an open mind, and use critical thinking and you should be able to figure it out on your own.
If not, then it will be years before you actually get it.

This is not some debate tactic, it's my way of getting you to think for yourself for a change.

I have an open mind, and have re-read. You are simply stating that I'm being a hypocrite, rather than giving supporting information of, that is either a bad debate tactic or hypocrisy itself, either way it's not good.     

I seem to recall that while campaigning to usurp the office of President, Obama said he would immediately end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  While I did admire President Bush to a certain extent, I feel he was wrong in attacking these countries and history has shown, IMO, that we accomplished nothing by doing so.
In fact we harmed our own country and lost lives of brave young people, more than were lost in the cowardly attack of 9/11.  I think that President Bush truly believed that weapons of mass destruction were being stored by Iraq and I also believe that these supplies of poison gas being taken out of storage in Syria in recent days probably are those weapons.  They were merely taken to Syria for safe keeping and will likely be used on the Syrian people.  It is important for us to understand that if we intervene in Syria, we will be assisting the Muslim Brotherhood in taking over another Middle Eastern Country as we assisted in Libya and Egypt.  And to be honest, while the leaders of those countries were not fair and democratic leaders, they did keep the jackals, aka the Muslim Brotherhood, at bay.  It's a fantasy to believe that Muslims can live in a freely democratic country because the Koran doesn't allow it.  In the Middle East they are gaining control by revolution.  In the West they are gaining control by stealth.  A mosque here a madrassa there.  A lawsuit here.  They are and always have been professional victims. And while the Constitution does guarantee freedom of religion, insomuch as it guarantees that the government cannot set up an official religion, the Constitution does not demand that we allow a repressive and cruel political party to operate openly and freely as Islam does.  What next, will they be sacrificing animals in our streets?  They must be stopped before it is too late, although it might be too late now.

In fact, one of the prohibitions on free speech which is written into the Constitution is that one may not publically advocate a violent overthrow of our government.  And the Muslims do that every time they meet in a mosque or teach a class in a madrassa.  And they don't care who knows it because we do nothing about it.

Quote from: Charliemyboy on July 16, 2012, 01:18:50 PM
While I did admire President Bush to a certain extent, I feel he was wrong in attacking these countries and history has shown, IMO, that we accomplished nothing by doing so.

I agree there^.



And the rest, I dont fully disagree with, cause religion is commonly used to control people, however, the majority of Muslims aren't horrible war mongering people, so lumping them in with Radical Muslims isn't the proper thing to do.

Just because there's some bad things in their old texts, that's deemed old ways, doesn't mean We should Stop them from their personal faith, that isn't the American way. Is it?     

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect.  Anyone who has studied the Koran knows that a believing Muslim must obey it's dictates.  The early verses are less cruel and bloody, but the later verses which are deemed to be the reformed version are bloody, cruel, misogynistic, and any word which one can think of which connotes a culture with no morals.  If a Muslim is not as I described, then he cannot be a true Muslim.  Scratch the surface of any of them and you will find a person who believes that God wants him to obey these strictures and attain his virgins in heaven.  You may not like it.  I certainly don't.  But they are the most dangerous people we have ever faced and people like you will not see the danger until it has you under it's control by which time we will all be lost.

Quote from: Charliemyboy on July 16, 2012, 02:28:20 PM
I'm sorry, but you are incorrect.  Anyone who has studied the Koran knows that a believing Muslim must obey it's dictates.  The early verses are less cruel and bloody, but the later verses which are deemed to be the reformed version are bloody, cruel, misogynistic, and any word which one can think of which connotes a culture with no morals.  If a Muslim is not as I described, then he cannot be a true Muslim. 

That's^ like saying a Christian can't be a true christian unless He or She drops their "earthly possessions" or they're probably not getting into heaven if they're rich, etc etc. 

People have Their individual faith and interpretations.  You're lumping everyone up based on the few bad teachings that most of them don't adhere to.   

Quote from: Charliemyboy on July 16, 2012, 02:28:20 PM
Scratch the surface of any of them and you will find a person who believes that God wants him to obey these strictures and attain his virgins in heaven.  You may not like it.  I certainly don't.  But they are the most dangerous people we have ever faced and people like you will not see the danger until it has you under it's control by which time we will all be lost.

I see the danger in all religion, people following rather than thinking for themselves are easily manipulated. But not all will be manipulated into doing something wrong.

And that is where you make your mistake.  Islamic dictates know no wrong.  If Mohammed said it or directed it, it is the will of God.  Inshallah.  Therefore, all killing, bombing, etc. for Islamic Jihad is right.  How can Allah send us on the wrong path?  It is a philosophy which Westerners find  hard to understand.  But understand it we must if we are to survive as a culture.

These are people (And I use the term loosely) who will set to killing each other in Saudi Arabia if someone in Denmark draws a cartoon picturing Mohammed.  These are people (ditto) who will put a hit on someone just because of a book he wrote.  These are people  (double ditto) who will kill a descendant of Vincent Van Gogh just because he made a movie depicting the treatment of women in Islam. You just don't get it, do you?  You never will.

Quote from: Charliemyboy on July 16, 2012, 02:58:04 PM
And that is where you make your mistake.  Islamic dictates know no wrong.  If Mohammed said it or directed it, it is the will of God.  Inshallah.  Therefore, all killing, bombing, etc. for Islamic Jihad is right.  How can Allah send us on the wrong path?  It is a philosophy which Westerners find  hard to understand.  But understand it we must if we are to survive as a culture.

What You're not understanding is the fact that just because something is written doesn't mean it's followed.  That goes for both religions.

Quote from: Charliemyboy on July 16, 2012, 02:58:04 PM
These are people (And I use the term loosely) who will set to killing each other in Saudi Arabia if someone in Denmark draws a cartoon picturing Mohammed.  These are people (ditto) who will put a hit on someone just because of a book he wrote.  These are people  (double ditto) who will kill a descendant of Vincent Van Gogh just because he made a movie depicting the treatment of women in Islam. You just don't get it, do you?  You never will.

There a radicals, and then there are non radicals. You just don't want to see that, but I hope You do eventually.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 16, 2012, 03:01:49 PM
What You're not understanding is the fact that just because something is written doesn't mean it's followed.  That goes for both religions.



There a radicals, and then there are non radicals. You just don't want to see that, but I hope You do eventually.

You are failing miserably...

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.ddmcdn.com%2Fgif%2Fhow-to-remove-fish-hook-4.jpg&hash=846d78179a006496279511ed9ec7fe8b494d309d)

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 16, 2012, 03:01:49 PM
What You're not understanding is the fact that just because something is written doesn't mean it's followed.  That goes for both religions.

Do you admit that there are millions of devout Christians. Those who attend church regularly, who give all they can to charity, who always volunteer their time and energy to help their fellow man? Do you also agree there are also millions of Christians who are nowhere near that devout, but who will give a little money to what Christians consider good causes and more importantly moral support to those really devout Christians. After those, do you admit that there are millions of Christians who are culturally Christian, in that even without realizing it, they live within societal rules that are based on Christianity? Little things like accepting the individual worth of a every human being.  If you understand this. Then why do you have problems understanding that Islam has that same gradient EXCEPT the truly devout Muslims are quite willing to kill you to advance the cause of Islam. And behind them are millions of Muslims who aren't willing to fight on the front lines, but are quite willing to lend a few coins to the support of those who do, and would never chastise them for their piety. And behind them are millions more who live within their Islamic societies Islamic rules, even when they aren't particularly devout.

QuoteThere a radicals, and then there are non radicals. You just don't want to see that, but I hope You do eventually.

They are not radicals, anymore than someone who always goes to mass on Sundays and days of obligation. Who goes to confession regularly. Who contributes regularly. Is someone who regularly takes his lawnmower down and does the Church lawn a "radical"? It's that Islam ask something different of their devout believers. And you don want to see this because that would be admitting that maybe Christianity is superior to the other guys.

Quote from: taxed on July 16, 2012, 03:13:54 PM
You are failing miserably...

I disagree.


Now come on little fella, I think maybe You can do better than this. 

(https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTdhz13FMIuWcAjPBmJpZItEnPUAvogphPTKGN1tAc5ECYno3oT9Q)

(https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQKm-RP4eDw3jESLTZuv7HrsFettRMwVscCgb0I12a62Qcvwzje)


  :tounge:

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 16, 2012, 03:29:01 PM

I disagree.


Now come on little fella, I think maybe You can do better than this. 

(https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTdhz13FMIuWcAjPBmJpZItEnPUAvogphPTKGN1tAc5ECYno3oT9Q)

(https://encrypted-tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQKm-RP4eDw3jESLTZuv7HrsFettRMwVscCgb0I12a62Qcvwzje)


  :tounge:

It's taxed, as in, I'm taxed to death.  You wouldn't understand.

Quote from: taxed on July 16, 2012, 03:30:08 PM
It's taxed, as in, I'm taxed to death.  You wouldn't understand.

:rolleyes:

"What You're not understanding is the fact that just because something is written doesn't mean it's followed.  That goes for both religions."

Actually, it is followed.  And that is what you are not understanding.
I know that it seems unbelievable to most Americans.  But you'd better believe it.  Their so-called religion has not changed one iota since the seventh century.  And they are out to get you.  If you told them that their religion has changed with the times, they would laugh as they chop off your head.

I'll give you another tidbit.  That box at Mecca, the one they circle seven times in each direction when they go on Haj, contains a meteorite.  After the circling ritual, they go throw stones at three pillars which represent the devil.  But the stones have to be no larger than the size of a bean.  The larger stones were doing too much damage.  When one approaches Mecca, the road splits.  And there are signs directing "Infidels" to go the other way from Mecca.   Infidel dogs are not allowed in Mecca.  Only believing Muslims.  It's a big business for the Saudis.  There's no business like show business.

I can sort of understand worshiping a meteorite especially since it didn't hit me.

Quote from: taxed on July 16, 2012, 03:30:08 PM
It's taxed, as in, I'm taxed to death.  You wouldn't understand.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Quote from: Charliemyboy on July 16, 2012, 04:01:36 PM
And they are out to get you. 

The radicals are, yes, but not all of them are radical Muslims.  You shouldn't be so paranoid. True, I can see that there's bad in that religion, but there's bad in Christianity as well. Just look to the Westboro baptist weirdo's.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 16, 2012, 04:08:08 PM

The radicals are, yes, but not all of them are radical Muslims.  You shouldn't be so paranoid. True, I can see that there's bad in that religion, but there's bad in Christianity as well. Just look to the Westboro baptist weirdo's.

By comparison, are they killing in the name of their perverted form of Religion?

Quote from: Solar on July 16, 2012, 04:13:45 PM
By comparison, are they killing in the name of their perverted form of Religion?

Not yet, but there are Christian groups that have.

Those Westboro folks are killing Christians chances of converting people/giving others the chance for salvation by demonizing the religion.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 16, 2012, 04:22:37 PM
Not yet, but there are Christian groups that have.

Those Westboro folks are killing Christians chances of converting people/giving others the chance for salvation by demonizing the religion.

Then you admit, Christians, even the radical ones are not as crazy as the idiots in the M/E.
Thanks for playing. :biggrin:

Quote from: Solar on July 16, 2012, 04:24:34 PM
Then you admit, Christians, even the radical ones are not as crazy as the idiots in the M/E.
Thanks for playing. :biggrin:

I said there are christian groups that have. Did You miss that? You really need to learn how to read, Solar. Especially if Your going to have a forum.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 16, 2012, 04:31:36 PM

I said there are christian groups that have. Did You miss that? You really need to learn how to read, Solar. Especially if Your going to have a forum.  :rolleyes:

And those are? And more importantly, did they receive any support from any large segment of Christianity.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 16, 2012, 04:31:36 PM

I said there are christian groups that have. Did You miss that? You really need to learn how to read, Solar. Especially if Your going to have a forum.  :rolleyes:

Then post a link, and I expect it to with in the last decade or so.

Quote from: Solar on July 16, 2012, 04:43:57 PM
Then post a link, and I expect it to with in the last decade or so.

So it has to have been done within the last decade to be credible?  Doesn't make sense, but ok, here's one-


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/28/scott-roeder-abortion-doctor-killer (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/28/scott-roeder-abortion-doctor-killer) 

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 16, 2012, 05:44:36 PM

So it has to have been done within the last decade to be credible?  Doesn't make sense, but ok, here's one-


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/28/scott-roeder-abortion-doctor-killer (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/28/scott-roeder-abortion-doctor-killer)

You claim I have reading comprehension issues? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Your words!

QuoteI said there are christian groups that have. Did You miss that? You really need to learn how to read, Solar. Especially if Your going to have a forum.

You said Groups, that is an individual, hardly representative of any Christian Group.

Quote from: Solar on July 16, 2012, 05:52:32 PM
You claim I have reading comprehension issues? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Your words!You said Groups, that is an individual, hardly representative of any Christian Group.

You said "Then you admit, Christians, even the radical ones are not as crazy as the idiots in the M/E.
Thanks for playing."


So, I figured I could post a radical christian not just a group. I was using him as evidence that someone withing that religion could be radical.   




But here, a group-

http://articles.cnn.com/2002-03-18/us/army.god.letters_1_birmingham-blast-atlanta-olympic-park-eric-robert-rudolph?_s=PM:US (http://articles.cnn.com/2002-03-18/us/army.god.letters_1_birmingham-blast-atlanta-olympic-park-eric-robert-rudolph?_s=PM:US)

"Army of God letters support accused bomber Eric Rudolph"

http://articles.cnn.com/1998-02-02/us/9802_02_clinic.bombing.530pm_1_clinic-bombing-birmingham-bombing-eric-robert-rudolph?_s=PM:US (http://articles.cnn.com/1998-02-02/us/9802_02_clinic.bombing.530pm_1_clinic-bombing-birmingham-bombing-eric-robert-rudolph?_s=PM:US)


"Army of God letters claim responsibility for clinic bombing"

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 16, 2012, 06:05:41 PM

You said "Then you admit, Christians, even the radical ones are not as crazy as the idiots in the M/E.
Thanks for playing."


So, I figured I could post a radical christian not just a group. I was using him as evidence that someone withing that religion could be radical.   




But here, a group-

http://articles.cnn.com/2002-03-18/us/army.god.letters_1_birmingham-blast-atlanta-olympic-park-eric-robert-rudolph?_s=PM:US (http://articles.cnn.com/2002-03-18/us/army.god.letters_1_birmingham-blast-atlanta-olympic-park-eric-robert-rudolph?_s=PM:US)

"Army of God letters support accused bomber Eric Rudolph"

http://articles.cnn.com/1998-02-02/us/9802_02_clinic.bombing.530pm_1_clinic-bombing-birmingham-bombing-eric-robert-rudolph?_s=PM:US (http://articles.cnn.com/1998-02-02/us/9802_02_clinic.bombing.530pm_1_clinic-bombing-birmingham-bombing-eric-robert-rudolph?_s=PM:US)


"Army of God letters claim responsibility for clinic bombing"

Wrong son., you said groups, so I said post a link.
Admit it, you can't find a group, because none exist in this Country, for one very good reason, Christians would never stand for it.
Unlike Muscum, who stand silent when acts of terror are committed in the name of Allah.

Why don't you just admit it, Muscum are the terrorists, not Christians.

Quote from: Solar on July 16, 2012, 06:14:10 PM
Wrong son., you said groups, so I said post a link.
Admit it, you can't find a group, because none exist in this Country, for one very good reason, Christians would never stand for it.
Unlike Muscum, who stand silent when acts of terror are committed in the name of Allah.

Why don't you just admit it, Muscum are the terrorists, not Christians.

I just posted a link to a group.  And if Your going to speak of Muslim radicals as all one group than Christian radicals are all one group as well.

Quote from: Solar on July 16, 2012, 06:14:10 PM
Unlike Muscum, who stand silent when acts of terror are committed in the name of Allah.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 16, 2012, 06:17:32 PM

I just posted a link to a group.  And if Your going to speak of Muslim radicals as all one group than Christian radicals are all one group as well.

Here's a chance to educate yourself, look up Wahhabi.

Quote from: Solar on July 16, 2012, 06:25:20 PM
Here's a chance to educate yourself, look up Wahhabi.

Here's a chance for You to educate Yourself, look up Followers of Christ.

http://childrenshealthcare.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/2010-01finallayout.pdf (http://childrenshealthcare.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/2010-01finallayout.pdf)


________________________



There's bad in both. It's that simple. We're arguing over the radicals in both. A few of You here  are seemingly trying to lump an entire people in with the radicals in their religion, I think that's wrong.  Do You not, Solar?

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 16, 2012, 06:05:41 PM

You said "Then you admit, Christians, even the radical ones are not as crazy as the idiots in the M/E.
Thanks for playing."


So, I figured I could post a radical christian not just a group. I was using him as evidence that someone withing that religion could be radical.   




But here, a group-

http://articles.cnn.com/2002-03-18/us/army.god.letters_1_birmingham-blast-atlanta-olympic-park-eric-robert-rudolph?_s=PM:US (http://articles.cnn.com/2002-03-18/us/army.god.letters_1_birmingham-blast-atlanta-olympic-park-eric-robert-rudolph?_s=PM:US)

"Army of God letters support accused bomber Eric Rudolph"

http://articles.cnn.com/1998-02-02/us/9802_02_clinic.bombing.530pm_1_clinic-bombing-birmingham-bombing-eric-robert-rudolph?_s=PM:US (http://articles.cnn.com/1998-02-02/us/9802_02_clinic.bombing.530pm_1_clinic-bombing-birmingham-bombing-eric-robert-rudolph?_s=PM:US)



"Army of God letters claim responsibility for clinic bombing"

So how large is this "Army of God". One would think that a terrorist organization would have come under investigation by the government. Especially considering they had an HBO special made on them. And besides claiming responsibility for things other people have done what have they done. BTW, which doctrine of Christianity actually calls for the bombing of abortion clinics.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 16, 2012, 06:37:15 PM
Here's a chance for You to educate Yourself, look up Followers of Christ.

http://childrenshealthcare.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/2010-01finallayout.pdf[/u


There's bad in both. It's that simple. We're arguing over the radicals in both. A few of You here  are seemingly trying to lump an entire people in with the radicals in their religion, I think that's wrong.  Do You not, Solar?
(http://childrenshealthcare.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/2010-01finallayout.pdf)

One question. Were they punished as the law requires, or did they get as pass like Muscums in the M/E?
Try educating yourself for a change.

Quote from: Solar on July 16, 2012, 07:01:40 PM
One question. Were they punished as the law requires, or did they get as pass like Muscums in the M/E?
Try educating yourself for a change.

Muslim radicals don't "get a pass".   

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 16, 2012, 07:05:20 PM

Muslim radicals don't "get a pass".

They not only get a pass, they are martyred.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 16, 2012, 07:05:20 PM

Muslim radicals don't "get a pass".

However it is difficult to bring them to trial as their "missions" often consist of suicide attacks.

Quote from: Solar on July 16, 2012, 07:07:01 PM
They not only get a pass, they are martyred.

The only people that believes them Martyrs are the Radicals.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 16, 2012, 07:11:55 PM
The only people that believes them Martyrs are the Radicals.

Why do believe that only "Radicals" would believe that a devout Muslim who perishes in the service of Islam is a martyr.
I think that says more about what you believe, rather than actual fact. Unless of course you want to classify millions of Muslims as "radical". 

Quote from: mdgiles on July 16, 2012, 07:24:12 PM
Why do believe that only "Radicals" would believe that a devout Muslim who perishes in the service of Islam is a martyr.

Because Non radicals have voices and they've used them.


"The undersigned, leaders of Islamic movements, are horrified by the events of Tuesday 11 September 2001 in the United States which resulted in massive killing, destruction and attack on innocent lives. We express our deepest sympathies and sorrow. We condemn, in the strongest terms, the incidents, which are against all human and Islamic norms. This is grounded in the Noble Laws of Islam which forbid all forms of attacks on innocents. God Almighty says in the Holy Qur'an: 'No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another' (Surah al-Isra 17:15)."

http://kurzman.unc.edu/islamic-statements-against-terrorism/ (http://kurzman.unc.edu/islamic-statements-against-terrorism/)

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 16, 2012, 07:50:02 PM

Because Non radicals have voices and they've used them.

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:
Then why do we not see it in the paper every day??? Or even once a week!

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 16, 2012, 07:50:02 PM

Because Non radicals have voices and they've used them.


"The undersigned, leaders of Islamic movements, are horrified by the events of Tuesday 11 September 2001 in the United States which resulted in massive killing, destruction and attack on innocent lives. We express our deepest sympathies and sorrow. We condemn, in the strongest terms, the incidents, which are against all human and Islamic norms. This is grounded in the Noble Laws of Islam which forbid all forms of attacks on innocents. God Almighty says in the Holy Qur'an: 'No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another' (Surah al-Isra 17:15)."

http://kurzman.unc.edu/islamic-statements-against-terrorism/ (http://kurzman.unc.edu/islamic-statements-against-terrorism/)

Lets take the first name from your link.
Mustafa Mashhur
Mustafa Mashhur, the fifth head of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, is also cited by Kurzman as being against terror. However, in his book, Jihad is the Way, he stated that there is an "unavoidable personal duty for every Muslim to equip himself and prepare and gear-up towards jihad." Another Kurzman citation, Qazi Hussain Ahmed, former head of the extremist Jamaat-e-Islami Pakistan, claimed it was a jihad to fight American forces in Afghanistan.
Kurzman is nothing more than a Muscum apologist.
http://www.investigativeproject.org/3454/latest-nc-terror-report-offers-more-baseless (http://www.investigativeproject.org/3454/latest-nc-terror-report-offers-more-baseless)

Quote from: walkstall on July 16, 2012, 08:03:59 PM

:lol:  :lol:  :lol:
Then why do we not see it in the paper every day??? Or even once a week!

So the non radicals need to apologize every time a crazy person does something stupid?     

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 16, 2012, 08:13:39 PM

So the non radicals need to apologize every time a crazy person does something stupid?   

It would be even nice if they did it once a month.   :tounge:

But then they don't wish to die.   :popcorn:

Quote from: walkstall on July 16, 2012, 08:17:38 PM
It would be even nice if they did it once a month.   :tounge:

But then they don't wish to die.   :popcorn:

True.  :sad:

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 16, 2012, 08:13:39 PM

So the non radicals need to apologize every time a crazy person does something stupid?   

Once a freakin' YEAR would be extra-special, but it don't happen.

Quote from: tbone0106 on July 16, 2012, 09:08:09 PM
Once a freakin' YEAR would be extra-special, but it don't happen.

But then, by that logic, should We, the "Christian Nation", apologize yearly to Japan as well?

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 16, 2012, 09:39:14 PM


But then, by that logic, should We, the "Christian Nation", apologize yearly to Japan as well?

IF they have the bomb first do you really think they would have stopped at two?
Or are you a bigger fool then most.  :popcorn:

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 16, 2012, 09:39:14 PM


But then, by that logic, should We, the "Christian Nation", apologize yearly to Japan as well?

What would we apologize for? Plunging the Pacific Theater into a war of domination? Introducing mass suicide as a means of resisting military setbacks? Imbedding organized, dedicated suicide squadrons of flyers into modern warfare?

Japan had lost the war LONG before the bombs went off. The Japanese just wouldn't admit it. By 1945, the Imperial Japanese Navy had ceased to exist as a coherent force capable of challenging an invader. The Japanese people were literally starving because of the US Navy's blockade, and Curtis LeMay's B-29s were incinerating upwards of 100,000 Japanese folks per raid, and they were raiding at will.

And still the Japanese would not give up.

I don't feel bad about the bomb.

Quote from: walkstall on July 16, 2012, 09:50:30 PM
IF they have the bomb first do you really think they would have stopped at two?

Dont know, maybe not, but does that make what We did any less wrong?   

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 16, 2012, 10:03:58 PM

Dont know, maybe not, but does that make what We did any less wrong?

C'mon Fish. You know the rules as well as anyone. We can't get anywhere trading "salesman's questions." (The assumption is that you're buying the car, or that dropping the bomb was "wrong.")

Oh, and "we" doesn't need to be capped. Just sayin'...

Quote from: tbone0106 on July 16, 2012, 10:08:49 PM
C'mon Fish. You know the rules as well as anyone. We can't get anywhere trading "salesman's questions." (The assumption is that you're buying the car, or that dropping the bomb was "wrong.")

Oh, and "we" doesn't need to be capped. Just sayin'...

I answered with a maybe, then I asked a question in return.

And I love capped We's. I'll never give them up!!!  *shakes fist in air*   NEVER!!!!   :scared:   






Here, I don't like the Muslim faith, I don't like religion as a whole, but I believe the majority of people are good.   Out of everything Ive read I like the Jesus story the best, I hope its the truth. He reads like a caring, loving, and compassionate person.   


Damn, should I have put a comma after compassionate and capitalized Person? :cry:

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 16, 2012, 04:08:08 PM

The radicals are, yes, but not all of them are radical Muslims.  You shouldn't be so paranoid. True, I can see that there's bad in that religion, but there's bad in Christianity as well. Just look to the Westboro baptist weirdo's.

You must be the stupidest liberal on this planet if you think Westboro cuts off people's heads for daring to disagree with whichever crackpot is in charge.

Horse shit!

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 16, 2012, 07:50:02 PM

Because Non radicals have voices and they've used them.


"The undersigned, leaders of Islamic movements, are horrified by the events of Tuesday 11 September 2001 in the United States which resulted in massive killing, destruction and attack on innocent lives. We express our deepest sympathies and sorrow. We condemn, in the strongest terms, the incidents, which are against all human and Islamic norms. This is grounded in the Noble Laws of Islam which forbid all forms of attacks on innocents. God Almighty says in the Holy Qur'an: 'No bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another' (Surah al-Isra 17:15)."

http://kurzman.unc.edu/islamic-statements-against-terrorism/ (http://kurzman.unc.edu/islamic-statements-against-terrorism/)

It's call Taqiyya. Lying in the service of Islam. They sign a letter, and idiots like you, don't notice that many of these organizations = for example the Muslim Brotherhood - are outright supporters of terrorism.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 16, 2012, 08:13:39 PM

So the non radicals need to apologize every time a crazy person does something stupid?   

in that case they'd don nothing but apologize for their insane brethren.
Go here: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ (http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/)
Check the left hand column for the body count.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 16, 2012, 09:39:14 PM


But then, by that logic, should We, the "Christian Nation", apologize yearly to Japan as well?

Last I checked, butt wipe, the Japanese STARTED the war. You see when you sneak attack someone, they might get pissed off enough to use every weapon they have in their arsenal.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 16, 2012, 09:39:14 PM


But then, by that logic, should We, the "Christian Nation", apologize yearly to Japan as well?

For what, using our Navy as targets in Hawaii?
What do we have to apologize for?

Japan got off easy with just Hiroshima and particularly Nagasaki. Had the Japs refused to capitulate after Hiroshima, I would have ordered the second bomb to fall on Tokyo, with Ground Zero as the emperor's palace. Truman was way too kind to barbaric behavior like the Bataan Death March, Correigedor and similar carnage.

That is one place the U.S. needs to keep our military at, if only to ensure their Self Defense Forces don't mutate into another war machine. We also need Japan as a repairs and staging area --- yes, for OUR war machine.

Quote from: mdgiles on July 17, 2012, 04:25:28 AM
Last I checked, butt wipe, the Japanese STARTED the war. You see when you sneak attack someone, they might get pissed off enough to use every weapon they have in their arsenal.

Just because someone attacks us doesn't mean we should bomb their civilians.

Quote from: Solar on July 17, 2012, 05:41:26 AM
For what, using our Navy as targets in Hawaii?
What do we have to apologize for?

Dropping atomic bombs on occupied cities.

Quote from: quiller on July 17, 2012, 06:10:44 AM
Japan got off easy with just Hiroshima and particularly Nagasaki. Had the Japs refused to capitulate after Hiroshima, I would have ordered the second bomb to fall on Tokyo, with Ground Zero as the emperor's palace.

I wouldn't have ordered the bombing of civilians.  That type of

Quote from: quiller on July 17, 2012, 06:10:44 AM
barbaric behavior

is far from ok.

Quote from: quiller on July 17, 2012, 03:38:03 AM
You must be the stupidest liberal on this planet if you think Westboro cuts off people's heads for daring to disagree with whichever crackpot is in charge.

Horse shit!

I didn't say they did, I was just calling them crazy. And they are.    I also said -

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 16, 2012, 04:22:37 PM
Those Westboro folks are killing Christians chances of converting people/not giving others the chance for salvation by demonizing the religion.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 17, 2012, 10:19:22 AM




Dropping atomic bombs on occupied cities.

I think you'll find the answer here.
I see no need in rehashing what actually saved lives on both sides.
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/war/we-nuked-japan-was-it-necessaryjustified/ (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/war/we-nuked-japan-was-it-necessaryjustified/)

Quote from: Solar on July 17, 2012, 10:39:45 AM
I think you'll find the answer here.
I see no need in rehashing what actually saved lives on both sides.

So destroying cities filled with women and children is ok as long as it saves someone else, in Your opinion. Got it. I simply disagree.   

For the edification and education of those who don't understand Islam and the low intelligence of the  "Faithful."  These incidents were carried out by Islamic governments (Including ours)with the exception of the murders in Pakistan.  Just a few radicals?
Would you like to buy a bridge?

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/07/sharia-in-action-islamic-supremacists-give-timbuktu-man-40-lashes-for-drinking.html (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/07/sharia-in-action-islamic-supremacists-give-timbuktu-man-40-lashes-for-drinking.html)

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/07/pakistan-jihadists-wearing-burqas-murder-three-policemen.html (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/07/pakistan-jihadists-wearing-burqas-murder-three-policemen.html)

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/07/iran-west-using-technology-to-manipulate-irans-climate-causing-drought.html (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/07/iran-west-using-technology-to-manipulate-irans-climate-causing-drought.html)

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/07/iran-west-using-technology-to-manipulate-irans-climate-causing-drought.html (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/07/iran-west-using-technology-to-manipulate-irans-climate-causing-drought.html)

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/07/911-mass-murderers-gitmo-hearing-postponed-for-ramadan.html (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2012/07/911-mass-murderers-gitmo-hearing-postponed-for-ramadan.html)

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 17, 2012, 11:16:31 AM

So destroying cities filled with women and children is ok as long as it saves someone else, in Your opinion. Got it. I simply disagree.

If a country attacks us, we attack back.  Then, when another country sees how we retaliate, it makes them think twice if they had any ideas.

Seems logical to me.

You still have told how you would have gone about bring the War to a successful end.

I think this entire discussion has to be viewed in terms of the events of the time. My father was an SFC on USS Trathen, a Fletcher-class tin can that roamed all over the South Pacific from mid-1943 until the end of the war. Also, I've known other men who served in much the same capacity. Their take on the Pacific war is uniform -- we were facing the cruelest, most ruthless enemy imaginable. The one most striking aspect of a Japanese soldier, whether he be infantry or pilot or sailor: a literally religious refusal to admit defeat, and a preference for death over surrender.

My father and others were stunned, even disoriented by this. Kamikaze? Seriously? What the hell sort of people are these Japanese? Why do they think this Bushido crap will serve them well in 1944? The cartoons and posters depicting Japanese military figures as slant-eyed, horned-rim wearing tyrants arose not so much because they looked different, but because they WERE different, RADICALLY different from us.

The point can be made with statistics. The US invaded the island stronghold of Iwo Jima, which was defended by roughly 22,000 Japanese. Not one Jap escaped the island, and only 216 were taken prisoner. At Tarawa, there were 3,636 Japanese defenders; 17 surrendered. At Saipan, the Japanese had roughly 31,000 defenders and a large force of native laborers. Not one Japanese soldier was evacuated. Only 921 surrendered; an estimated 5,000 Japanese soldiers committed suicide rather than surrender. About 22,000 of the native workforce died too, mostly suicides, many dying after voluntarily jumping off cliffs after being told by their Japanese masters that they would be mistreated by the invading Americans.

By way of comparison, US forces invading these islands largely lived to tell the tale. At Saipan, for instance, around 71,000 US troops were involved, but only 3,426 were killed, and 10,364 were wounded. In plain terms, the Americans had a survival rate of over 95%. The Japanese had a survival rate of less than 3%, not counting the civilian suicides.

Time after time, the Japanese, knowing the odds, accepted and suffered losses on this scale. Clearly, this sort of mindset does not fit in with Western logic. It is no wonder that our guys came home rattled, many -- like my dad -- unwilling to even talk about it.

As I've pointed out previously in this thread, Japan was essentially defeated when 1945 came along. (Actually, Japan never won a major naval engagement after its devastating loss at Midway.) But Japan, keeping with the then-popular militarist Bushido policies, would never consider surrender. We faced an enemy completely unlike any ever encountered before, with a philosophy completely alien to ours. The Japanese could NEVER have won on Iwo Jima, for example, and they knew it before the Marines stormed ashore, but that didn't stop them from resisting at every turn, and burning two divisions of trained soldiers like so much cordwood.

Harry Truman inherited the war and the bomb. But he hadn't been sleeping or out of the loop; he had been Vice President, privy to some pretty special intelligence. The war in Europe was over a couple weeks after he took office, so he was focused on Japan, naturally. His top military advisers were giving him doom-and-gloom forecasts for hundreds of thousands of casualties if we had to invade Japan's home islands -- and they were probably right! Harry pulled the trigger, as would I. "These people are so damn crazy they don't they've already lost the war; let's point it out to them with a couple of capital A's."

Both Hiroshima and Nagasaki were selected because they contained factories engaged in military production. The inhabitants of both cities were warned days before the bombings with leaflets describing the coming event, and telling them to get the hell out of Dodge. The leaflets were ignored on the advice of the Japanese government.

Harry Truman did the right thing. Dropping the a-bombs was the right thing.

Quote from: taxed on July 17, 2012, 12:27:10 PM
it makes them think twice if they had any ideas.

Seems logical to me.

Just because it seems logical to You doesn't make it any less horrible. Bombing civilians isn't justifiable.   

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 17, 2012, 12:53:51 PM

Just because it seems logical to You doesn't make it any less horrible. Bombing civilians isn't justifiable.

Stating the obvious that it's sad when innocent people die means nothing.  The sky is blue too.

Quote from: tbone0106 on July 17, 2012, 12:46:56 PM
Harry Truman did the right thing. Dropping the a-bombs was the right thing.

I disagree.   Knowing they weren't going to allow their Women and children run away, and yet still choosing to drop a bomb on them, is choosing to shoot the civilian shields.   I don't see that as the right thing to do.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 17, 2012, 12:58:46 PM

I disagree.   Knowing they weren't going to allow their Women and children run away, and yet still choosing to drop a bomb on them, is choosing to shoot the civilian shields.   I don't see that as the right thing to do.

You're right.  We should have just gave them a pass for Pearl Harbor and waited for an apology.  Good strategy!

Quote from: taxed on July 17, 2012, 01:03:23 PM
You're right.  We should have just gave them a pass for Pearl Harbor and waited for an apology.  Good strategy!

You're not right, killing civilians is a bad strategy, even though You believe it sound logic. 


Hmm, I wonder who else believed it was ok to kill civilians?


(https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT4i9I8GjjdzfU3aXGSPm615F0QWSvpI0IYTzcB-IsRr9uHHXbI)

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 17, 2012, 01:06:31 PM


You're not right, killing civilians is a bad strategy, even though You believe it sound logic. 


Hmm, I wonder who else believed it was ok to kill civilians?


(https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT4i9I8GjjdzfU3aXGSPm615F0QWSvpI0IYTzcB-IsRr9uHHXbI)

Another great strategy.  We should have went to Japan, knocked on everyone's door and said "Excuse me... I'm sorry to disturb you, but w... mmmm, that smells delicious... anyway, we are going to drop an atomic bomb on your city, so if you could maybe not be here when that happens, that would be wonderfulthankssssssssss."

Quote from: taxed on July 17, 2012, 01:09:54 PM
Another great strategy.  We should have went to Japan, knocked on everyone's door and said "Excuse me... I'm sorry to disturb you, but w... mmmm, that smells delicious... anyway, we are going to drop an atomic bomb on your city, so if you could maybe not be here when that happens, that would be wonderfulthankssssssssss."

Or We could've just not dropped an atomic bomb.  :thumbup:

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 17, 2012, 01:12:34 PM

Or We could've just not dropped an atomic bomb.  :thumbup:

Destroying them was the right answer.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 17, 2012, 12:53:51 PM

Just because it seems logical to You doesn't make it any less horrible. Bombing civilians isn't justifiable.

Does the military produce it's own bombs and bullets? Or do civilians produce them.
If civilians produce them, you are in effect saying that they can shoot at you, but you can't shoot back.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 17, 2012, 01:06:31 PM


You're not right, killing civilians is a bad strategy, even though You believe it sound logic. 


Hmm, I wonder who else believed it was ok to kill civilians?


(https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT4i9I8GjjdzfU3aXGSPm615F0QWSvpI0IYTzcB-IsRr9uHHXbI)

That's just too cheap, Fishy boy. Can we look at the differences? Do you have that kind of time?

• No state of war existed between Al Qaida and us on 9/11.
  
• No military value could possibly be attached to the World Trade Center towers.
• The weapons chosen by OBL and used on 9/11 were civilian airliners, loaded with civilian passengers on peaceful errands, not strategic bombers.
• NOT ONE PERSON KILLED ON 9/11 had the intent or the ability to harm OBL or any of his followers. The attack was intended to kill and maim ONLY innocents.
• The terrorists who did 9/11 gave no warning to anyone.

You're over the line with this one, Fish.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 17, 2012, 12:58:46 PM

I disagree.   Knowing they weren't going to allow their Women and children run away, and yet still choosing to drop a bomb on them, is choosing to shoot the civilian shields.   I don't see that as the right thing to do.

Keep in mind, the world was at war, not just two countries, everyone was fighting for their own existence and the Japanese sucker punched us, but that was only the beginning.
Now read and learn something for a change.

Why did the United States drop the bomb when it did? On July 29, a U.S. Navy ship, the Indianapolis, was sunk and 883 lives were lost. A U.S. invasion of Southeast Asia was scheduled for September 6, in which case, it was likely that 100,000 British, Dutch, and American Prisoners of War would be executed by the Japanese.

Decrypted Japanese military cables indicated that Japan was building-up its defenses in preparation for an American invasion, and many Japanese leaders testified that they were confident that they could have stopped at least the first wave of an American invasion. Decoded diplomatic cables indicated that Japan's leaders were seeking to persuade the Soviet Union to negotiate an armistice on favorable terms that would have allowed Japan to retain conquered territory. A three-time Japanese premier, Prince Konoye Fumimaro, said that had the atomic bombs not been dropped, the war would have continued into 1946: "The army had dug themselves caves in the mountains and their idea of fighting on was fighting from every little hole or rock in the mountains."
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=541 (http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/database/article_display.cfm?HHID=541)

Quote from: taxed on July 17, 2012, 01:09:54 PM
Another great strategy.  We should have went to Japan, knocked on everyone's door and said "Excuse me... I'm sorry to disturb you, but w... mmmm, that smells delicious... anyway, we are going to drop an atomic bomb on your city, so if you could maybe not be here when that happens, that would be wonderfulthankssssssssss."

Actually the US did drop warning leaflets, the Japanese chose to ignore them. Oops!

Quote from: mdgiles on July 17, 2012, 01:26:39 PM
Actually the US did drop warning leaflets, the Japanese chose to ignore them. Oops!

I know....

Quote from: tbone0106 on July 17, 2012, 01:22:07 PM
That's just too cheap, Fishy boy.

You're over the line with this one, Fish.

That's not cheap, or over the line, it is very similar. That ass in the picture had the exact logic. Killing civilians didn't matter as long as it made an impact. 

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 17, 2012, 01:29:21 PM

That's not cheap, or over the line, it is very similar. That ass in the picture had the exact logic. Killing civilians didn't matter as long as it made an impact.

Nah.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both centers of military production located in a nation that was officially, actively and aggressively making war on the United States of America. They were legitimate targets in a shooting war, whether the bombs were atomic or merely incendiary.

Your comparison with 9/11 is bullshit.

Quote from: mdgiles on July 17, 2012, 01:26:39 PM
Actually the US did drop warning leaflets, the Japanese chose to ignore them. Oops!

http://www.damninteresting.com/ww2-america-warned-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-citizens/ (http://www.damninteresting.com/ww2-america-warned-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-citizens/)

Thanks, Mark. I didn't have time to look that up, but that's what I was talking about.  :thumbup:

Quote from: tbone0106 on July 17, 2012, 01:40:29 PM
Nah.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both centers of military production located in a nation that was officially, actively and aggressively making war on the United States of America. They were legitimate targets in a shooting war, whether the bombs were atomic or merely incendiary.

Your comparison with 9/11 is bullshit.

I disagree. Just because the agendas are different doesn't mean the logic is.  A "shooting war" at least gives the opportunity to target militants "atomic" targets everyone. 

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 17, 2012, 01:29:21 PM

That's not cheap, or over the line, it is very similar. That ass in the picture had the exact logic. Killing civilians didn't matter as long as it made an impact.

And you wonder why we want the Govt out of the job of educating our children?
You're a perfect example of the extremely poor job they're doing.

Quote from: Solar on July 17, 2012, 01:52:56 PM
And you wonder why we want the Govt out of the job of educating our children?
You're a perfect example of the extremely poor job they're doing.

Coming from someone who seems fine with the killing of civilians, I'll take that^ as a compliment.   :wink:

Quote from: tbone0106 on July 17, 2012, 01:49:54 PM
Thanks, Mark. I didn't have time to look that up, but that's what I was talking about.  :thumbup:

No problem. The left is tireless in their work to rewrite history, and paint America as monsters. I actually learned something. I had never read the messages that were put out by the US, in our attempt to SAVE lives.

Keep trying fish.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 17, 2012, 01:57:38 PM

Coming from someone who seems fine with the killing of civilians, I'll take that^ as a compliment.   :wink:

Sheesh, I gave you a historical link, read it and learn something.
Do you realize that the entire country was at war? Women had to take over a mans jobs building war machines (Rosie the Riveter), the men were away fighting, everyone had a stake at protecting the country from a ruthless enemy.

Read the damn link and quit showing what a pansy assed lib you are.

Quote from: Solar on July 17, 2012, 02:02:15 PM
Sheesh, I gave you a historical link, read it and learn something.
Do you realize that the entire country was at war? Women had to take over a mans jobs building war machines (Rosie the Riveter), the men were away fighting, everyone had a stake at protecting the country from a ruthless enemy.

Read the damn link and quit showing what a pansy assed lib you are.

Just because a country is at war doesn't mean the country should condone the killing of civilians. Your link doesn't change that fact.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 17, 2012, 02:04:28 PM
Just because a country is at war doesn't mean the country should condone the killing of civilians. Your link doesn't change that fact.

You don't seem to understand, all of Japan was at war, they were following the Emperor, a man who's word was that of a God.
I'm serious, you really need to learn some history, you're looking like a fool.

Quote from: Solar on July 17, 2012, 02:07:13 PM
You don't seem to understand, all of Japan was at war, they were following the Emperor, a man who's word was that of a God.
I'm serious, you really need to learn some history, you're looking like a fool.

Not all of the people in the cities that were bombed were combatants.  Just because people are under Emperor rule doesn't make them all armed combatants. There were civilian women and children that were slaughtered by those bombs. It's not foolish to believe that wrong.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 17, 2012, 02:04:28 PM
Just because a country is at war doesn't mean the country should condone the killing of civilians. Your link doesn't change that fact.

The civilians were part of the Japanese war machine. It was not soldiers that worked in the munitions factories in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Both the Germans and the Japanese were attacking civilian populations. We played by the rules that were set by the aggressors.

It's a concept that our apologizing president still fails to grasp.

Quote from: kramarat on July 17, 2012, 02:12:33 PM
The civilians were part of the Japanese war machine.

That^ is exactly the type of thinking that promotes civilian casualties.  People believe all Americans the same way, is it ok for them to kill our civilians? NO.


It's simple, we dropped atomic bombs on civilians that were unable to leave because they were under strict rule. And We knew they were under strict rule.  It's not good no matter how You shake it.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 17, 2012, 02:12:13 PM

Not all of the people in the cities that were bombed were combatants.  Just because people are under Emperor rule doesn't make them all armed combatants. There were civilian women and children that were slaughtered by those bombs. It's not foolish to believe that wrong.

They were all followers of the Emperor, there's a huge distinction.
Would you please learn some history?

To date, Japan does not want an apology over the bombing, does that not tell you something?
Leadership: Leaked cables show Japan nixed a presidential apology to Hiroshima and Nagasaki for using nukes to end the overseas contingency operation known as World War II. Will the next president apologize for the current one?.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.investors.com%2Fimage%2FISS2c_111012_345.jpg.cms&hash=6ac19e31d95ab023dce9f00cba412b4161c1ffc0)
http://news.investors.com/article/587698/201110111829/apologies-not-accepted.htm?ven=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:%20EditorialRss%20%28Editorial%20RSS%29 (http://news.investors.com/article/587698/201110111829/apologies-not-accepted.htm?ven=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:%20EditorialRss%20%28Editorial%20RSS%29)

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 17, 2012, 02:19:34 PM
That^ is exactly the type of thinking that promotes civilian casualties.  People believe all Americans the same way, is it ok for them to kill our civilians? NO.


It's simple, we dropped atomic bombs on civilians that were unable to leave because they were under strict rule. And We knew they were under strict rule.  It's not good no matter how You shake it.

All soldiers start off as civilians. The Japanese would not have surrendered without the dropping of the bombs.

What you are suggesting, is that not dropping the bombs, and prolonging the war for possibly, years more, would have resulted in a better outcome. That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. The casualties on both sides would have continued mounting.

Do you really think that the kind and gentle Japanese wouldn't have drafted civilians to continue the fight?

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 17, 2012, 02:19:34 PM
That^ is exactly the type of thinking that promotes civilian casualties.  People believe all Americans the same way, is it ok for them to kill our civilians? NO.


It's simple, we dropped atomic bombs on civilians that were unable to leave because they were under strict rule. And We knew they were under strict rule.  It's not good no matter how You shake it.

In truth, the bomb saved lives, but you don't want to believe that.
Maybe a little history lesson is in order again.

Perhaps the most tragic part of the loss of human life during the Battle of Okinawa was the Okinawans. Mostly uneducated peasants and fishermen, the local populace had been cowed by the Japanese military, and terrified by stories that the invading Americans would rape, torture and kill all civilians, including children. Japanese soldiers distributed grenades to the civilians and ordered them to commit suicide. Thousands of Okinawans did, some using the grenades, others resorting to hanging. In some instances mothers and fathers first killed their children, then themselves. The number of victims will never be known, but between the suicides and being caught in the middle of 82 days of explosive fighting, anywhere from 40,000 to 150,000 Okinawans are estimated to have died.

The following two copyrighted newspaper articles were published by the Augusta Chronicle (Augusta, Georgia) on the front page of its April 2, 1945, issue:
http://www.newsinhistory.com/blog/pivotal-wwii-battle-okinawa-begins (http://www.newsinhistory.com/blog/pivotal-wwii-battle-okinawa-begins)

Quote from: Solar on July 17, 2012, 02:42:57 PM
In truth, the bomb saved lives, but you don't want to believe that.

Again, that's not true, Solar. I've said that 'even if You are killing an innocent to save another innocent the action is still wrong.'


Do You not understand that?

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 17, 2012, 02:47:43 PM

Again, that's not true, Solar. I've said that 'even if You are killing an innocent to save another innocent the action is still wrong.'


Do You not understand that?

But it is true, even the Japanese admitted so.
Why do you refuse to study history and use emotion to to come to conclusions?

Quote from: Solar on July 17, 2012, 03:28:41 PM
But it is true, even the Japanese admitted so.
Why do you refuse to study history and use emotion to to come to conclusions?

Why do You refuse to see the killing of children and unarmed Women as wrong?   

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 17, 2012, 03:47:54 PM

Why do You refuse to see the killing of children and unarmed Women as wrong?

Because of evidence that I've provided proves the entire population was the enemy.
Sadly children were killed, but the blame does not rest on our shoulders, it is squarely in the laps of the Japanese people.

Read some Damned History for a change!
We dropped two bombs, Why? Because they were willing to sacrifice themselves all in the name of their Emperor, including the children.
Seriously, learn some history and quit implanting emotion on everything.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 17, 2012, 03:47:54 PM

Why do You refuse to see the killing of children and unarmed Women as wrong?

You're out of context.

Three guys break into your house. One has a gun, the other two don't. You shoot and kill all three of them...............one was 15 years old.

Are you a cold blooded murderer?

Here are some numbers for you to peruse. Guess who was responsible for the civilian casualties in China? Please stop insisting that the dropping of the bombs didn't save lives. You are full of shit.

The bombs, as well as our defeat of the Nazis, stopped mass genocide in it's tracks.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/civilian_casualties_of_world_war.htm (http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/civilian_casualties_of_world_war.htm)

Quote from: kramarat on July 17, 2012, 04:23:10 PM
You're out of context.

Three guys break into your house. One has a gun, the other two don't. You shoot and kill all three of them...............one was 15 years old.

Are you a cold blooded murderer?

You're out of context with that^. In this case We were breaking into their home aiming at everyone in the home. And, sadly, there were far more killed who were 15 and under.

You can say they broke in to Our home first, but that still doesn't give us the right to do something horrific in return.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 17, 2012, 04:28:18 PM

You're out of context with that^. In this case We were breaking into their home aiming at everyone in the home. And, sadly, there were far more killed who were 15 and under.

You can say they broke in to Our home first, but that still doesn't give us the right to do something horrific in return.

Are you a Pacifist?

Quote from: rich_t on July 17, 2012, 04:35:36 PM
Are you a Pacifist?

No.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 17, 2012, 04:28:18 PM

You're out of context with that^. In this case We were breaking into their home aiming at everyone in the home. And, sadly, there were far more killed who were 15 and under.

You can say they broke in to Our home first, but that still doesn't give us the right to do something horrific in return.

Once again, it appears as if you refuse to read the links. 10,000,000 Chinese civilian casualties. Who do you think was behind them?

The Japanese needed to be stopped. They refused. They placed munitions factories, (intentionally), within civilian populations. They decided to take the gamble that the US wouldn't resort to using their own tactics against them.........................they were wrong.

War sucks.

Quote from: kramarat on July 17, 2012, 04:48:04 PM
Once again, it appears as if you refuse to read the links. 10,000,000 Chinese civilian casualties. Who do you think was behind them?

The Japanese needed to be stopped. They refused. They placed munitions factories, (intentionally), within civilian populations. They decided to take the gamble that the US wouldn't resort to using their own tactics against them.........................they were wrong.

War sucks.

Just because Someone does something unspeakable doesn't mean Someone else should do the same.  War does suck, aiming at civilians sucks worse.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 17, 2012, 04:37:33 PM
No.

You seem to understand little about modern industrial war. This isn't war as it used to be; say before the American Civil, modern warfare demands modern industry. This makes the industrial plant of a nation a valid target. you can't very well shot at a soldier carrying a rifle, while allowing the home front to simply make more rifles, to arm more troops, to continue the war indefinitely. There's and old saying: "Amateurs talk strategy and tactics, professionals talk logistics".  It's the logistical tail that provides the "teeth" of war. To attack the plants and factories making the weapons of war, you must end up attacking the people - civilians - sitting in those plants and factories making the weapons of war. Do you think civilians - or the representatives the select - should be allowed to have a say as to whether the state goes to war or not. If so, why should they be insulated from the effects of their decision?

Quote from: mdgiles on July 17, 2012, 05:08:44 PM
You seem to understand little about modern industrial war. This isn't war as it used to be; say before the American Civil, modern warfare demands modern industry. This makes the industrial plant of a nation a valid target. you can't very well shot at a soldier carrying a rifle, while allowing the home front to simply make more rifles, to arm more troops, to continue the war indefinitely. There's and old saying: "Amateurs talk strategy and tactics, professionals talk logistics".  It's the logistical tail that provides the "teeth" of war. To attack the plants and factories making the weapons of war, you must end up attacking the people - civilians - sitting in those plants and factories making the weapons of war. Do you think civilians - or the representatives the select - should be allowed to have a say as to whether the state goes to war or not. If so, why should they be insulated from the effects of their decision?

With that^ are You condoning any future attacks on American civilians?   


And I don't believe women and children had the rights You speak of when we dropped the atomic bomb. As others have stated here, they were under "emperor" rule.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 17, 2012, 05:05:41 PM

Just because Someone does something unspeakable doesn't mean Someone else should do the same.  War does suck, aiming at civilians sucks worse.

Our goal is to end wars. If we tie our hands behind our backs and attempt to fight a moral war against immoral people, we will never win.

In order to preserve life, bringing an end to war, must be priority #1.

Somehow you have come to the conclusion that the civilian Japanese lives were worth more than the civilians that they were murdering by the millions. I beg to differ.

Quote from: kramarat on July 17, 2012, 05:18:29 PM
Our goal is to end wars. If we tie our hands behind our backs and attempt to fight a moral war against immoral people, we will never win.

And that^ is probably correct, but We would lose honorably.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 17, 2012, 05:17:32 PM

With that^ are You condoning any future attacks on American civilians?   


And I don't believe women and children had the rights You speak of when we dropped the atomic bomb. As others have stated here, they were under "emperor" rule.

I don't have to condone it, because if we go to war and our enemies can get at us it will happen. Unlike you our potential enemies understand where the war strength of a polity lies. If the Japanese or Germans had long range bombers and the bases to use them from, do you think they would have bombed the US. We understood this,  which is why, for example, aircraft plants on the west coast were camouflaged.

Quote from: mdgiles on July 17, 2012, 05:50:06 PM
I don't have to condone it

No, You don't have to, but it reads a bit like You do.

Quote from: mdgiles on July 17, 2012, 05:08:44 PM
Do you think civilians - or the representatives the select - should be allowed to have a say as to whether the state goes to war or not. If so, why should they be insulated from the effects of their decision?

That's why I asked.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 17, 2012, 05:22:12 PM

And that^ is probably correct, but We would lose honorably.

And THAT^ is just about the dumbest statement I've read in a very long time.

Quote from: tbone0106 on July 17, 2012, 06:02:41 PM
And THAT^ is just about the dumbest statement I've read in a very long time.

Is it dumb to want to be honorable? Is it dumb to rather have sound morals than victory? I don't believe so.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 17, 2012, 06:03:48 PM

Is it dumb to want to be honorable? Is it dumb to rather have sound morals than victory? I don't believe so.

War is war, and today there is little short of total war.

Showing up at a gunfight with a pillow in one hand and a teddy bear in the other is dumb, sir, very dumb.

What's smart about getting honorably dead?

Quote from: tbone0106 on July 17, 2012, 06:06:40 PM
War is war, and today there is little short of total war.

Showing up at a gunfight with a pillow in one hand and a teddy bear in the other is dumb, sir, very dumb.

What's smart about getting honorably dead?

Nothing I've said equates to a teddy and pillow.  But showing up to a war with an atomic bomb for everyone in a city is wrong, sir, very wrong.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 17, 2012, 06:16:10 PM

Nothing I've said equates to a teddy and pillow.  But showing up to a war with an atomic bomb for everyone in a city is wrong, sir, very wrong.

Quick quiz -- Before August 6, 1945, how many atomic bombs had been detonated by the US?

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 17, 2012, 06:03:48 PM

Is it dumb to want to be honorable? Is it dumb to rather have sound morals than victory? I don't believe so.

Losing a war against relentless murderers is not honorable you dipshit.

According to your theory, we should have simply destroyed our nukes during the cold war, ceded a win to to the USSR...................all based on our moral high ground. Is your name Obama?

I certainly hope you aren't working in any decision making position within the US government.

Cowards like Obama, that think that they can apologize their way out of any future conflicts, are hopelessly naive.

Tell me....................how would you envision the world if Obama was president during WWII? Better?

Would the Japanese and Nazis simply have given up, and decided that the US was just too nice to kill?

We need to get rid of people like Obama from our government, and people like you need to wake up to reality.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 17, 2012, 05:17:32 PM

With that^ are You condoning any future attacks on American civilians?   


And I don't believe women and children had the rights You speak of when we dropped the atomic bomb. As others have stated here, they were under "emperor" rule.

Wrong, you said that, I said they worshiped him like a God.
There is a huge difference, they are willing to sacrifice everything for their God.
One more time, read your history, and you wouldn't look so foolish.

Quote from: tbone0106 on July 17, 2012, 06:19:39 PM
Quick quiz -- Before August 6, 1945, how many atomic bombs had been detonated by the US?

Quick quiz-- How many countries have attacked people with an atomic bomb?   Is it's use on cities occupied by civilians a good thing?



Bonus question


Who else would've been for using the atomic bomb on civilian occupied cities, that is an enemy of the USA, and was recently captured, and killed?

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 17, 2012, 05:22:12 PM

And that^ is probably correct, but We would lose honorably.

:scared: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Are you fuckin serious?

Quote from: Solar on July 17, 2012, 06:32:51 PM
:scared: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Are you fuckin serious?

Yes.  :thumbup:

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 17, 2012, 06:31:11 PM

Quick quiz-- How many countries have attacked people with an atomic bomb?   Is it's use on cities occupied by civilians a good thing?



Bonus question


Who else would've been for using the atomic bomb on civilian occupied cities, that is an enemy of the USA, and was recently captured, and killed?

Wrong answer.

Actually, that was not an answer at all.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 17, 2012, 06:31:11 PM

Quick quiz-- How many countries have attacked people with an atomic bomb?   Is it's use on cities occupied by civilians a good thing?



Bonus question


Who else would've been for using the atomic bomb on civilian occupied cities, that is an enemy of the USA, and was recently captured, and killed?

Oh man, you don't think Japan or Nazi Germany wouldn't have used it ha they had it?
Might I remind you, or should I educate you to the fact that it was Germany working on the bomb, had it not been for Albert Einstein defecting, we most likely have suffered the same fate as Japan.

Quote from: Solar on July 17, 2012, 06:39:12 PM
Oh man, you don't think Japan or Nazi Germany wouldn't have used it ha they had it?

Yes, they probably would have. Does that mean we should be just as bad as them?

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 17, 2012, 06:34:45 PM

Yes.  :thumbup:

So if a 7 year old kid tries to shoot you, you'll do the honorable thing, and die?

Please answer my original question, Fish. How many atomic bombs had been detonated before August 6, 1945?

Quote from: Solar on July 17, 2012, 06:39:12 PM
Oh man, you don't think Japan or Nazi Germany wouldn't have used it ha they had it?
Might I remind you, or should I educate you to the fact that it was Germany working on the bomb, had it not been for Robert Oppenheimer defecting, we most likely have suffered the same fate as Japan.

Well that, and the German's racial policies which had the effect of driving many of the great scientists - who happened to be Jews - out of Europe. And then there was the advantage of American industry. For example, the US wasn't sure of the best way to separate the radioactive isotope of Uranium out. There were three methods of separating out the isotopes, being unsure of which was the best, the US simply used all three and also used breeder reactors to make Plutonium. The Japanese simply didn't have that level of resources although there are rumors that they built and tested a device. The Germans had the resources, but their program was held back by the usual diffusion of effort common to so much of the Nazi regime.

Quote from: Solar on July 17, 2012, 06:42:42 PM
So if a 7 year old kid tries to shoot you, you'll do the honorable thing, and die?

In combat that^ kid is an armed combatant. Sadly.

Quote from: mdgiles on July 17, 2012, 06:52:57 PM
Well that, and the German's racial policies which had the effect of driving many of the great scientists - who happened to be Jews - out of Europe. And then there was the advantage of American industry. For example, the US wasn't sure of the best way to separate the radioactive isotope of Uranium out. There were three methods of separating out the isotopes, being unsure of which was the best, the US simply used all three and also used breeder reactors to make Plutonium. The Japanese simply didn't have that level of resources although there are rumors that they built and tested a device. The Germans had the resources, but their program was held back by the usual diffusion of effort common to so much of the Nazi regime.

Yep, the Germans were actually ahead of us for a while, but they got stuck on the heavy water theory -- their primary reason for invading Norway -- and just never got past it. They were always more of a nuclear threat than the Japanese, because they had the machining expertise and technology that assembling a nuclear weapon requires. The Japanese were very good at building cheap, light fighter planes and tanks, but they had not yet achieved that mastery of machining.

Tell me....................how would you envision the world if Obama was president during WWII? Better?

I was pondering this question as I was drifting off to sleep last night, and I didn't like what I was coming up with.

I couldn't help but wonder if we would have joined the Axis powers, and helped to secure some type of global fascism/communism. :sad:

Quote from: kramarat on July 18, 2012, 03:52:38 AM
Tell me....................how would you envision the world if Obama was president during WWII? Better?

I was pondering this question as I was drifting off to sleep last night, and I didn't like what I was coming up with.

I couldn't help but wonder if we would have joined the Axis powers, and helped to secure some type of global fascism/communism. :sad:

Good question.
Not only would he have let Britain fall, he'd have ceded the Pacific to the Japanese.
I'd hate to think what language we'd be speaking today.
Neville Chamberlain would have praised the likes of hussein. 

Quote from: Solar on July 18, 2012, 05:45:58 AM
Good question.
Not only would he have let Britain fall, he'd have ceded the Pacific to the Japanese.
I'd hate to think what language we'd be speaking today.
Neville Chamberlain would have praised the likes of hussein.

I hope Obama isn't in power when WWIII breaks out in the middle east.

People like fish, that believe that coddling the enemy, or backing off and letting them do what they want, are hopelessly confused. I can't come up with one instance in history, where losing an armed conflict with an aggressor was considered honorable.

As Obama abandons Israel, and continues free aid money to an increasingly hostile Egypt, he has shown us the the tactic of weakness doesn't work. Even with our money, they treated Hillary like shit last week. They just don't get it..................we can't pay bad people to be nice.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/14/muslim-brotherhood-youd-best-keep-the-aid-money-coming-if-you-want-that-treaty-with-israel-intact/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/14/muslim-brotherhood-youd-best-keep-the-aid-money-coming-if-you-want-that-treaty-with-israel-intact/)

There's a word for what that article describes.....................it's called extortion. Every time Obama caves to it, we lose credibility around the globe.

Quote from: kramarat on July 18, 2012, 06:45:00 AM
I hope Obama isn't in power when WWIII breaks out in the middle east.

People like fish, that believe that coddling the enemy, or backing off and letting them do what they want, are hopelessly confused. I can't come up with one instance in history, where losing an armed conflict with an aggressor was considered honorable.

As Obama abandons Israel, and continues free aid money to an increasingly hostile Egypt, he has shown us the the tactic of weakness doesn't work. Even with our money, they treated Hillary like shit last week. They just don't get it..................we can't pay bad people to be nice.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/14/muslim-brotherhood-youd-best-keep-the-aid-money-coming-if-you-want-that-treaty-with-israel-intact/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/14/muslim-brotherhood-youd-best-keep-the-aid-money-coming-if-you-want-that-treaty-with-israel-intact/)

There's a word for what that article describes.....................it's called extortion. Every time Obama caves to it, we lose credibility around the globe.

The answer to which is: "STFU, how long do you think you'll last if we don't keep the aid money coming, and instead send it to Israel"?

Quote from: mdgiles on July 18, 2012, 08:56:49 AM
The answer to which is: "STFU, how long do you think you'll last if we don't keep the aid money coming, and instead send it to Israel"?

It's interesting to note that the peace treaty was brokered by Carter in 1979. It amounted to nothing more than the US, shoveling money to Egypt, to the tune of billions of dollars, in supposed aid money. It was extortion then, and it's extortion now.

Now that the US is broke, and we can no longer afford to pay off the bad guys, my suggestion would be to cut off the money, and dare them to misbehave. If they do.......................we would be forced to launch targeted strikes against them.

Quote from: kramarat on July 18, 2012, 10:30:05 AM
It's interesting to note that the peace treaty was brokered by Carter in 1979. It amounted to nothing more than the US, shoveling money to Egypt, to the tune of billions of dollars, in supposed aid money. It was extortion then, and it's extortion now.

Now that the US is broke, and we can no longer afford to pay off the bad guys, my suggestion would be to cut off the money, and dare them to misbehave. If they do.......................we would be forced to launch targeted strikes against them.

So. what does the Muslim Brotherhood (read Egyptian government) believe is going to happen to them when they no longer have those American dollars to had out to their supporters?

Quote from: mdgiles on July 18, 2012, 11:00:38 AM
So. what does the Muslim Brotherhood (read Egyptian government) believe is going to happen to them when they no longer have those American dollars to had out to their supporters?

I don't know what they believe, but I believe we would be would be replacing our dollars with targeted air strikes.

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/05/new-pew-center-poll-highlights-growing-egyptian-revulsion-at-peace-treaty-with-israel.html

Just another Obama success story. :blink:

Quote from: kramarat on July 18, 2012, 12:06:37 PM
I don't know what they believe, but I believe we would be would be replacing our dollars with targeted air strikes.

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/05/new-pew-center-poll-highlights-growing-egyptian-revulsion-at-peace-treaty-with-israel.html

Just another Obama success story. :blink:

They've been at peace too long, they've forgotten how often the Israelis used to kick their collective asses. Although I would guess that the one's with the bad memories would be the young Muslim Brotherhood supporters in the streets, not the Egyptian military.

EDIT: Just glanced at Fox News. The administration is worried that Assad in Syria may use the chemical weapons he hide for Saddam Hussein as a last ditch weapon, or they may eventually fall into the wrong hands.
You know - the chemical weapons the Libtards have been telling us for years never existed

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 17, 2012, 10:18:34 AM



Just because someone attacks us doesn't mean we should bomb their civilians.

After the attack of 9/11/2001, the muslims fully deserved a nuke on Mecca and Medina during the Haaj. They didn't get it, but if we are EVER attacked again in that fashion, we should not hesitate to help them go meet their false god and falser prophet.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 17, 2012, 05:22:12 PM

And that^ is probably correct, but We would lose honorably.

There is no honor whatsoever in failing to do your utmost to defeat your enemy.

Surrender now and avoid the rush, kid.

Quote from: quiller on July 18, 2012, 12:56:08 PM
There is no honor whatsoever in failing to do your utmost to defeat your enemy.

Surrender now and avoid the rush, kid.

Fish, are you French?

Quote from: mdgiles on July 18, 2012, 01:00:39 PM
Fish, are you French?

Maybe a gay, French, pacifist? :laugh:

Quote from: mdgiles on July 18, 2012, 01:00:39 PM
Fish, are you French?

In that event, Obama can hire him to plant straight rows of trees, to give advancing armies the shade they need for their victory march. Or he can doublecross his own country with an American Vichy.

Ooops. That one's taken. The Dems are trademarking everything these days, don'tcha know....

Ah, me. The same vacuum-skulled kids without the slightest scintilla of ability to reason something through. They never experienced life under martial law, much less any nationwide rationing as our parents' generation had to do in WWII.

His sort watch the old war movies and simply don't get it how oppressive the Huns were to any nation they occupied. They forget the "comfort stations" run by the Japanese, using women literally enslaved as prostitutes to service enemy troops.

These pampered halfwits think there's nothing wrong in surrendering. They do not deserve the citizenship of this country. They are a disgrace as Americans and a disgrace as human beings.

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages9.fotki.com%2Fv749%2Fphotos%2F1%2F1595431%2F10201489%2Fthese_men_did_not_get_here-vi.png&hash=a683d3af63c139d63ec40decf533ee1689f3ffa8)

Y'know, every time I see a photo of Mt. Rushmore, I wonder how difficult it would be to recarve Roosevelt's image into Reagan's. Teddy was no pussy, but he was damn sure a lib/prog.

Quote from: tbone0106 on July 18, 2012, 02:32:49 PM
Y'know, every time I see a photo of Mt. Rushmore, I wonder how difficult it would be to recarve Roosevelt's image into Reagan's. Teddy was no pussy, but he was damn sure a lib/prog.

Please don't give Obama any more ideas on what to do with stimulus money..................................he'll blast all of the faces off and replace them with his own. :blink:

Quote from: quiller on July 18, 2012, 01:22:02 PM
In that event, Obama can hire him to plant straight rows of trees, to give advancing armies the shade they need for their victory march. Or he can doublecross his own country with an American Vichy.

Ooops. That one's taken. The Dems are trademarking everything these days, don'tcha know....

Ah, me. The same vacuum-skulled kids without the slightest scintilla of ability to reason something through. They never experienced life under martial law, much less any nationwide rationing as our parents' generation had to do in WWII.

His sort watch the old war movies and simply don't get it how oppressive the Huns were to any nation they occupied. They forget the "comfort stations" run by the Japanese, using women literally enslaved as prostitutes to service enemy troops.

These pampered halfwits think there's nothing wrong in surrendering. They do not deserve the citizenship of this country. They are a disgrace as Americans and a disgrace as human beings.

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages9.fotki.com%2Fv749%2Fphotos%2F1%2F1595431%2F10201489%2Fthese_men_did_not_get_here-vi.png&hash=a683d3af63c139d63ec40decf533ee1689f3ffa8)

Zactly, Quill...He also missed the "World at War" episodes covering the treatment of those soldiers who honorably surrendered to the Japanese at Singapore and Bataan.   Of course, the Japanese also murdered by bayonet and sword 300,000 innocent Chinese civilians during the Rape of Nanking...by comparison, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were humane.

Quote from: bluelieu on July 18, 2012, 10:14:38 PM
Zactly, Quill...He also missed the "World at War" episodes covering the treatment of those soldiers who honorably surrendered to the Japanese at Singapore and Bataan.   Of course, the Japanese also murdered by bayonet and sword 300,000 innocent Chinese civilians during the Rape of Nanking...by comparison, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were humane.

The rape of nanking was just one of many atrocities Japanese troops actually ate an entire village in the Philippines....there are living survivors to this. They also burned alive American POWS on some island.


What does anyone think would happen to American servicemen (or civilians) who would surrender to Jihadi's?


Billyt

Quote from: kramarat on July 18, 2012, 01:13:01 PM
Maybe a gay, French, pacifist? :laugh:

No, no, and no.  Here's who I am.



I'm a man that believes who one loves , be it heterosexual, or homosexual, is ok , as long as it's consensual. I also believe soldiers in war should be aiming at armed combatants, not dropping atomic bombs on Cities filled with women and children.

One person doing something horrible and than another doing the same, doesn't equal good.   

Quote from: Solar on July 14, 2012, 07:35:28 AM
Yeah, I know, but I was hoping to hear a lib articulate their reasons, for or against.
If it's for, they are either voting on emotion, or they simply hate the country, there can be no other explanation.

Liberals always vote on emotional response. they feel good when they think they do good. Too many have deep seated self confidence issues and emote constantly.

Hence "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder"

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 18, 2012, 11:47:14 PM

No, no, and no.  Here's who I am.



I'm a man that believes who one loves , be it heterosexual, or homosexual, is ok , as long as it's consensual. I also believe soldiers in war should be aiming at armed combatants, not dropping atomic bombs on Cities filled with women and children.

One person doing something horrible and than another doing the same, doesn't equal good.   

I don't have a problem with gays. I thought don't ask don't tell was fine.
Open gays in the military? Sure. as long as their words, actions, or mere presence, never, (under any circumstances), undermines the morale or combat readiness of whatever unit they are attached to, nor any single member of the team.

We both know that there are too many people that are uncomfortable with homosexuality, (much less, sharing close quarters with them), for that to be possible. The skin color analogy doesn't cut it.

One person doing something horrible and than another doing the same, doesn't equal good.

I don't believe anyone here stated that killing women and children, is good.

The problem with entering conversations, with emotional blinders on, is that you are also blinded to reality.

The reality is, that the decision to drop the bombs turned out to be a good one.

Not only did it end the war, but the entire world now knew the destructive capability of these weapons. They haven't been used since.

After the dropping of those bombs, most of the planet also entered an extended period of peace and prosperity................this would include, not only the US, but Japan and Germany as well. In hindsight, I don't believe either one of those countries have any hard feelings, as to how things went down. No apologies necessary.

The women were working in the factories, and the factories were in the cities...................they were legitimate targets.

The children? Stop and think about it for a second. Wars are fought by children. Our ground troops that were getting slaughtered in the field, were not hardened warriors......................they were primarily kids just out of high school.

The bottom line.......................when taken out of historical context, the dropping of the bombs sounds horrible. We were fighting a relentless enemy, that was more than happy to have their civilians commit suicide in an effort to further the war effort. The dropping of the bombs, not only ended the war, it enabled tens of millions of Japanese people to live and work as free people, forever living without the shroud of tyranny that previous generations had.......................it continues to this day. America made it possible.

Quote from: lessthantolerant on July 19, 2012, 03:15:06 AM
Liberals always vote on emotional response. they feel good when they think they do good. Too many have deep seated self confidence issues and emote constantly.

Hence "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder"

That's the problem with liberalism and reality, the two have nothing in common.

Quote from: Bad water BILLY on July 18, 2012, 10:27:34 PM

The rape of nanking was just one of many atrocities Japanese troops actually ate an entire village in the Philippines....there are living survivors to this. They also burned alive American POWS on some island.


What does anyone think would happen to American servicemen (or civilians) who would surrender to Jihadi's?


Billyt

The Japanese pulled some American flyers alive from the waters at Midway. Then they tortured them for information, and when they were finished, wrapped them in chains and threw them overboard. The raid on Chichi Jima, where young Bush 1 was shot down, and rescued by sub, some other pilots were so lucky. The Japanese captured them, later murdered them, and ate some of them in ritual cannibalism. Japanese that were cut off in New Guinea, commonly ate allied dead and natives they had killed.

Quote from: kramarat on July 19, 2012, 03:34:26 AM

The problem with entering conversations, with emotional blinders on, is that you are also blinded to reality.

The reality is, that the decision to drop the bombs turned out to be a good one.

The women were working in the factories, and the factories were in the cities...................they were legitimate targets.

It's not emotional to say that it was wrong to drop bombs on women and children, its just reality. The reality is, the decision to drop bombs was a horrible act that turned out to be good, for a while , because others feared us.  And We've had Women working in factories as well, were they open game  also, in Your opinion?

Just because something bad helped for a little while doesn't mean it wasn't bad, it just means it helped, for a little while.

As far as gays in the Military goes, there's not as meany homophobes out there as there used to be, thankfully. Most seem more comfortable in their sexuality these days.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 19, 2012, 08:30:02 AM

It's not emotional to say that it was wrong to drop bombs on women and children, its just reality. The reality is, the decision to drop bombs was a horrible act that turned out to be good, for a while , because others feared us.  And We've had Women working in factories as well, were they open game  also, in Your opinion?

Just because something bad helped for a little while doesn't mean it wasn't bad, it just means it helped, for a little while.

As far as gays in the Military goes, there's not as meany homophobes out there as there used to be, thankfully. Most seem more comfortable in their sexuality these days.

Yes. During the war, if the Japanese would have been capable of blowing our factories, our women, our children, our cities, and everything else................they would have. You bet they were open game.

The decision on how to deal with gays in the military, is one for the generals and commanders.......................not civilian presidents. The UCMJ contains many rules and regulations that would be considered unfair in the civilian world. If all of our current troops are comfortable, living in close quarters with homosexuals......................who am I to argue? If it creates problems, it should be dealt with...................not forced on the heterosexuals that don't care to live with them. I'm biased because I served on a destroyer, where we were packed like sardines in our birthing compartments. Having a couple of open gays in there, wouldn't have worked any better than having a couple of women in there. Both would have created problems.

Other than that, there's not much point in discussing it any further. Obama has laid down his law, as commander in chief. It is what it is.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 19, 2012, 08:30:02 AM

It's not emotional to say that it was wrong to drop bombs on women and children, its just reality. The reality is, the decision to drop bombs was a horrible act that turned out to be good, for a while , because others feared us.  And We've had Women working in factories as well, were they open game  also, in Your opinion?

Just because something bad helped for a little while doesn't mean it wasn't bad, it just means it helped, for a little while.

"There were those who considered that the atomic bomb should never have been used at all. I cannot associate myself with such ideas... I am surprised that very worthy people—but people who in most cases had no intention of proceeding to the Japanese front themselves—should adopt a position that rather than throw this bomb we should have sacrificed a million American and a quarter of a million British lives..."

Winston Churchill, leader of the Opposition, in a speech to the British House of Commons, August 1945

War is the endangerment of of our most precious national treasure, our youth...from whom untold generations will spring.  Millions of Americans and Brits are alive today who would not be if Operations Olympic and Operation Coronet, the two-phased invasion of Japan, had been put into place....furthermore, due to anticipated defense by civilian Japanese and suicidal defense by Japanese home divisions, it can easily be argued that many more japanese would have been killed than the 200,000+ killed in firebombings and atomic bombings.

QuoteI asked General Marshall what it would cost in lives to land on the Tokio plain and other places in Japan," Truman said later. "It was his opinion that such an invasion would cost at minimum one quarter of a million casualties, and might cost as much as a million, on the American side alone, with an equal number of the enemy. The other military and naval men present agreed.

Truman, letter to Cate, January 12, 1953, reproduced in Craven and Cate, Army Air Forces. In his memoirs, Truman said that "General Marshall told me that it might cost half a million American lives to force the enemy's surrender on his home grounds." Note: Truman used the alternative spelling, Tokio, in his letter to Cate.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 19, 2012, 08:30:02 AM

It's not emotional to say that it was wrong to drop bombs on women and children, its just reality. The reality is, the decision to drop bombs was a horrible act that turned out to be good, for a while , because others feared us.  And We've had Women working in factories as well, were they open game  also, in Your opinion?

Just because something bad helped for a little while doesn't mean it wasn't bad, it just means it helped, for a little while.

As far as gays in the Military goes, there's not as meany homophobes out there as there used to be, thankfully. Most seem more comfortable in their sexuality these days.

So. exactly how should we go about dealing with the enemy industrial plant, or are you suggesting we just leave it alone? Should we just have allowed the Japanese to continue to build war material which our troops would have ultimately had to deal with. IOW, do you care more about enemy civilians than you do about your countrymen?

That word Homophobes. A phobia is an unreasoning fear of something. Disliking the way that someone behaves isn't an "unreasoning fear". People who use that term aren't being descriptive, they're simply trying to shut the other person up, by initiating the conversation in which they've already painted any reasons they might have as unreasonable. It's the usually dishonesty that we've come to expect from the left. Are gays Heterophobes?

I look at the word "Liberal," and think of it as a composite of all the evil in the World for the last 100 years or so. Communism, Fascism, Nazism, Socialism, they are all tucked neatly under the banner Liberalism. In other words, they should hang em all! :thumbup:

Quote from: bluelieu on July 19, 2012, 09:51:48 AM
rather than throw this bomb we should have sacrificed a million American and a quarter of a million British lives..."

In times of draft I could see how they could get away with saying something like that^. However, dropping bombs on civilians still isn't worth a million armed combatants, in my opinion.  The armed men have a fighting chance, the women and children of that day, against an atomic bomb, didn't.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 19, 2012, 10:26:26 PM

In times of draft I could see how they could get away with saying something like that^. However, dropping bombs on civilians still isn't worth a million armed combatants, in my opinion.  The armed men have a fighting chance, the women and children of that day, against an atomic bomb, didn't.

So to save people working in war production plants just outside the military targets at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, you would sacrifice a million U.S. soldiers and half a million Brits.

I'll save a bullet for you so you won't whine when enemy boots finally hit OUR shores, thanks to spineless children like you.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 19, 2012, 10:26:26 PM

In times of draft I could see how they could get away with saying something like that^. However, dropping bombs on civilians still isn't worth a million armed combatants, in my opinion.  The armed men have a fighting chance, the women and children of that day, against an atomic bomb, didn't.

You also seem to ignore the expected million or so projected Japanese casualties.  Civilians would have no "fighting chance" even if they were not combatants (we know thousands were being trained for suicide attacks). For God's sake, look to the battle of Okinawa which ended about a month  before Hiroshima.  It is estimated that there were 300,000 civilians on the island when the invasion began....

10th Army Casualty Figures for the 82 Day Campaign:

142,000 Civilian dead.
73,000 Japanese Soldiers
12,281 US Soldiers and Sailors

The figures show a total casualty figure of 142,058 civilian casualties.  The figure of 142,000 civilians killed in action would include those killed by artillery fire, air attacks and those who were pressed into service by the Japanese army, some of which were hostile to our forces and were caught in-between the two armies; while others were unfortunate victims of circumstances; such as more than 289 students and teachers killed at the Cave of the Virgins; they had been pressed into service by the Japanese Army to help with a hospital constructed in a cave.
http://darbysrangers.tripod.com/Okinawa/id20.htm (http://darbysrangers.tripod.com/Okinawa/id20.htm)

Quote from: bluelieu on July 20, 2012, 04:28:15 AM
You also seem to ignore the expected million or so projected Japanese casualties.  Civilians would have no "fighting chance" even if they were not combatants (we know thousands were being trained for suicide attacks). For God's sake, look to the battle of Okinawa which ended about a month  before Hiroshima.  It is estimated that there were 300,000 civilians on the island when the invasion began....

10th Army Casualty Figures for the 82 Day Campaign:

142,000 Civilian dead.
73,000 Japanese Soldiers
12,281 US Soldiers and Sailors

The figures show a total casualty figure of 142,058 civilian casualties.  The figure of 142,000 civilians killed in action would include those killed by artillery fire, air attacks and those who were pressed into service by the Japanese army, some of which were hostile to our forces and were caught in-between the two armies; while others were unfortunate victims of circumstances; such as more than 289 students and teachers killed at the Cave of the Virgins; they had been pressed into service by the Japanese Army to help with a hospital constructed in a cave.
http://darbysrangers.tripod.com/Okinawa/id20.htm (http://darbysrangers.tripod.com/Okinawa/id20.htm)

I think fish is one of those people that joins the military, and if he is ever told to grab a weapon and start killing people, he claims  conscientious objector status.  :cry:

Quote from: bluelieu on July 20, 2012, 04:28:15 AM
You also seem to ignore the expected million or so projected Japanese casualties.  Civilians would have no "fighting chance" even if they were not combatants (we know thousands were being trained for suicide attacks). For God's sake, look to the battle of Okinawa which ended about a month  before Hiroshima.  It is estimated that there were 300,000 civilians on the island when the invasion began....

10th Army Casualty Figures for the 82 Day Campaign:

142,000 Civilian dead.
73,000 Japanese Soldiers
12,281 US Soldiers and Sailors

The figures show a total casualty figure of 142,058 civilian casualties.  The figure of 142,000 civilians killed in action would include those killed by artillery fire, air attacks and those who were pressed into service by the Japanese army, some of which were hostile to our forces and were caught in-between the two armies; while others were unfortunate victims of circumstances; such as more than 289 students and teachers killed at the Cave of the Virgins; they had been pressed into service by the Japanese Army to help with a hospital constructed in a cave.
http://darbysrangers.tripod.com/Okinawa/id20.htm (http://darbysrangers.tripod.com/Okinawa/id20.htm)

I think what we are seeing here, is the perfect example as to why libs are destroying our culture/country.
They learn absolutely nothing from history, and when they do refer to historical events, they tend to project today's emotion on a people that had a different view of the time, in this case, survival, we as a Nation did not want to live as Japanese slaves.

The sooner the Americans come, the better...One hundred million die proudly.
- Japanese slogan in the summer of 1945



"In addition to U.S. casualties, the Japanese on Kyushu would likely have suffered upwards of 2,000,000 military and civilian casualties. These projected figures for Kyushu far exceed the casualties inflicted by the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which ended the War with Japan. "
- www.fas.org (http://www.fas.org)

"Japan was finished as a warmaking nation, in spite of its four million men still under arms. But...Japan was not going to quit. Despite the fact that she was militarily finished, Japan's leaders were going to fight right on. To not lose "face" was more important than hundreds and hundreds of thousands of lives. And the people concurred, in silence, without protest. To continue was no longer a question of Japanese military thinking, it was an aspect of Japanese culture and psychology. "
James Jones, WWII

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 19, 2012, 10:26:26 PM

In times of draft I could see how they could get away with saying something like that^. However, dropping bombs on civilians still isn't worth a million armed combatants, in my opinion.  The armed men have a fighting chance, the women and children of that day, against an atomic bomb, didn't.

IOW, you care more about the civilians of a state which has gone to war with the United States, than you care about the lives of your own countrymen. You first loyalty is to our enemies? I'm assuming, that you're assuming that none of your sons or daughters are going to be among those placed at risk.

Quote from: mdgiles on July 20, 2012, 07:19:40 AM
IOW, you care more about the civilians of a state which has gone to war with the United States, than you care about the lives of your own countrymen. You first loyalty is to our enemies? I'm assuming, that you're assuming that none of your sons or daughters are going to be among those placed at risk.

My loyalty is to country and civilians/non combatants.  If My country tells Me to aim at non combatants than My country has become disloyal to Me.


Though I assume nothing of the sort. Odds are someone would end up taking the low road and drop an atomic bomb on us or something. Nice guys do finish last.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 20, 2012, 08:41:59 AM
My loyalty is to country and civilians/non combatants.  If My country tells Me to aim at non combatants than My country has become disloyal to Me.

Well then, I am glad you do not hold the launch key on a Navy boomer sub.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 20, 2012, 08:41:59 AM
My loyalty is to country and civilians/non combatants.  If My country tells Me to aim at non combatants than My country has become disloyal to Me.


Though I assume nothing of the sort. Odds are someone would end up taking the low road and drop an atomic bomb on us or something. Nice guys do finish last.

And in wars as they are being fought today, you can tell the "Good Guys" (non Combatant civilians) from the "Bad Guys" (soldiers dressed in uniform) how exactly? You see our enemies are not stupid and nowhere near as suicidal as you are. If they know Fish has orders not to - or won't - shoot at civilians; then the smart thing for him to do, is to dress as a civilian and fire at you from behind civilians. It's one thing you pacific types never understood, and it's the reasoning behind executing illegal combatants out of hand. Executing illegal combatants protects civilians. Saying or announcing that you won't fire at civilians under any circumstances, puts those civilians at risk.

Quote from: lessthantolerant on July 19, 2012, 03:15:06 AM
Liberals always vote on emotional response. they feel good when they think they do good. Too many have deep seated self confidence issues and emote constantly.

Which, hence, certainly explains why conservatives are more fervently religious, and almost entirely pro-life.

Nothing emotional here, in the slightest.

Quote
Hence "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder"

Because we all know Locke, Einstein, Hawking, and King Jr. have or had mental disorders.   :rolleyes:

Given that liberals statistically possess higher rates of college education and inhabit the higher section of the IQ bell curve, we know that they are just idiots.   :rolleyes:

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 20, 2012, 08:51:42 PM
Which, hence, certainly explains why conservatives are more fervently religious, and almost entirely pro-life.

Nothing emotional here, in the slightest.

Because we all know Locke, Einstein, Hawking, and King Jr. have or had mental disorders.   :rolleyes:

Given that liberals statistically possess higher rates of college education and inhabit the higher section of the IQ bell curve, we know that they are just idiots.   :rolleyes:

Let me guess, you saw a WHO study proving that bull shit as well? :rolleyes:

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 20, 2012, 08:51:42 PM
Which, hence, certainly explains why conservatives are more fervently religious, and almost entirely pro-life.

Nothing emotional here, in the slightest.

Because we all know Locke, Einstein, Hawking, and King Jr. have or had mental disorders.   :rolleyes:

Given that liberals statistically possess higher rates of college education and inhabit the higher section of the IQ bell curve, we know that they are just idiots.   :rolleyes:

Ha! Thanks for the laugh. Martin Luther King Jr. was a conservative.

Liberals inhabit the higher end of the bell curve? That is absolutely hilarious. :lol:

The Bell Curve was invented to make stupid people appear smart. Glad to know you're at the upper end. Keep drinking the fucking kool aid moron. You'll be at genious level before you know it. I'm laughing so hard, I'm almost pissing on myself. Please don't leave the forum. :biggrin:

Quote from: kramarat on July 20, 2012, 09:27:04 PM
Ha! Thanks for the laugh. Martin Luther King Jr. was a conservative.

I'll give you a chance to retract this statement.  Otherwise, I'll pull up video footage of King stating that it is the government's role to spend money (IIRC, he actually specifies "billions") to actively reduce poverty; come on, call my bluff.

Quote
Liberals inhabit the higher end of the bell curve? That is absolutely hilarious. :lol:

I'll give you a chance to retract this denial.  Otherwise, I'll put up statistical evidence indicating just this; come up, call my bluff.

Quote
The Bell Curve was invented to make stupid people appear smart. Glad to know you're at the upper end. Keep drinking the fucking kool aid moron. You'll be at genious level before you know it. I'm laughing so hard, I'm almost pissing on myself. Please don't leave the forum. :biggrin:

ROFLAMO!  You don't understand what a bell curve is, do you?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 20, 2012, 09:47:33 PM
I'll give you a chance to retract this statement.  Otherwise, I'll pull up video footage of King stating that it is the government's role to spend money (IIRC, he actually specifies "billions") to actively reduce poverty; come on, call my bluff.

I'll give you a chance to retract this denial.  Otherwise, I'll put up statistical evidence indicating just this; come up, call my bluff.

ROFLAMO!  You don't understand what a bell curve is, do you?

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/01/martin-luther-kings-conservative-legacy (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/01/martin-luther-kings-conservative-legacy)

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~cfc/Chabris1998a.html (http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~cfc/Chabris1998a.html)

Lets play.....................bell curve genious.

Quote from: mdgiles on July 20, 2012, 10:09:08 AM
If they know Fish has orders not to - or won't - shoot at civilians; then the smart thing for him to do, is to dress as a civilian and fire at you from behind civilians.

Im not suicidal.  And the weapon firing would be a dead giveaway that they're combatants.  Though, if someone is firing from behind civilians, I would find cover and pick my shots very carefully. I wouldn't throw a grenade into the crowd, or bomb them.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 20, 2012, 11:36:22 PM

:closedeyes: ... the weapon firing would be a dead giveaway that they're combatants.  Though, if someone is firing from behind civilians, I would find cover and pick my shots very carefully.

Oh....it's just so easy!   As you or your buddies are in the open, taking automatic fire...Quick!  They are killing you!

Quote from: bluelieu on July 20, 2012, 11:47:10 PM
Oh....it's just so easy!   As you or your buddies are in the open, taking automatic fire...Quick!  They are killing you!

Did I say it was easy?  My point is the hard road isn't always the easiest.  Me and My buddies better find cover quickly, then We need to locate the threat.  After it's located, We take it out.


Would You throw a grenade into the crowd? Would You mow down civilians?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 20, 2012, 08:51:42 PM
Which, hence, certainly explains why conservatives are more fervently religious, and almost entirely pro-life.

Nothing emotional here, in the slightest.

As you do nothing but display your contempt and lack of knowledge about the right side of the political spectrum. So belief in a supreme being is emotional. Ever hear of "Pascal's Wager".

QuoteBecause we all know Locke, Einstein, Hawking, and King Jr. have or had mental disorders.   :rolleyes:

Many of the Classical Liberals - maybe even a few early socialists - would run screaming from today's statist, power, worshiping liberals. Indeed Einsteins famous aphorism on insanity, would apply to many of today's leftists.

QuoteGiven that liberals statistically possess higher rates of college education and inhabit the higher section of the IQ bell curve, we know that they are just idiots.   :rolleyes:

Possession of all the "right" credentials isn't necessarily a sign of intelligence. Aren't you Libtards the ones who were always calling George Bush - graduate of Yale, and the Harvard School of Business - "stupid". And, uh, "stupid" people don't fly supersonic aircraft - for very long. Interesting thing about IQ, a test first designed to simply identify those students who were behind and who would need help, has come to be a stand in for innate ability. In any case you'll excuse me if I have less than complete faith in still another study, by still another liberal, that shows - without a doubt - that liberals are more intelligent than every one else/sarc.
[/quote]

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 20, 2012, 11:36:22 PM

Im not suicidal.  And the weapon firing would be a dead giveaway that they're combatants.  Though, if someone is firing from behind civilians, I would find cover and pick my shots very carefully. I wouldn't throw a grenade into the crowd, or bomb them.

Yes, you are suicidal. because you often only have a general location where fire is coming from not a specific target. All infantrymen aren't snipers, camped out in a hide somewhere with a high powered weapon and a telescopic scope. I'm sure your squadmates would be overjoyed to know that you're more worried about the locals - who are trying to kill them - than covering their asses.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 20, 2012, 11:55:29 PM


Did I say it was easy?  My point is the hard road isn't always the easiest.  Me and My buddies better find cover quickly, then We need to locate the threat.  After it's located, We take it out.


Would You throw a grenade into the crowd? Would You mow down civilians?

Would you fire at the person who you took to be firing at you - even if there were civilians in the general vicinity liable to be hit by stray rounds. Would you throw a grenade into a room you were receiving fire from, not being sure of who or what was in that room other than at least one enemy?

Quote from: mdgiles on July 21, 2012, 06:19:28 AM
Would you fire at the person who you took to be firing at you - even if there were civilians in the general vicinity liable to be hit by stray rounds. Would you throw a grenade into a room you were receiving fire from, not being sure of who or what was in that room other than at least one enemy?

I think fish's combat duty has come through watching movies.
I've never been in active combat, but my sense of self preservation is pretty damned strong. If one person in a crowd of civilians was shooting at me, I wouldn't think twice about taking them out. I believe the blame would lie on the coward that used them for cover.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 20, 2012, 11:55:29 PM


Did I say it was easy?  My point is the hard road isn't always the easiest.  Me and My buddies better find cover quickly, then We need to locate the threat.  After it's located, We take it out.


Would You throw a grenade into the crowd? Would You mow down civilians?

From someone who has been in this position, the last thing you think about is those surrounding your target, you aim and hope to Hell you drop them.
It is incumbent upon the innocent to get the fuck out of the way, if they don't, they are nothing but slow natives in an elephant stampede.
This is one of those cases where collateral damage is a necessity, in that you save more lives in the long run, kind of like Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved more lives in the long run as well.

Quote from: mdgiles on July 21, 2012, 06:14:35 AM
I'm sure your squadmates would be overjoyed to know that you're more worried about the locals - who are trying to kill them - than covering their asses.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Quote from: Solar on July 21, 2012, 08:34:42 AM
they are nothing but slow natives in an elephant stampede.

I disagree with Your rationale, Solar. I would not fire aimlessly into a crowd of civilians. That is very wrong.  Some here obviously believe it ok to kill civilians if their lives are in danger. All I can say is that Im glad You guys aren't in service anymore, and I feel horrible knowing that many of the terrible stories I've heard from friends in service, in those days, are probably true.



And Rat

Quote from: kramarat on July 21, 2012, 08:11:04 AM
I've never been in active combat

Thankfully You haven't, cause You seem like that type as well.

Quote from: mdgiles on July 21, 2012, 06:14:35 AM
I'm sure your squadmates would be overjoyed to know that you're more worried about the locals - who are trying to kill them - than covering their asses.

My squad didn't want to kill locals, they just weren't the type that believed that just because a native may be slow it was ok for him or her to die. 


As far as throwing a grenade into a room to clear it, that does happens, if there's live fire from inside, but I don't agree with it.

An armed bunker, in that type of combat, I do. But not in urban warfare.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 21, 2012, 09:08:38 AM

I disagree with Your rationale, Solar. I would not fire aimlessly into a crowd of civilians. That is very wrong.  Some here obviously believe it ok to kill civilians if their lives are in danger. All I can say is that Im glad You guys aren't in service anymore, and I feel horrible knowing that many of the terrible stories I've heard from friends in service, in those days, are probably true.



And Rat

Thankfully You haven't, cause You seem like that type as well.

First off, I said nothing about shooting aimlessly and second this was not a Military action, but rather a private one.
Did the perp care about those around him? Hell no, that's why I was forced to fire, had I not taken the risk, people would definitely have been killed.

Quote from: Solar on July 21, 2012, 08:34:42 AM
It is incumbent upon the innocent to get the fuck out of the way, if they don't, they are nothing but slow natives in an elephant stampede.
This is one of those cases where collateral damage is a necessity

Ok, I agree, You are aiming in that^ scenario, You're just ok killing the slow, or the ones unable to get out of the way. Got it.  :thumbup:

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 21, 2012, 09:08:38 AM

I disagree with Your rationale, Solar. I would not fire aimlessly into a crowd of civilians. That is very wrong.  Some here obviously believe it ok to kill civilians if their lives are in danger. All I can say is that Im glad You guys aren't in service anymore, and I feel horrible knowing that many of the terrible stories I've heard from friends in service, in those days, are probably true.



And Rat

Thankfully You haven't, cause You seem like that type as well.

You bet. Not ashamed of it either.

Quote from: kramarat on July 21, 2012, 09:36:33 AM
You bet. Not ashamed of it either.

:blink:

Quote from: kramarat on July 21, 2012, 08:11:04 AM
I think fish's combat duty has come through watching movies.
I've never been in active combat, but my sense of self preservation is pretty damned strong. If one person in a crowd of civilians was shooting at me, I wouldn't think twice about taking them out. I believe the blame would lie on the coward that used them for cover.

Anyone familiar with the Geneva Convention - as it actually is - knows that any deaths that result from one side using civilians as shields, falls on the head of that side, and is a war crime.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 21, 2012, 09:08:38 AM

I disagree with Your rationale, Solar. I would not fire aimlessly into a crowd of civilians. That is very wrong.  Some here obviously believe it ok to kill civilians if their lives are in danger. All I can say is that Im glad You guys aren't in service anymore, and I feel horrible knowing that many of the terrible stories I've heard from friends in service, in those days, are probably true.

As I noted above, the Geneva convention understands that no soldier is expected to stand as an open target while the opposition uses civilians as cover.

QuoteAnd Rat
Thankfully You haven't, cause You seem like that type as well.

And if you were what you say you were, I'm glad you were a medic. Because that's the only one in my unit I would have accepted that kind of behavior from. If you were a medic in combat, I'm sure you never carried a weapon, had that red cross on your helmet and armband, and were always willing to brave enemy fire to tend to the wounded.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 21, 2012, 09:18:07 AM
My squad didn't want to kill locals, they just weren't the type that believed that just because a native may be slow it was ok for him or her to die.

OTOH, you feel it's okay for one of the people on your side to die, simply to protect the well being of perhaps the relative of someone who killed that person on your side. IOW, you should care more for their near and dear than they do. 

QuoteAs far as throwing a grenade into a room to clear it, that does happens, if there's live fire from inside, but I don't agree with it.
An armed bunker, in that type of combat, I do. But not in urban warfare.

A building with armed personnel (personnel - since a woman or a kid can kill you just as well as an adult male) in it IS an armed bunker. You do realize that the best way to fight in urban combat is to never appear in the open. You start at one end of a block of buildings, and blast holes in the walls, going from thru one building to get to the next building. Now blasting a hole in the wall with C-4 is hard on the folks in the next building, but better on your men than presenting a target for snipers.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 21, 2012, 09:34:06 AM

Ok, I agree, You are aiming in that^ scenario, You're just ok killing the slow, or the ones unable to get out of the way. Got it.  :thumbup:

I am indifferent on the issue, especially when it means saving more lives than would otherwise have been taken.

Lets take the ass hole that murdered 12 people in the theater, had someone shot him after he killed his first victim, an accidentally killed an innocent bystander as well, what would you say about that?
After all, obviously he saved 11 others from being murdered.

Quote from: Solar on July 21, 2012, 10:19:06 AM
I am indifferent on the issue, especially when it means saving more lives than would otherwise have been taken.

Lets take the ass hole that murdered 12 people in the theater, had someone shot him after he killed his first victim, an accidentally killed an innocent bystander as well, what would you say about that?
After all, obviously he saved 11 others from being murdered.

He only wants that to happen if you killed that knucklehead with your bare hands. Heaven forbid you used a weapon of any kind/sarc.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: mdgiles on July 21, 2012, 11:09:18 AM
He only wants that to happen if you killed that knucklehead with your bare hands. Heaven forbid you used a weapon of any kind/sarc.  :rolleyes:

I get the idea from him, that even killing the murderer would be offensive in his pacifist book.

Quote from: Solar on July 21, 2012, 12:01:49 PM
I get the idea from him, that even killing the murderer would be offensive in his pacifist book.

You would be able to kill the murderer, but only if he was shooting directly at you. Anything else would be wrong.

I just don't understand the thinking. If the US had adopted the policy of "no dead civilians", we would have lost every war we've been in. Just packed up, gone home, and admitted defeat to any bunch of cowards that used civilians as shields.

Giles got it right. The blame lies on the ones that hide amongst civilians. That's really the end of the story.

Quote from: kramarat on July 21, 2012, 12:24:47 PM
You would be able to kill the murderer, but only if he was shooting directly at you. Anything else would be wrong.

I just don't understand the thinking. If the US had adopted the policy of "no dead civilians", we would have lost every war we've been in. Just packed up, gone home, and admitted defeat to any bunch of cowards that used civilians as shields.

Giles got it right. The blame lies on the ones that hide amongst civilians. That's really the end of the story.

Soo true!
It's like giving into terrorists demands over hostages, once you give in, you show them the tactic works, they will be taking hostages until you put you refuse to deal with them.

Quote from: Solar on July 21, 2012, 10:19:06 AM
I am indifferent on the issue

Then You're indifferent on the murder of a civilian to save another civilian. That's wrong.

Quote from: Solar on July 21, 2012, 10:19:06 AM
Lets take the ass hole that murdered 12 people in the theater, had someone shot him after he killed his first victim, an accidentally killed an innocent bystander as well, what would you say about that?
After all, obviously he saved 11 others from being murdered.

I'd say that someone shot an armed man that intended on doing harm to others. But I would still hope the person had enough care for human life that He or she didn't feel "indifferent" about those who are to slow, or in the way, when pulling the trigger.   

See, solar, this is about trying Your best not to hurt civilians when destroying the enemy. Dropping bombs on civilians isn't doing that, and when You feel indifferent about such things You tend to do more harm in the process.

Im not saying that civilians wont die in war, Im not saying that civilians wont die in exchanges like the one You speak of, Im saying that people should feel that protecting innocent life is utmost priority one, and then, if You fail, at least You gave it Your all.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 21, 2012, 11:03:18 PM

Then You're indifferent on the murder of a civilian to save another civilian. That's wrong.


I'd say that someone shot an armed man that intended on doing harm to others. But I would still hope the person had enough care for human life that He or she didn't feel "indifferent" about those who are to slow, or in the way, when pulling the trigger.   

See, solar, this is about trying Your best not to hurt civilians when destroying the enemy. Dropping bombs on civilians isn't doing that, and when You feel indifferent about such things You tend to do more harm in the process.

Im not saying that civilians wont die in war, Im not saying that civilians wont die in exchanges like the one You speak of, Im saying that people should feel that protecting innocent life is utmost priority one, and then, if You fail, at least You gave it Your all.

In our culture, protecting the innocent is how most of us view life, but what you don't seem to understand, is the exact opposite exists in our enemies mind.
Muscum see death as an honor, collateral damage is seen as sacrifice of the greater good.
Using children during Fatwa, is not only acceptable, but a duty to serve Allah.

When this is the mindset of the enemy, there are no innocents, the entire area is a war zone, don't expect a Soldier to make the distinction that may cost him and his fellow soldiers their lives.

And about the shooter, when you have a piece in your hand and you're focused on taking the target down, the last thing you want to do is miss.
Unless you've ever been undr this kind of pressure, you will never understand it.
Hyper focus creates a kind of tunnel vision, where only the target is visible, which also keeps you from being distracted.

Quote from: Solar on July 22, 2012, 05:51:54 AM
In our culture, protecting the innocent is how most of us view life, but what you don't seem to understand, is the exact opposite exists in our enemies mind.

I obviously understand that, Ive mentioned it, but that doesn't mean I condone the actions and wish for us to repeat them.

What You dont seem to get is that winning a war by recreating bad action isn't really winning at all.

Quote from: Solar on July 22, 2012, 05:51:54 AM
there are no innocents, the entire area is a war zone

I disagree. There are still LOTS of civilians/non combatants.

Quote from: Solar on July 22, 2012, 05:51:54 AM
the last thing you want to do is miss.

And You certainly don't want to be "indifferent" about the civilians around You when pulling the trigger.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 22, 2012, 10:48:35 AM

I obviously understand that, Ive mentioned it, but that doesn't mean I condone the actions and wish for us to repeat them.

What You dont seem to get is that winning a war by recreating bad action isn't really winning at all.

I once said you seem to be basing your picture of warfare on some movie you saw once. You seem to believe it's far cleaner than it is. Just as you seem to believe you have time to make minor distinctions. 

QuoteI disagree. There are still LOTS of civilians/non combatants.

True. Now tell us how you go about separating them from the hostiles in the middle of a firefight, without either ending up dead yourself or getting - what are hopefully - your friends killed.

QuoteAnd You certainly don't want to be "indifferent" about the civilians around You when pulling the trigger.

Sometimes it's impossible not to be "indifferent". There are cost involved with hesitation.

Quote from: mdgiles on July 22, 2012, 11:07:43 AM
I once said you seem to be basing your picture of warfare on some movie you saw once. You seem to believe it's far cleaner than it is. Just as you seem to believe you have time to make minor distinctions.  True. Now tell us how you go about separating them from the hostiles in the middle of a firefight, without either ending up dead yourself or getting - what are hopefully - your friends killed.Sometimes it's impossible not to be "indifferent". There are cost involved with hesitation.

It's not impossible to not be indifferent. You should always care for civilian life in combat. That's one of the biggies that's supposed to separate us from our enemies. 

We are not indifferent to innocent life, We risk our own lives for innocent life, that's far from indifference. 

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 22, 2012, 11:15:28 AM


It's not impossible to not be indifferent. You should always care for civilian life in combat. That's one of the biggies that's supposed to separate us from our enemies. 

We are not indifferent to innocent life, We risk our own lives for innocent life, that's far from indifference.

Spoken like someone that hasn't been within 1000 miles of actual combat.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 22, 2012, 11:15:28 AM


It's not impossible to not be indifferent. You should always care for civilian life in combat. That's one of the biggies that's supposed to separate us from our enemies. 

We are not indifferent to innocent life, We risk our own lives for innocent life, that's far from indifference.

Fish,
You not only ask the impossible, but you don't seem to recognize how impossible it is. Especially in a situation where it's almost impossible to tell the good guys from the bad guys. How do you differentiate, in a part of the world, where almost no adult male, leaves the house unless they're packing? Where the women are dressed in such a manner, that you have no idea if they even are women?

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 22, 2012, 10:48:35 AM

I obviously understand that, Ive mentioned it, but that doesn't mean I condone the actions and wish for us to repeat them.

What You dont seem to get is that winning a war by recreating bad action isn't really winning at all.


I disagree. There are still LOTS of civilians/non combatants.


And You certainly don't want to be "indifferent" about the civilians around You when pulling the trigger.

It's views like yours that loses wars.
Read Sun Tzu and learn about how the enemy views war.
Sub Tzu, The Art of War.

But aside the fact, if you allow the enemy to use civilians as shields, they will only escalate the tactic.
Better to save non combatants by ending their use the first time.
An enemy that doesn't respect their own innocent, should no be allowed to win the war.
Yet you want us to lose?

Quote from: Solar on July 22, 2012, 12:04:12 PM
It's views like yours that loses wars.

It's views like Yours that kill civilians.

Quote from: Solar on July 22, 2012, 12:04:12 PM
An enemy that doesn't respect their own innocent, should no be allowed to win the war.
Yet you want us to lose?

An enemy that doesn't respect innocence shouldn't be allowed to win the war. 

What is the proper military purpose in war?

Quote from: Solar on July 22, 2012, 12:04:12 PM
It's views like yours that loses wars.
Read Sun Tzu and learn about how the enemy views war.
Sub Tzu, The Art of War.

But aside the fact, if you allow the enemy to use civilians as shields, they will only escalate the tactic.
Better to save non combatants by ending their use the first time.
An enemy that doesn't respect their own innocent, should no be allowed to win the war.
Yet you want us to lose?

Good point. What happens if the first time the enemy attempts to use human shields, you just mow down everyone - including the enemy attempting the tactic. I'd say they'd probably give that one up as a non starter.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 22, 2012, 12:09:34 PM
It's views like Yours that kill civilians.

Civilians are ALWAYS a casualty of war.  Always have been and always will be.

That's not always a bad thing either.

Quote from: mdgiles on July 22, 2012, 11:46:38 AM
Fish,
You not only ask the impossible, but you don't seem to recognize how impossible it is. Especially in a situation where it's almost impossible to tell the good guys from the bad guys. How do you differentiate, in a part of the world, where almost no adult male, leaves the house unless they're packing? Where the women are dressed in such a manner, that you have no idea if they even are women?

Im not saying it's easy, im just saying its not impossible. Im also saying that just because it's not easy You shouldn't become indifferent to the death of innocent life.

Quote from: rich_t on July 22, 2012, 12:10:34 PM
What is the proper military purpose in war?

Beat me to it. :laugh:
I wonder what he would do if it was he, fighting for his own life and that of his buddies, and all he had available was a hand grenade.
Would he sacrifice himself as well as his buddies to save one possible innocent life?
Then there is the question of innocence, are he and his buddies fighting to protect innocent lives at home, and is the potential innocent civilian really all that innocent?

He has never been in the situation before obviously, and for the sake of his fellow Soldiers, I thank God he never was in that position.

Quote from: rich_t on July 22, 2012, 12:10:34 PM
What is the proper military purpose in war?

To Win.

-Dr Watt

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 22, 2012, 12:15:08 PM


Im not saying it's easy, im just saying its not impossible. Im also saying that just because it's not easy You shouldn't become indifferent to the death of innocent life.

You say it isn't impossible, but are you willing to pay the costs. As an example, I assume you willing to sacrifice your own life to avoid harming a civilian, but how many members of your squad would you be willing to sacrifice. What number between one (not including yourself) and all, would you consider reasonable?

The proper military purpose in war is to kill the enemy and destroy their stuff.  If civilians die in the process, they die.

It's WAR, not some damn social picnic.

I am not saying that civilians should be specifically targeted as a general rule, but if they get in the way of a military objective, then too damn bad.

If civilians are working in a factory that makes the ammo that your enemy is using...

Blow up the ammo plant and let the chips fall where they may.

Quote from: rich_t on July 22, 2012, 12:12:26 PM
Civilians are ALWAYS a casualty of war.  Always have been and always will be.

That's not always a bad thing either.

Yes, they are. But we're not supposed to be indifferent about it, or aim at them. Like dropping atomic bombs on them, etc.

Quote from: rich_t on July 22, 2012, 12:10:34 PM
What is the proper military purpose in war?

Our military is supposed to defend against enemies, not indifferently kill unarmed civilians.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 22, 2012, 12:23:53 PM

Yes, they are. But we're not supposed to be indifferent about it, or aim at them. Like dropping atomic bombs on them, etc.



Our military is supposed to defend against enemies, not indifferently kill unarmed civilians.

If I can ultimately save a million civilian lives by initially killing a thousand.  I am taking out the thousand.

One must look at the larger picture.  Who knows how many lives were spared overall when we nuked Japan.

Quote from: rich_t on July 22, 2012, 12:27:50 PM
One must look at the larger picture.  Who knows how many lives were spared overall when we nuked Japan.

I agree, look at the larger picture. Who knows how many lives have been , and will be taken, overall because we "nuked Japan".



I would not aim at one innocent to save another.  Allow the bad to be bad, You cant claim good through bad action.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 22, 2012, 12:23:53 PM

Yes, they are. But we're not supposed to be indifferent about it, or aim at them. Like dropping atomic bombs on them, etc.

Would you have preferred that we dropped the bomb, or would you have liked the war to continue.

QuoteOur military is supposed to defend against enemies, not indifferently kill unarmed civilians.

Do you think the British should have bombed the factories making parts for V-2's, knowing full well that they were killing unarmed civilians in Germany in order to save unarmed civilians in Britain?

Quote from: rich_t on July 22, 2012, 12:27:50 PM
If I can ultimately save a million civilian lives by initially killing a thousand.  I am taking out the thousand.

One must look at the larger picture.  Who knows how many lives were spared overall when we nuked Japan.

"Conservative" estimates run into the hundreds of thousands over and above those killed in the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Look at how aggressively the Japanese defended Guadalcanal! Now, imagine that times at least 10 because they are now defending their home island!

It would have been a blood bath for both sides.

-Dr Watt

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 22, 2012, 12:23:53 PM

Don't avoid my question Fish.

I wonder what he would do if it was he, fighting for his own life and that of his buddies, and all he had available was a hand grenade.
Would he sacrifice himself as well as his buddies to save one possible innocent life?
Then there is the question of innocence, are he and his buddies fighting to protect innocent lives at home, and is the potential innocent civilian really all that innocent?

He has never been in the situation before obviously, and for the sake of his fellow Soldiers, I thank God he never was in that position.

Quote from: mdgiles on July 22, 2012, 12:34:17 PM
Would you have preferred that we dropped the bomb, or would you have liked the war to continue.

Read whats already been written. This is a circular argument between people who would kill civilians for what they deem the greater good and Me who wouldn't because I  believe that's wrong.

AND I REPEAT:

You say it isn't impossible, but are you willing to pay the costs. As an example, I assume you willing to sacrifice your own life to avoid harming a civilian, but how many members of your squad would you be willing to sacrifice. What number between one (not including yourself) and all, would you consider reasonable?

STOP IGNORING THE TOUGH ONES!

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 22, 2012, 12:37:38 PM


Read whats already been written. This is a circular argument between people who would kill civilians for what they deem the greater good and Me who wouldn't because I  believe that's wrong.

You do know that the firebombing campaign of the B-29s over Tokoyo killed nearly as many civilians as did the Atomic Bomb attacks - they just don't get as much press.

And, of course, hardly anybody ever mentions Dresden...

-Dr Watt

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 22, 2012, 12:37:38 PM


Read whats already been written. This is a circular argument between people who would kill civilians for what they deem the greater good and Me who wouldn't because I  believe that's wrong.

So you know you're wrong, so you refu=se to answer the question.

Tell me Fish, what did you get kicked out of the service for?

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 22, 2012, 12:33:37 PM

I agree, look at the larger picture. Who knows how many lives have been , and will be taken, overall because we "nuked Japan".



I would not aim at one innocent to save another.  Allow the bad to be bad, You cant claim good through bad action.

If one is acting in support of the enemy or allowing the enemy to hide behind them, they are no longer innocent.

BTW...  Don't try to use the words civilian and innocent as if they are interchangeable.

They are not.

That is a liberal tactic used in an attempt for an emotional appeal.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 22, 2012, 12:37:38 PM


Read whats already been written. This is a circular argument between people who would kill civilians for what they deem the greater good and Me who wouldn't because I  believe that's wrong.

In other words, you'd like to tap dance around the consequences of your position. It's a simply enough question. Would you like the US to NOT have dropped the bomb, which would have meant that the war would have continued in it's current configuration.

Quote from: rich_t on July 22, 2012, 12:44:27 PM
If one is acting in support of the enemy or allowing the enemy to hide behind them, they are no longer innocent.

BTW...  Don't try to use the words civilian and innocent as if they are interchangeable.

They are not.

That is a liberal tactic used in an attempt for an emotional appeal.

A civilian is an innocent in a combat setting. If we could read minds than maybe You'd have a point, but We cant.


The enemy that flew planes into our buildings believe this way as well-

Quote from: rich_t on July 22, 2012, 12:44:27 PM
If one is acting in support of the enemy or allowing the enemy to hide behind them, they are no longer innocent.

Just because We support Our troops doesn't make us all targets. We have military basis in big cities, does that mean that if someone decides to bomb those cities it's ok? I dont believe so.


Our bombs killed children, that, in it self,  was a horrible act. They were innocent.

QuoteA civilian is an innocent in a combat setting.

Not necessarily.

QuoteThe enemy that flew planes into our buildings believe this way as well-

What combat setting did that happen in?

Quote
Just because We support Our troops doesn't make us all targets.

It does to our enemies.

QuoteWe have military basis in big cities, does that mean that if someone decides to bomb those cities it's ok?

I understand our enemies desire to do so, even if they currently lack the means.

But then again I live in the real world.  I don't live in a land of pixie dust and unicorns.

Quote from: rich_t on July 22, 2012, 01:04:58 PM
Not necessarily.

I disagree.

Quote from: rich_t on July 22, 2012, 01:04:58 PM

What combat setting did that happen in?

They believed they were in a war.  And that we as a whole were not innocent. 

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 22, 2012, 01:18:21 PM
I disagree.



They believed they were in a war.  And that we as a whole were not innocent.

Quit avoiding my question Fish!!!

I wonder what he would do if it was he, fighting for his own life and that of his buddies, and all he had available was a hand grenade.
Would he sacrifice himself as well as his buddies to save one possible innocent life?
Then there is the question of innocence, are he and his buddies fighting to protect innocent lives at home, and is the potential innocent civilian really all that innocent?

Quote from: Solar on July 22, 2012, 01:29:18 PM
Quit avoiding my question Fish!!!

I wonder what he would do if it was he, fighting for his own life and that of his buddies, and all he had available was a hand grenade.
Would he sacrifice himself as well as his buddies to save one possible innocent life?
Then there is the question of innocence, are he and his buddies fighting to protect innocent lives at home, and is the potential innocent civilian really all that innocent?

Calm down there, Solar.


To answer Your question, I wouldn't use the grenade if there were civilians in the way of a gunman.  I'd think that obvious after all this conversation.

We volunteered to defend against enemies, We risk our lives for what We believe good. We didn't volunteer to aim at, or be indifferent about,  killing civilians.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 22, 2012, 01:18:21 PM
I disagree.



They believed they were in a war.  And that we as a whole were not innocent.

Thanks for proving my point.  I know that wasn't what you wanted to do though.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 22, 2012, 01:38:29 PM


Calm down there, Solar.


To answer Your question, I wouldn't use the grenade if there were civilians in the way of a gunman.  I'd think that obvious after all this conversation.

We volunteered to defend against enemies, We risk our lives for what We believe good. We didn't volunteer to aim at, or be indifferent about,  killing civilians.

Thank God I never went into combat with anyone with your mind set.  I'd probably be dead if I did.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 22, 2012, 01:38:29 PM


Calm down there, Solar.


To answer Your question, I wouldn't use the grenade if there were civilians in the way of a gunman.  I'd think that obvious after all this conversation.

We volunteered to defend against enemies, We risk our lives for what We believe good. We didn't volunteer to aim at, or be indifferent about,  killing civilians.

This was the third time I had to post it...
If you pulled that crap, it could get you the firing squad, or in the least improvement at Leavenworth.
Why did you even join, if you knew you may be in the position of having to kill?

Keep in mind, your buddies want to go home as well, and you playing judge with their lives is beyond your right as a human.
Remember, I said questionable civilian, but you would rather sacrifice the lifwe of those you swore to protect, over that of a possible civilian.

This say's more about your lack of character, than anything.

Okay now it's my turn.

You say it isn't impossible, but are you willing to pay the costs. As an example, I assume you willing to sacrifice your own life to avoid harming a civilian, but how many members of your squad would you be willing to sacrifice. What number between one (not including yourself) and all, would you consider reasonable?



And this one.

In other words, you'd like to tap dance around the consequences of your position. It's a simply enough question. Would you like the US to NOT have dropped the bomb, which would have meant that the war would have continued in the manner it was being fought.


EDIT: BTW, I apologize to the other posters, but I'd really really like him to honestly answer a question.

Quote from: mdgiles on July 22, 2012, 02:13:03 PM
Okay now it's my turn.

You say it isn't impossible, but are you willing to pay the costs. As an example, I assume you willing to sacrifice your own life to avoid harming a civilian, but how many members of your squad would you be willing to sacrifice. What number between one (not including yourself) and all, would you consider reasonable?



And this one.

In other words, you'd like to tap dance around the consequences of your position. It's a simply enough question. Would you like the US to NOT have dropped the bomb, which would have meant that the war would have continued in the manner it was being fought.

I think it's pretty apparent he'd let his entire squad get murdered, because he believes that was the risk they are willing to take.
What he doesn't understand, is that they didn't agree to serve with a pacifist, one that obviously puts value on the life of the enemy, over that of his fellow Soldiers.

Quote from: Solar on July 22, 2012, 02:19:14 PM
I think it's pretty apparent he'd let his entire squad get murdered, because he believes that was the risk they are willing to take.
What he doesn't understand, is that they didn't agree to serve with a pacifist, one that obviously puts value on the life of the enemy, over that of his fellow Soldiers.

Oddly enough, if he did serve as a Medic, it might be possible that he actually was a pacifist, and everyone in his unit would know it. Although most medics (corpsmen with the Marines) arm thenselves, quickly learning that some enemies quickly single them out as targets.

Quote from: rich_t on July 22, 2012, 02:05:53 PM
Thank God I never went into combat with anyone with your mind set.  I'd probably be dead if I did.

Oh, I'm pretty sure that neither you nor I would end up dead in those circumstances, but I'm pretty sure there would be at least one casualty in the unit...

:sneaky:

-Dr Watt

Quote from: mdgiles on July 22, 2012, 02:37:35 PM
Oddly enough, if he did serve as a Medic, it might be possible that he actually was a pacifist, and everyone in his unit would know it. Although most medics (corpsmen with the Marines) arm thenselves, quickly learning that some enemies quickly single them out as targets.

Ohhh, I see, not so much pacifist, but rather coward? :biggrin:

Quote from: mdgiles on July 22, 2012, 02:13:03 PM
Okay now it's my turn.

You say it isn't impossible, but are you willing to pay the costs. As an example, I assume you willing to sacrifice your own life to avoid harming a civilian, but how many members of your squad would you be willing to sacrifice. What number between one (not including yourself) and all, would you consider reasonable?



And this one.

In other words, you'd like to tap dance around the consequences of your position. It's a simply enough question. Would you like the US to NOT have dropped the bomb, which would have meant that the war would have continued in the manner it was being fought.


EDIT: BTW, I apologize to the other posters, but I'd really really like him to honestly answer a question.

As I remember some Lieutenant did not make it out alive thinking his way of thinking.

Quote from: Solar on July 22, 2012, 03:01:33 PM
Ohhh, I see, not so much pacifist, but rather coward? :biggrin:

One thing I learned during my 20 + years in Uncle Sam's Canoe club. Never call a Navy corpsman who serves with the Marines a "coward" in front of a Marine - unless you want to be eating soft food only for a couple of months! :wink:

-Dr Watt

Quote from: Solar on July 22, 2012, 03:01:33 PM
Ohhh, I see, not so much pacifist, but rather coward? :biggrin:

It's not cowardice to risk Your life for others. It's certainly not cowardice to care for civilians. I would, however, argue that a coward would become indifferent to the death of civilians for fear of being killed by a combatant.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 22, 2012, 04:21:10 PM


It's not cowardice to risk Your life for others. It's certainly not cowardice to care for civilians. I would, however, argue that a coward would become indifferent to the death of civilians for fear of being killed by a combatant.

Worse than anything, even being wounded, is the thought that you let your buddies down. Men have leaped on live grenades to save other members of their unit

Quote from: mdgiles on July 22, 2012, 04:26:10 PM
Worse than anything, even being wounded, is the thought that you let your buddies down. Men have leaped on live grenades to save other members of their unit

I dont disagree there, Giles. And My buddies really cared for civilian lives as well.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 22, 2012, 12:09:34 PM
It's views like Yours that kill civilians.


An enemy that doesn't respect innocence shouldn't be allowed to win the war.

And who stops such a foe? Peace-love-dope hippie-dippie halfwits, determined to out-nice them?

A win is a win. A loss is the end. My America defends itself. Yours can't find the guts to.

I do not think one has the moral right to sacrifice members of his own military to save the lives of enemy civilians.  That is a judgement you give up when you take your oath.  The most basic of human emotions is self-preservation. Those soldiers who sacrifice themselves to save their fellow soldiers are heroes.  To sacrifice your own fellow soldiers for any reason is treason. Sitting at a computer proclaiming your superior humanity is quite different from being in a battlefield situation where you must kill or be killed.  Nonsense.

This argument isn't going to go anywhere.

The medics and the corpsmen tend to be liberal leaning, and they are concerned about all human life. They are needed within the military.

Fish. I'll take you at your word, and thank you for your service. The fact that you spent your time in the military, saving lives, does not give you the right to belittle and downgrade the guys that were facing enemy fire on a regular basis. Unless you were the one getting shot at, you have no business passing judgement on your fellow soldiers. If you were the one getting shot at, I suspect you would feel much differently.

Furthermore, thousands of American kids, (that's right, KIDS), gave up their blood, guts, and lives, defending people that they knew they would never meet. They were, and are, heroes in my book.

In the future, I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from painting America as the evil presence in our past wars. We did what needed to be done, to wipe out the true evil.

If you continue, I'm not going to be as nice.

Quote from: kramarat on July 22, 2012, 06:01:02 PM
This argument isn't going to go anywhere.

The medics and the corpsmen tend to be liberal leaning, and they are concerned about all human life. They are needed within the military.

Fish. I'll take you at your word, and thank you for your service. The fact that you spent your time in the military, saving lives, does not give you the right to belittle and downgrade the guys that were facing enemy fire on a regular basis. Unless you were the one getting shot at, you have no business passing judgement on your fellow soldiers. If you were the one getting shot at, I suspect you would feel much differently.

Furthermore, thousands of American kids, (that's right, KIDS), gave up their blood, guts, and lives, defending people that they knew they would never meet. They were, and are, heroes in my book.

In the future, I'd appreciate it if you would refrain from painting America as the evil presence in our past wars. We did what needed to be done, to wipe out the true evil.

If you continue, I'm not going to be as nice.

Thank You for the "thanks".

Im not painting an evil picture of America, Im painting and evil picture of people that made evil decisions in America. It's the act of droping a bomb on civilians that cant be defended in my book, not the actions of soldiers in battle with other soldiers.



Ive been thinking about Yalls side of this argument, and Ive come up with a for instance that stumps me. Say there's a man holding a weapon on my son, and in order to kill him I have to shoot through Your son or daughter. Do I shoot through Your child to save my son?

That could be looked at as the same type of thinking when speaking of the bombs being dropped to save Our children.

It's a tough decision, and, no matter what You do you're damned.  I dont condone killing innocent people, even to save my own child.  But, if faced with that, I cant say I wouldn't do whats necessary to see my own child live.   


I would be doing a horrible act to obtain something good for whats mine. That would be selfish on my part. So I'd be painted evil, at least in my mind.   

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 22, 2012, 10:51:04 PM
Thank You for the "thanks".

Im not painting an evil picture of America, Im painting and evil picture of people that made evil decisions in America. It's the act of droping a bomb on civilians that cant be defended in my book, not the actions of soldiers in battle with other soldiers.



Ive been thinking about Yalls side of this argument, and Ive come up with a for instance that stumps me. Say there's a man holding a weapon on my son, and in order to kill him I have to shoot through Your son or daughter. Do I shoot through Your child to save my son?

That could be looked at as the same type of thinking when speaking of the bombs being dropped to save Our children.

It's a tough decision, and, no matter what You do you're damned.  I dont condone killing innocent people, even to save my own child.  But, if faced with that, I cant say I wouldn't do whats necessary to see my own child live.   


I would be doing a horrible act to obtain something good for whats mine. That would be selfish on my part. So I'd be painted evil, at least in my mind.

More strawman BS.

You must be a lousy shot. In that situation, your kid would die anyway.

You can't undo your posts. You've been repeatedly denigrating America, and equating our soldiers with murderers. War itself is evil. The blame lies on those that start them, not the ones that bring them to an end.

Your moral objection to how those wars are fought, doesn't matter. You're entitled to your opinion. If our wars were fought by "Fish" rules, we would have lost all of them, millions more would be dead, and the entire world would be a different, (and not very nice), place.

You are suggesting that a ground war would have been more effective than dropping the bombs in Japan. Really? Do you think we could have simply marched into those cities, and not met resistance?

If enemy forces were on the ground in the US, would you not fight? As a civilian? I sure as hell would. If I had a kid that was old enough to use a weapon, they would be too.

Quote from: kramarat on July 23, 2012, 03:42:45 AM
More strawman BS.

You must be a lousy shot. In that situation, your kid would die anyway.

That's not a strawman, its an actual scenario that makes perfect sense in this conversation. Ive even gone as far as to try to find a middle ground between us here with that. I still cant condone my possible action in that scanerio, but I cant say I wouldn't do what needed be done to save my child.

Quote from: kramarat on July 23, 2012, 03:42:45 AM
More strawman BS.

You must be a lousy shot. In that situation, your kid would die anyway.

You can't undo your posts. You've been repeatedly denigrating America, and equating our soldiers with murderers. War itself is evil. The blame lies on those that start them, not the ones that bring them to an end.

I dont need to undo my posts, I stand by them, they're not denigrating America, they are, however,  calling out what I believe to be wrong decisions to attack civilians for what is deemed the greater good. But I would call myself out on such actions as well, even if I believe Id take the same type of  road, as in that scenario above.

Quote from: kramarat on July 23, 2012, 03:42:45 AM
Your moral objection to how those wars are fought, doesn't matter. You're entitled to your opinion. If our wars were fought by "Fish" rules, we would have lost all of them, millions more would be dead, and the entire world would be a different, (and not very nice), place.

You are suggesting that a ground war would have been more effective than dropping the bombs in Japan. Really? Do you think we could have simply marched into those cities, and not met resistance?

If enemy forces were on the ground in the US, would you not fight? As a civilian? I sure as hell would. If I had a kid that was old enough to use a weapon, they would be too.

Im not suggesting a ground war would have been more effective, I'm saying it would've been more honorable than nuking civilians. 

If enemy forces were on the ground I would fight, and if My kids fought as well they could also be considered combatants, and taken out as targets, but at least they'd be known by the enemy as combatants, rather than just unarmed children being lit up by an atomic bomb.

War is ugly,  like already stated, an easy way out that saves the lives of one side but eradicates the other , and its civilians, isn't worthy of being called honorable, IMO. 

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 23, 2012, 01:54:05 PM

That's not a strawman, its an actual scenario that makes perfect sense in this conversation. Ive even gone as far as to try to find a middle ground between us here with that. I still cant condone my possible action in that scanerio, but I cant say I wouldn't do what needed be done to save my child.

I dont need to undo my posts, I stand by them, they're not denigrating America, they are, however,  calling out what I believe to be wrong decisions to attack civilians for what is deemed the greater good. But I would call myself out on such actions as well, even if I believe Id take the same type of  road, as in that scenario above.



Im not suggesting a ground war would have been more effective, I'm saying it would've been more honorable than nuking civilians. 

If enemy forces were on the ground I would fight, and if My kids fought as well they could also be considered combatants, and taken out as targets, but at least they'd be known by the enemy as combatants, rather than just unarmed children being lit up by an atomic bomb.

War is ugly,  like already stated, an easy way out that saves the lives of one side but eradicates the other , and its civilians, isn't worthy of being called honorable, IMO.

That's your opinion. I think you're alone with it...............at least on here. Not much point in arguing it further.

QuoteIm not suggesting a ground war would have been more effective, I'm saying it would've been more honorable than nuking civilians. 

Even to the grunts that would have died in a ground invasion? And you don't see the problem with valuing the lives of enemy civilians, over the lives of your own countrymen? Civilians, who can be saved by THEIR government surrendering when the war was already lost. Civilians who would probably die from battle or starvation if they attempted to follow THEIR governments orders. IOW, nothing matters as long as your honor was intact - which is exactly how the Japanese militarists thought.

Quote from: mdgiles on July 23, 2012, 02:14:09 PM
Even to the grunts that would have died in a ground invasion? And you don't see the problem with valuing the lives of enemy civilians, over the lives of your own countrymen? Civilians, who can be saved by THEIR government surrendering when the war was already lost. Civilians who would probably die from battle or starvation if they attempted to follow THEIR governments orders. IOW, nothing matters as long as your honor was intact - which is exactly how the Japanese militarists thought.

In wars like the world wars, entire countries are at war with each other. Everyone is involved in the war effort, therefore all are enemies. The wars never would have been won by just sending in wave after wave of guys in uniform, with guns.

If we were to start blowing up entire cities in our war with the terrorists, I might be inclined to come around to fish's point of view.

Quote from: mdgiles on July 23, 2012, 02:14:09 PM
Even to the grunts that would have died in a ground invasion? And you don't see the problem with valuing the lives of enemy civilians, over the lives of your own countrymen? Civilians, who can be saved by THEIR government surrendering when the war was already lost. Civilians who would probably die from battle or starvation if they attempted to follow THEIR governments orders. IOW, nothing matters as long as your honor was intact - which is exactly how the Japanese militarists thought.

It's not that nothing matters, IMO, as long as Your honor is intact. It's that innocent life matters, and doing everything to uphold that is honorable, I dont believe that's what the Japanese thought at the time either.   

In a volunteer military I would allow the ones willing to fight and die for honorable intentions to do so long before bombing civilians. During draft days is a different story, because they didn't have much of a choice in the matter.  But yes, I'd still risk an armed soldiers life before taking the life of an innocent child. 

Quote from: kramarat on July 23, 2012, 02:02:35 PM
That's your opinion. I think you're alone with it...............at least on here. Not much point in arguing it further.

Probably right, I agree.

Quote from: kramarat on July 23, 2012, 03:01:50 PM
In wars like the world wars, entire countries are at war with each other. Everyone is involved in the war effort, therefore all are enemies. The wars never would have been won by just sending in wave after wave of guys in uniform, with guns.

If we were to start blowing up entire cities in our war with the terrorists, I might be inclined to come around to fish's point of view.

And I can see the point You guys are making as well, and dont disagree that it was  probably a must to save many, many lives, I just cant bring myself to thinking it a good thing.  Maybe the right thing for many, just not a good thing, if You know what I mean.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 23, 2012, 03:10:22 PM

And I can see the point You guys are making as well, and dont disagree that it was  probably a must to save many, many lives, I just cant bring myself to thinking it a good thing.  Maybe the right thing for many, just not a good thing, if You know what I mean.

Nothing about war is "good". Except for ending it and coming home.

Quote from: kramarat on July 23, 2012, 04:03:59 PM
Nothing about war is "good". Except for ending it and coming home.

I dont disagree.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 23, 2012, 04:07:36 PM

I dont disagree.

I was still a kid, but I saw plenty of US, civilian casualties during Vietnam. My neighborhood got hit hard. I think there were quite a few people that would have preferred being nuked, over the anguish of losing their kids, boyfriends, fiances, etc.

War sucks.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 23, 2012, 01:54:05 PM

Im not suggesting a ground war would have been more effective, I'm saying it would've been more honorable than nuking civilians. 

Yes...because allowing 2 million people to die rather than 200 thousand is so much more honorable.   :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink:

"There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending."
-Abraham Lincoln, Star Trek: The Savage Curtain

-Dr Watt

Quote from: bluelieu on July 24, 2012, 01:07:06 PM
Yes...because allowing 2 million people to die rather than 200 thousand is so much more honorable.   :blink: :blink: :blink: :blink:

Allowing people to fight each other in armed combat is more honorable than dropping an atomic bomb on children. 


Both aren't good, but one is more honorable than the other, IMO. 

Quote from: Dr_Watt on July 24, 2012, 04:01:39 PM
"There's no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war. Except its ending."
-Abraham Lincoln, Star Trek: The Savage Curtain

-Dr Watt

"If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide." ( Lincoln Lyceum Address, January 27, 1838)

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 24, 2012, 04:11:19 PM


Allowing people to fight each other in armed combat is more honorable than dropping an atomic bomb on children. 


Both aren't good, but one is more honorable than the other, IMO.

You do know that at the end of WW2, the Japanese government was training house wives to use bamboo spears, and children as suicide bombers, to dive under tanks with satchel charges in a backpack. You do know that in the softening up process before the landing, the US was going to use air assets to destroy the Japanese transportation system, which would have meant starvation in Japans overcrowded cities. And of course the Japanese high command had issued orders for their troops to kill all prisoners in their hands the minute the first allied foot stepped on Japanese soil. So explain to me again what's honorable about having to treat EVERYONE Japanese - man, woman, and child - as a combatant, out of necessity.

Quote from: mdgiles on July 24, 2012, 04:21:36 PM
You do know that at the end of WW2, the Japanese government was training house wives to use bamboo spears, and children as suicide bombers, to dive under tanks with satchel charges in a backpack. You do know that in the softening up process before the landing, the US was going to use air assets to destroy the Japanese transportation system, which would have meant starvation in Japans overcrowded cities. And of course the Japanese high command had issued orders for their troops to kill all prisoners in their hands the minute the first allied foot stepped on Japanese soil. So explain to me again what's honorable about having to treat EVERYONE Japanese - man, woman, and child - as a combatant, out of necessity.

Nothings honorable about treating non combatants as combatants.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 24, 2012, 04:11:19 PM


Allowing people to fight each other in armed combat is more honorable than dropping an atomic bomb on children. 


Both aren't good, but one is more honorable than the other, IMO.

There is nothing honorable in an additional 1.8 million dead...That was the estimate, 2 million vs. 200,000.  Furthermore, if you look at the pre-battle estimates for the Pacific Theater, they were always grossly underestimated.

Quote from: bluelieu on July 24, 2012, 05:31:25 PM
There is nothing honorable in an additional 1.8 million dead...That was the estimate, 2 million vs. 200,000.  Furthermore, if you look at the pre-battle estimates for the Pacific Theater, they were always grossly underestimated.

Damn Blue, don't you know that killing an additional 2 million is the honorable thing to do? :rolleyes:

Libs, ya gotta luv the logic... :lol:

The writer Paul Fussell wrote "Thank God For the Atom Bomb". Google it, it's a pdf.
Or here's Bill Whittle on, Truman being labeled a war criminal by Jon Stewart, for dropping the bombs:
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=56&load=1808 (http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=56&load=1808)
Fish you should check them out.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 24, 2012, 04:39:57 PM
Nothings honorable about treating non combatants as combatants.

In the case of Japan, the non-combatants were unbelievably blessed by never becoming combatants. The children with their satchel charges and their mothers with their poisoned spears never became the front line.

But their conversion from non-combatants to combatants was just exactly one invasion away. Those Japanese children and mothers and old men were already trained, already assigned positions, already dispersed to kill the American invaders in every conceivable way. We were as right as can be about stopping the Japanese with every tool at our disposal.

EVERYONE involved is better off that it didn't come to invasion. Everyone is better off because the Japanese government  -- led by the nose by Hirohito -- saw the futility and the unimaginable cost of continuing what had already become a clinging, humiliating defeat at arms. Our government, in its turn, backed away from the previous demand for "unconditional surrender" in that we allowed the Japanese the important (to them) dignity (a hollow one, but nonetheless...) of retaining their precious emperor in office.

But in the case of invasion of the Japanese home islands, make no mistake -- the people of the Rising Sun would have done ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to stop it.

Don't worry fish, the left has paid back for our war crime..............with interest.


Since the legalization of abortion in 1973, there have been approximately 50 million abortions performed in the United States.


http://www.whyprolife.com/abortion-facts/ (http://www.whyprolife.com/abortion-facts/)

Every one of them, US civilian casualties. Feel better?

Is this barbaric?

Opposed legislation protecting born-alive failed abortions
Obama has consistently refused to support legislation that would define an infant who survives a late-term induced-labor abortion as a human being with the right to live. He insists that no restriction must ever be placed on the right of a mother to decide to abort her child.
On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would "forbid abortions to take place." Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, "then this would be an anti-abortion statute."

Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p.238 Aug 1, 2008

Quote from: kramarat on July 25, 2012, 03:16:46 AM
Don't worry fish, the left has paid back for our war crime..............with interest.


Since the legalization of abortion in 1973, there have been approximately 50 million abortions performed in the United States.


http://www.whyprolife.com/abortion-facts/ (http://www.whyprolife.com/abortion-facts/)

Every one of them, US civilian casualties. Feel better?

Is this barbaric?

Opposed legislation protecting born-alive failed abortions
Obama has consistently refused to support legislation that would define an infant who survives a late-term induced-labor abortion as a human being with the right to live. He insists that no restriction must ever be placed on the right of a mother to decide to abort her child.
On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only Illinois senator who rose to speak against a bill that would have protected babies who survived late term labor-induced abortion. Obama rose to object that if the bill passed, and a nine-month-old fetus survived a late-term labor-induced abortion was deemed to be a person who had a right to live, then the law would "forbid abortions to take place." Obama further explained the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not allow somebody to kill a child, so if the law deemed a child who survived a late-term labor-induced abortion had a right to live, "then this would be an anti-abortion statute."

Source: Obama Nation, by Jerome Corsi, p.238 Aug 1, 2008

It is out there how so many don't see abortion as killing.  I wish We could sterilize people if they are repeat offenders. Men and women alike.   

Quote from: mdgiles on July 24, 2012, 06:39:52 PM
The writer Paul Fussell wrote "Thank God For the Atom Bomb". Google it, it's a pdf.
Or here's Bill Whittle on, Truman being labeled a war criminal by Jon Stewart, for dropping the bombs:
http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=56&load=1808 (http://www.pjtv.com/?cmd=mpg&mpid=56&load=1808)
Fish you should check them out.

Will do, thanks for the link.

Quote from: tbone0106 on July 24, 2012, 07:55:50 PM
In the case of Japan, the non-combatants were unbelievably blessed by never becoming combatants. The children with their satchel charges and their mothers with their poisoned spears never became the front line.

But their conversion from non-combatants to combatants was just exactly one invasion away. Those Japanese children and mothers and old men were already trained, already assigned positions, already dispersed to kill the American invaders in every conceivable way. We were as right as can be about stopping the Japanese with every tool at our disposal.

EVERYONE involved is better off that it didn't come to invasion. Everyone is better off because the Japanese government  -- led by the nose by Hirohito -- saw the futility and the unimaginable cost of continuing what had already become a clinging, humiliating defeat at arms. Our government, in its turn, backed away from the previous demand for "unconditional surrender" in that we allowed the Japanese the important (to them) dignity (a hollow one, but nonetheless...) of retaining their precious emperor in office.

But in the case of invasion of the Japanese home islands, make no mistake -- the people of the Rising Sun would have done ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to stop it.

Im not disagreeing that things for many were better off by us dropping the bombs, but Im not ever going to call the action honorable.  You guys have convinced me of the possibility of its necessity, and even helped me see how I may have done the same if had the same information, and the ability, but I wouldn't call my own actions honorable. To be honest,  I doubt I could've lived with myself after either.   


So, all that said, side some name calling,  it's been a good conversation/debate. Don't get me wrong, you fucks are crazy old bats with huge chips on your shoulders for anything possibly liberal leaning, but there's some really good information here and there that You all allow, thanks for sharing.   

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 25, 2012, 12:03:55 PM


Im not disagreeing that things for many were better off by us dropping the bombs, but Im not ever going to call the action honorable.  You guys have convinced me of the possibility of its necessity, and even helped me see how I may have done the same if had the same information, and the ability, but I wouldn't call my own actions honorable. To be honest,  I doubt I could've lived with myself after either.   


So, all that said, side some name calling,  it's been a good conversation/debate. Don't get me wrong, you fucks are crazy old bats with huge chips on your shoulders for anything possibly liberal leaning, but there's some really good information here and there that You all allow, thanks for sharing.   

Killing isn't honorable, it's a necessity of war. The honorable aspect of the decision to drop the bombs, is knowing that it saved millions of lives, and years more of misery for millions of people. Not even Japan will argue that fact. They thrived after the war was over.

This is a concept you might as well get used to. For example: An incident like 9/11 will never be allowed to take place again. If a commercial airliner is headed off course, and toward a US city, they will have mere seconds to prevent themselves from being blown out of the sky. Both the bad guys and the innocents will be killed to prevent a larger disaster. Will it be an easy decision to kill US civilians? Hell no it won't. Nonetheless, it's a decision that will be made should the need arise. And it will be made quickly.

Whether or not it's "honorable", is moot.

Quote from: kramarat on July 25, 2012, 02:28:50 PM
Killing isn't honorable, it's a necessity of war.

If You are forced to war than fighting honorably is possible. Killing, if needed, like in war, can be carried out with honor. 

Quote from: kramarat on July 25, 2012, 02:28:50 PM
This is a concept you might as well get used to. For example: An incident like 9/11 will never be allowed to take place again. If a commercial airliner is headed off course, and toward a US city, they will have mere seconds to prevent themselves from being blown out of the sky. Both the bad guys and the innocents will be killed to prevent a larger disaster. Will it be an easy decision to kill US civilians? Hell no it won't. Nonetheless, it's a decision that will be made should the need arise. And it will be made quickly.

Whether or not it's "honorable", is moot.

If We have to shoot down a plane because an enemy is going to fly it into a building, then that may be a necessity, Id say the men and women of this country should have to sign a waver before getting on a plane from now on that says they're ok with being shot down rather than used as a weapon to attack other civilians.

I believe the distinction we are arguing here is necessity over morality.   I think allowing the people the opportunity to do whats right is giving them the opportunity to do the honorable thing, in that situation.

So, honor is far from moot, IMO, its a moral imperative.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 25, 2012, 10:44:13 PM


If You are forced to war than fighting honorably is possible. Killing, if needed, like in war, can be carried out with honor. 



If We have to shoot down a plane because an enemy is going to fly it into a building, then that may be a necessity, Id say the men and women of this country should have to sign a waver before getting on a plane from now on that says they're ok with being shot down rather than used as a weapon to attack other civilians.

I believe the distinction we are arguing here is necessity over morality.   I think allowing the people the opportunity to do whats right is giving them the opportunity to do the honorable thing, in that situation.

So, honor is far from moot, IMO, its a moral imperative.

You watch too many movies son. The waiver is called a plane ticket. The liberal thought process has placed our country in a state of "feel good" paralysis. We're all gonna die. Some sooner than later.

What the left is attempting to do, is to subjugate human nature, and dictate behavior, based on their personal feeling of right and wrong. In the process, they are stripping us of our freedom, and placing us in a one size fits all society. Personal honor and morality rests solely within an individual's mind.

We are a nation of laws. However, the attempt by the left to dictate behavior and morality, (which, by the way, is often immoral), is called socialism. It's not up to you, to determine where someone else is, in the honor- morality spectrum. If they are not breaking any laws, don't worry about them.

You feel bad about nuking Japan. I feel as if it was the right decision, at the right time....................history bears that out.

The difference between you and me is..........I say that you have a right to your opinion, and go on with my life.
You say, it was murder, dishonorable, etc. But you won't stop until everyone else sees it your way. When people like you, get into positions of power, you make life suck for the rest of us.

Hate speech laws, antibullying laws, gun laws, smoking bans, helmet laws, seatbelt laws, crushing environmental laws, food laws, food police. All of these things cost money to implement, and have resulted in a runaway, out of control government. Both in terms of power and the spending of our money.

I'm okay with the fact that you don't feel good about nuking Japan. As soon as you become okay with the fact that I think it was a good decision, we can finish this conversation.

I'm tired of having this as our new national anthem. I think a lot of other people are too.

Nina Simone "Feelings" (Montreux Jazz Festival) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mH5ZE3N8cxU#)

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 25, 2012, 10:44:13 PM


If You are forced to war than fighting honorably is possible. Killing, if needed, like in war, can be carried out with honor. 



If We have to shoot down a plane because an enemy is going to fly it into a building, then that may be a necessity, Id say the men and women of this country should have to sign a waver before getting on a plane from now on that says they're ok with being shot down rather than used as a weapon to attack other civilians.

I believe the distinction we are arguing here is necessity over morality.   I think allowing the people the opportunity to do whats right is giving them the opportunity to do the honorable thing, in that situation.

So, honor is far from moot, IMO, its a moral imperative.

Again, I implore you to expand your base of knowledge.
Start with a better understanding from the POV of the enemy, read Sun Tzu, The Art of War, he explains from the beginning that war is nothing but failed politics.
Did I mention it was written more than 2500 years ago?

Quote from: Solar on July 26, 2012, 07:24:23 AM
Again, I implore you to expand your base of knowledge.
Start with a better understanding from the POV of the enemy, read Sun Tzu, The Art of War, he explains from the beginning that war is nothing but failed politics.
Did I mention it was written more than 2500 years ago?

And more recently......

(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages114.fotki.com%2Fv74%2Fphotos%2F1%2F1595431%2F9679810%2Fpolitics_is_war-vi.png&hash=d03a1c9c6970b98c5c0a8f23a4f5cb87ecbe4b8d)

Quote from: kramarat on July 26, 2012, 05:31:32 AM

I'm okay with the fact that you don't feel good about nuking Japan. As soon as you become okay with the fact that I think it was a good decision, we can finish this conversation.

Ive already said that I understand where You guys are coming from. 

Quote from: kramarat on July 26, 2012, 05:31:32 AM
You watch too many movies son. The waiver is called a plane ticket. The liberal thought process has placed our country in a state of "feel good" paralysis. We're all gonna die. Some sooner than later.

What the left is attempting to do, is to subjugate human nature, and dictate behavior, based on their personal feeling of right and wrong. In the process, they are stripping us of our freedom, and placing us in a one size fits all society. Personal honor and morality rests solely within an individual's mind.

We are a nation of laws. However, the attempt by the left to dictate behavior and morality, (which, by the way, is often immoral), is called socialism. It's not up to you, to determine where someone else is, in the honor- morality spectrum. If they are not breaking any laws, don't worry about them.

You feel bad about nuking Japan. I feel as if it was the right decision, at the right time....................history bears that out.

The difference between you and me is..........I say that you have a right to your opinion, and go on with my life.
You say, it was murder, dishonorable, etc. But you won't stop until everyone else sees it your way. When people like you, get into positions of power, you make life suck for the rest of us.

Hate speech laws, antibullying laws, gun laws, smoking bans, helmet laws, seatbelt laws, crushing environmental laws, food laws, food police. All of these things cost money to implement, and have resulted in a runaway, out of control government. Both in terms of power and the spending of our money.

If Youre saying that we will be shot down if our plane is taken by a terrorist then the people who are going to fly should sign a waiver, not only would this add protection to the business but it allows the people to make a their own decision.

Ive never seen that in a movie. I also dont see it as just another costly venture for little reason. If Your life can be taken, by the military, for the "greater good", then that should be signed off on before taking flight.  I dont see where that doesn't make sense.

Quote from: Solar on July 26, 2012, 07:24:23 AM
he explains from the beginning that war is nothing but failed politics.

Agreed, war is failed politics, but it isn't fought by politicians. It's fought by the honorable men and women who choose to take up arms. Normally it is propaganda driven, but for the majority it is still honor, integrity, and selfless service that drive the hearts of men, IMO.

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 26, 2012, 08:20:10 AM

Agreed, war is failed politics, but it isn't fought by politicians. It's fought by the honorable men and women who choose to take up arms. Normally it is propaganda driven, but for the majority it is still honor, integrity, and selfless service that drive the hearts of men, IMO.

With an exception, one where the enemy sees their enemy as a threat to their very way of life.
Muscums see our culture as a threat, and part of me agrees, our own culture is a threat to us as well at times.

But Muscums see women's rights, other Religions as a threat, so regardless of political debates, the want us destroyed, completely annihilated from the face of the earth.
Granted, not all of them believe this, but if we go to war with them, we have to eradicate the entire body, for it is infested with the cancer.
Again, read and learn, Wahhabi, it is the teaching of the radical belief of the prophet, even their own people must be killed if they don't support the new belief system.
This teaching has been going on for more than 40 years, Bin laden was a student of their teachings and 95% of Saudi Arabians were taught this extreme belief.

So if we go to war, there can be no compromise, no middle ground when it comes to our survival. 

Quote from: hfishjr81 on July 26, 2012, 08:20:10 AM





Ive already said that I understand where You guys are coming from. 



If Youre saying that we will be shot down if our plane is taken by a terrorist then the people who are going to fly should sign a waiver, not only would this add protection to the business but it allows the people to make a their own decision.

Ive never seen that in a movie. I also dont see it as just another costly venture for little reason. If Your life can be taken, by the military, for the "greater good", then that should be signed off on before taking flight.  I dont see where that doesn't make sense.









Agreed, war is failed politics, but it isn't fought by politicians. It's fought by the honorable men and women who choose to take up arms. Normally it is propaganda driven, but for the majority it is still honor, integrity, and selfless service that drive the hearts of men, IMO.

What the hell good is a waiver going to do?

A waiver for what? Giving the government permission to shoot the plane down if it's threatening to crash into a city?

Wake up! How many people in the flying public, do you think are completely unaware that the plane will be shot down, before it is allowed to be used as a terrorist weapon?

Jeez :blink: :confused:

Quote from: kramarat on July 26, 2012, 08:38:24 AM

What the hell good is a waiver going to do?

A waiver for what? Giving the government permission to shoot the plane down if it's threatening to crash into a city?

Wake up! How many people in the flying public, do you think are completely unaware that the plane will be shot down, before it is allowed to be used as a terrorist weapon?

Jeez :blink: :confused:

Give us back the right to protect ourselves in flight, and all this happy horse shit would be nothing but a blip in history.

Quote from: Solar on July 26, 2012, 08:41:53 AM
Give us back the right to protect ourselves in flight, and all this happy horse shit would be nothing but a blip in history.

Oh. Rights or not, I'm pretty sure that the passengers on a plane would not allow a scumbag terrorist to get away with shit. I'd be willing to bet that more than a few passengers would be willing to make sure that they, (terrorists), never made it to trial. :wink:

Quote from: kramarat on July 26, 2012, 08:55:32 AM
Oh. Rights or not, I'm pretty sure that the passengers on a plane would not allow a scumbag terrorist to get away with shit. I'd be willing to bet that more than a few passengers would be willing to make sure that they, (terrorists), never made it to trial. :wink:

Agreed, which begs the question, why are we searching little old ladies in wheel chairs.

I swear, there just is no commonsense left in the world, given the tools, we are more than capable of taking care of ourselves.

Quote from: Solar on July 26, 2012, 11:46:30 AM
Agreed, which begs the question, why are we searching little old ladies in wheel chairs.

I swear, there just is no commonsense left in the world, given the tools, we are more than capable of taking care of ourselves.

Don't even get me started on that one. The TSA is niothing but a massive waste of time and money.

They could have beefed up airport security with the existing people, secured the pilots cabin on commercial airliners, trained and armed the pilots.................and that could have been the end of it.

Cities had an option to opt out of having the TSA in their airports. Very few decided to. Now, not only does this administration refuse to allow them to opt out, but Obama wants them unionized. :angry:

Quote from: kramarat on July 20, 2012, 09:55:22 PM
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/01/martin-luther-kings-conservative-legacy (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2006/01/martin-luther-kings-conservative-legacy)

http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~cfc/Chabris1998a.html (http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~cfc/Chabris1998a.html)

Lets play.....................bell curve genious.

Quoting "heritage.org" is clearly a positive mark on your credibility.   :rolleyes:

Martin Luther King Versus Mitt Romney (no music) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P1XwiuF48Q#)

^ Read his lips.  Now, gladly concede your point.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 29, 2012, 05:31:38 PM
Quoting "heritage.org" is clearly a positive mark on your credibility.   :rolleyes:

Martin Luther King Versus Mitt Romney (no music) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P1XwiuF48Q#)

^ Read his lips.  Now, gladly concede your point.

Long time, no hear.........................bell curve genious. To concede my point, would mean that there wasn't a point to begin with.................therefore, conceding my point would be impossible. One cannot concede, that which never existed.

I would suggest that you listen to the words of Martin Luther King, himself, as well as his living relatives. Apparently they are not getting the warm, fuzzy feelings about Margaret Sanger, and her plan to decimate black people, as one would expect.

I look forward to an intelligent thought from you. Completely out of place, but I'm proud of you, for knowing the word, "concede". One day you may actually be able to use it in a coherent sentence.

For me to concede my point.......................makes no fugking sense. Try again, you little lap dog. :wink:

One more thing.....................bell curve genious. I hate to break this to you..............but being a bell curve genious, means that everyone else in your class got an F......................you got a D. Therefore, you are the smartest.

Sharpen up your pencil, dipshit. :laugh:

Quote from: kramarat on July 29, 2012, 07:59:04 PM
Long time, no hear.........................bell curve genious.

This is fairly old news, and a quick google search will find you a host of independent studies leading to the same conclusion.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-26/health/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence_1_sexual-behaviors-liberalism-exclusivity?_s=PM:HEALTH (http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-26/health/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence_1_sexual-behaviors-liberalism-exclusivity?_s=PM:HEALTH)

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/high_iq_liberal_atheist_monogamous_/ (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/high_iq_liberal_atheist_monogamous_/)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm)

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/liberalism-atheism-linked-to-high-iq (http://sweetness-light.com/archive/liberalism-atheism-linked-to-high-iq)

http://www.examiner.com/article/atheism-linked-to-high-iq-once-again (http://www.examiner.com/article/atheism-linked-to-high-iq-once-again)

Additionally, I could cite studies in which atheists are more knowledgeable on bible passages than theists, that Fox news watchers know less about politics than those who do not watch the news at all, and that more fervently conservative states have significantly higher rates of teen pregnancy and gay suicides.

Quote
To concede my point, would mean that there wasn't a point to begin with.................therefore, conceding my point would be impossible. One cannot concede, that which never existed.

Hint hint: you claimed MLK was a conservative.  I just provided video footage, showing the man himself, clearly espousing what are undeniably liberal viewpoints.

Quote
I would suggest that you listen to the words of Martin Luther King, himself, as well as his living relatives. Apparently they are not getting the warm, fuzzy feelings about Margaret Sanger, and her plan to decimate black people, as one would expect.

I look forward to an intelligent thought from you. Completely out of place, but I'm proud of you, for knowing the word, "concede". One day you may actually be able to use it in a coherent sentence.

For me to concede my point.......................makes no fugking sense. Try again, you little lap dog. :wink:

Hint: when someone provides primary video evidence, you'd best concede the point or actually address the footage, rather than attempt to change the subject.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 30, 2012, 11:51:45 AM
This is fairly old news, and a quick google search will find you a host of independent studies leading to the same conclusion.

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-26/health/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence_1_sexual-behaviors-liberalism-exclusivity?_s=PM:HEALTH (http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-26/health/liberals.atheists.sex.intelligence_1_sexual-behaviors-liberalism-exclusivity?_s=PM:HEALTH)

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/high_iq_liberal_atheist_monogamous_/ (http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/high_iq_liberal_atheist_monogamous_/)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100224132655.htm)

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/liberalism-atheism-linked-to-high-iq (http://sweetness-light.com/archive/liberalism-atheism-linked-to-high-iq)

http://www.examiner.com/article/atheism-linked-to-high-iq-once-again (http://www.examiner.com/article/atheism-linked-to-high-iq-once-again)

Additionally, I could cite studies in which atheists are more knowledgeable on bible passages than theists, that Fox news watchers know less about politics than those who do not watch the news at all, and that more fervently conservative states have significantly higher rates of teen pregnancy and gay suicides.

Hint hint: you claimed MLK was a conservative.  I just provided video footage, showing the man himself, clearly espousing what are undeniably liberal viewpoints.

Hint: when someone provides primary video evidence, you'd best concede the point or actually address the footage, rather than attempt to change the subject.

His niece makes it sound as if his values would have leaned towards conservatism. But I'll admit............you may be right.

If this guy's defense of MLK as a liberal, is accurate, the left can have him. I'll concede. I was making him into a much better man than he actually was.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein9.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/epstein9.html)

Wait - so, after you realize MLK Jr was a liberal, and not a conservative, your opinion of his moral character immediately changes as a result?  And conveniently enough, you just happen to pull out a site to support your sudden change in viewpoint.   :rolleyes:

"MLK supported X, Y and Z, and he was a conservative!  Oh, wait, he was a liberal?  Ah...uh, MLK was a liberal, but he wasn't that great, and X, Y and Z were evil liberal plots!"

Although I commend your ability to concede the point, even if it's coupled with a ridiculously transparent flip-flop that makes Romney's worst seem harmless and innocent in comparison.

Liberal atheists produce a study which "proves" that - SURPRISE - liberal atheists, are "smarter" than the common run of humanity. Who woulda thunk!  :rolleyes:

Quote from: mdgiles on July 30, 2012, 02:56:00 PM
Liberal atheists produce a study which "proves" that - SURPRISE - liberal atheists, are "smarter" than the common run of humanity. Who woulda thunk!  :rolleyes:

Do you find any flaws in their methodology?  Do you find any evidence of prejudice?  Do you posses any studies demonstrating the contrary?  Or are you just dismissing any study you find inconvenient on a whim?  Did you even read the article?  Be honest here, and pretend that these question are not rhetorical.

It's not as though the fact that scientists and those with doctorates tend to be religious is a wild notion.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 30, 2012, 02:54:33 PM
Wait - so, after you realize MLK Jr was a liberal, and not a conservative, your opinion of his moral character immediately changes as a result?  And conveniently enough, you just happen to pull out a site to support your sudden change in viewpoint.   :rolleyes:

"MLK supported X, Y and Z, and he was a conservative!  Oh, wait, he was a liberal?  Ah...uh, MLK was a liberal, but he wasn't that great, and X, Y and Z were evil liberal plots!"

Although I commend your ability to concede the point, even if it's coupled with a ridiculously transparent flip-flop that makes Romney's worst seem harmless and innocent in comparison.

Yep. I got suckered by the popular misconception that King was a great guy. If the myth link is accurate, I've got to flip flop. It appears to be written by someone much like yourself, and he proudly proclaims that King was not a patriot, didn't like capitalism, was pro communism, didn't like the free market, as well as regularly cheating on his wife......................what's to like?

His niece sounds like a solid conservative, but she may be delusional. Listening to her, is where I got the impression that her uncle leaned conservative. I figured that a family member would know. She makes it sound like he wouldn't like the wholesale slaughter of blacks, through Planned Parenthood abortions. But he received a Margaret Sanger award in 1966, so I'm assuming he would be fine with it, as well as the "special treatment" that many blacks have been given by the left. Packed in tenement buildings and subsisting on government hand outs.

I'd think that King would have been well aware of the history of racism within the democrat party.................I guess he chose to overlook it.

Quote from: kramarat on July 30, 2012, 04:58:36 PM
Yep. I got suckered by the popular misconception that King was a great guy.

You take that conservative = good and liberal = evil as a given, to the point in which all liberals must be evil, no matter how noble their accomplishments.

While I am using nobility to paint liberals in a positive light...you are using liberalism to paint nobility in a negative light!   :blink:

Quote
If the myth link is accurate, I've got to flip flop. It appears to be written by someone much like yourself, and he proudly proclaims that King was not a patriot, didn't like capitalism, was pro communism, didn't like the free market, as well as regularly cheating on his wife......................what's to like?

Actually, the vast majority of the site stems from efforts by the asshole FBI chief to discredit King, because he suspected the civil rights movement to have been infiltrated by communists.

Kind of puts a dent on the idea that the civil rights movement had even the shadow of conservatism driving it, when they were all suspected of being leftist loons.

Quote
His niece sounds like a solid conservative, but she may be delusional. Listening to her, is where I got the impression that her uncle leaned conservative. I figured that a family member would know. She makes it sound like he wouldn't like the wholesale slaughter of blacks, through Planned Parenthood abortions. But he received a Margaret Sanger award in 1966, so I'm assuming he would be fine with it, as well as the "special treatment" that many blacks have been given by the left. Packed in tenement buildings and subsisting on government hand outs.

The problem here is that I was under the impression that we both took "racism = bad" as a given, and that we could base conclusions off of that.  Yet now, you've concluded that "liberals = bad" is such a given, it overrides the former, and we come to "he was a liberal, therefore, all of his actions were bad!"

Now, you'll doubtlessly come around to bashing Einstein as an Evil Socialist, any moment now.

Quote

I'd think that King would have been well aware of the history of racism within the democrat party.................I guess he chose to overlook it.

The two parties switched; I'm sure you know this. 

But here's a question for you:

Name me just five conservatives in American history that supported civil rights.

Obviously, you libs don't visit this site, for a more thorough examination of the horror of abortion within the black community....

http://www.blackgenocide.org (http://www.blackgenocide.org)

Sanger, openly socialist, was also guest speaker at a KKK rally, in support of her murderous campaign. The photo is on the Internet.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 31, 2012, 06:12:15 AM
You take that conservative = good and liberal = evil as a given, to the point in which all liberals must be evil, no matter how noble their accomplishments.

While I am using nobility to paint liberals in a positive light...you are using liberalism to paint nobility in a negative light!   :blink:


Actually, the vast majority of the site stems from efforts by the asshole FBI chief to discredit King, because he suspected the civil rights movement to have been infiltrated by communists.

Kind of puts a dent on the idea that the civil rights movement had even the shadow of conservatism driving it, when they were all suspected of being leftist loons.

The problem here is that I was under the impression that we both took "racism = bad" as a given, and that we could base conclusions off of that.  Yet now, you've concluded that "liberals = bad" is such a given, it overrides the former, and we come to "he was a liberal, therefore, all of his actions were bad!"

Now, you'll doubtlessly come around to bashing Einstein as an Evil Socialist, any moment now.


The two parties switched; I'm sure you know this. 

But here's a question for you:

Name me just five conservatives in American history that supported civil rights.

It's not necessarily a good vs evil thing. Conservatives want to stick by America's founding principles..............liberals want to change them. Those of us that don't want the country changed, and to have to live under a massive centralized authority, believe that liberalism is bad for the country..............particularly, when it morphs into socialism, which is what we are experiencing now.

Here you go: Be sure to click on the links. Lots of fact that you won't like.

http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/ (http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/)

Quote from: kramarat on July 31, 2012, 12:22:00 PM

http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/ (http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/)

Kramarat, you should put the address in the Library for reference.   

Quote from: walkstall on July 31, 2012, 12:51:22 PM
Kramarat, you should put the address in the Library for reference.

Will do. It's a good site. Of course, I'm sure sci fi will say, that the site is run by a stupid, ass kissing, Uncle Tom, that has forgotten his place on the social ladder, that the left has provided for him. You know................like Clarence Thomas. :biggrin:

Quote from: kramarat on July 31, 2012, 12:22:00 PM
It's not necessarily a good vs evil thing. Conservatives want to stick by America's founding principles..............

OK then.  So name me five conservatives who have fought for civil rights.

Quoteliberals want to change them.

Opposing the changing of the status quo for any reason would imply that the status quo is perfect.

QuoteThose of us that don't want the country changed,

Which doesn't make any sense at all, because most of the liberties we take for granted came from change. 

Abolition, integration and female suffrage were all changes to our nation.  Your own definition of conservatism means that the right opposed these advancements.

QuoteOK then.  So name me five conservatives who have fought for civil rights.

Do it yourself.
http://stoprepublicans.blogspot.com/2006/05/history-of-republican-evil.html (http://stoprepublicans.blogspot.com/2006/05/history-of-republican-evil.html)

QuoteOpposing the changing of the status quo for any reason would imply that the status quo is perfect.

You're altering my words. I wasn't talking about changing the status quo, I was talking about changing the very foundation of the country. The US Constitution, is probably the closest thing to a perfect document that's ever been written.

QuoteWhich doesn't make any sense at all, because most of the liberties we take for granted came from change.

It makes perfect sense. We had this little scuffle called the revolutionary war. We gained our freedom from the british, and created a new form of government. It's covered in the constitution. You should read it.

Quote from: kramarat on July 31, 2012, 02:25:33 PM
Do it yourself.
http://stoprepublicans.blogspot.com/2006/05/history-of-republican-evil.html (http://stoprepublicans.blogspot.com/2006/05/history-of-republican-evil.html)

Hint hint wink wink; the two parties switched ideologies.  That's why the solid south turned republican.  That's why the 19th century democratic position was fanatically pro states' rights.  Republicans were the first to levy an income tax.

Quote
You're altering my words. I wasn't talking about changing the status quo, I was talking about changing the very foundation of the country. The US Constitution, is probably the closest thing to a perfect document that's ever been written.

Name one liberal policy that seeks to alter the foundation of the United States, state the foundation and state your evidence that such a foundation exists.

Quote
It makes perfect sense. We had this little scuffle called the revolutionary war. We gained our freedom from the british, and created a new form of government. It's covered in the constitution. You should read it.

We created a new form of government, which failed miserably, and then had to completely rewrite it.  That is certainly a hit on the conservative position that the founders were gods in human form. 

QuoteName one liberal policy that seeks to alter the foundation of the United States, state the foundation and state your evidence that such a foundation exists.

Um, Obamacare would be the most recent example. Do you live under a rock, or in your parent's basement?

Government can now force us to buy anything they tell us to. Refusal will be met with IRS agents, and possible imprisonment.

Quote from: kramarat on July 31, 2012, 02:50:36 PM
Um, Obamacare would be the most recent example. Do you live under a rock, or in your parent's basement?

Government can now force us to buy anything they tell us to. Refusal will be met with IRS agents, and possible imprisonment.

Do you support the Patriot Act?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 31, 2012, 02:52:07 PM
Do you support the Patriot Act?

Nope. I didn't like the sounds of it, from the beginning.

QuoteHint hint wink wink; the two parties switched ideologies.  That's why the solid south turned republican.  That's why the 19th century democratic position was fanatically pro states' rights.  Republicans were the first to levy an income tax.

The two parties did not switch ideologies. Republicans/Conservatives saw black people as equals. Democrat/liberals moved to create a welfare/nanny state, (in exchange for votes), and it continues to this day.....................in fact, it's now on steroids, under Obama. Conservatives did, and still do, believe in limited government...................as per the Constitution. Liberals reject the constitution. Unless of course, it's convenient toward their argument.

Quote from: kramarat on July 31, 2012, 03:46:03 PM
The two parties did not switch ideologies.

Then explain why the south is Republican, when it was once Democratic.

Explain why the Northeast is now Democratic, when it was once Republican.

Explain why Republicans now support states' rights, when they once supported a strong national government.

Explain why all confederate sympathizers are conservatives.

Explain why JFK supported civil rights, while Nixon opposed integration and ran on a party platform to appeal to his base[/b].

Explain why LBJ, the most liberal president in our history, passed the farthest reaching civil rights legislation in our history.

Explain why Andrew Johnson was a firm believer in states' rights.

Explain why the Southern Manifesto was signed entirely by conservative states such as Mississipi, and used strict constitutionalists and states' rights arguments.

Explain why the Klan is most prominent in conservative states.

QuoteRepublicans/Conservatives saw black people as equals. Democrat/liberals moved to create a welfare/nanny state, (in exchange for votes),

Newsflash: welfare and civil rights were heavily interconnected.  You'll find that the same societies who opposed slavery in the late 19th century were also the first to make a serious push for social welfare.

Quoteand it continues to this day.....................in fact, it's now on steroids, under Obama. Conservatives did, and still do, believe in limited government...................as per the Constitution. Liberals reject the constitution. Unless of course, it's convenient toward their argument.

Wait, so by your logic, the confederacy was liberal.  Yet the confederacy held a fanatical hatred of big government; huh?

QuoteThen explain why the south is Republican, when it was once Democratic.

Many would attribute it to the Southern Strategy, popularized by Nixon, but I don't see that as completely accurate. The fact of the matter, is that racist democrats, upon seeing that the left was attempting to take ownership of the civil rights movement, either left the party, or voted republican.

QuoteExplain why the Northeast is now Democratic, when it was once Republican.

Once the civil war was won, and particularly after the civil rights act was passed, many republicans bought into the lie, that liberals were the good guys. Short answer: Feel good, liberal bullshit.

QuoteExplain why all confederate sympathizers are conservatives.

See #1. They are former democrat racists, that left the party in disgust. They are not true conservatives.

QuoteExplain why JFK supported civil rights, while Nixon opposed integration and ran on a party platform to appeal to his base[/b].

For votes.

As for the rest of your questions............the answers are in the link I provided earlier. Read up on history. I don't have time to be your teacher.

Hint: You are mistaking the votes of pissed off southern democrats, (for republicans), as conservative votes. They are not one and the same. They are opposition votes against their own party, a party that they have become disgusted with. That does NOT make them conservatives.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 01, 2012, 11:59:42 AM
Then explain why the south is Republican, when it was once Democratic.

Explain why the Northeast is now Democratic, when it was once Republican.

Simple to attract business to the South it was necessary that they prove that "the bad old days" of segregation were over. The simplest way of doing that would be to leave the party of Segregation - the Democrats. The NorthEast is Democratic because they replaced the old party machines with new Liberal macines, the purpose being the same to buy votes with government dollars. Of course they were more sophisticated than someone going down to party headquarters and receiving a handout. Now you went to the welfare office

QuoteExplain why Republicans now support states' rights, when they once supported a strong national government.

When have Republicans ever supported a strong Central government. If you ever read a history book, as opposed to just listening to talking points, you'd know that the Democrats were usually the party supporting a strong federal government. In the ante-bellum period they were the ones who supported such laws as the Fugitive Slave Act, and unprecedented expansion of federal power. During the New Deal period the poor south supported the federal government because it was federal policy to transfer money from the rich north to the poor south. And of course, every time the South's policy toward the Negro was challenged first during the Civil War and then in the 60's suddenly they became big supporters of States Rights. They stopped because the South got richer, and suddenly they were the ones paying the taxes.

QuoteExplain why all confederate sympathizers are conservatives.

Go look up the definition of "conservation" and stop using it as a fucking synonym for "reactionary". No words don't mean whatever you a-hole leftist want them to mean.

QuoteExplain why JFK supported civil rights, while Nixon opposed integration and ran on a party platform to appeal to his base[/b].

What makes you think JFK supported Civil Rights? And I'm not in love with the idea of integration. I've never understood why the idea that a school, for example being better if a few white kids are in it, isn't racist on it's face. I understand their reasoning - their facilities wouldn't be shortchanged if whites were also required to use the same facilities. But that doesn't mean I like it. And I've always felt there was an ulterior motive to the push for integration.

QuoteExplain why LBJ, the most liberal president in our history, passed the farthest reaching civil rights legislation in our history.

Johnson DID NOT past the Civil Rights legislation, the exact same Republicans who had been fighting to pass Civil Rights legislation for 100 years, passed it, with the help of northern Liberal Democrats (credit where credit is due). Check the roll call on the vote. THE MAJORITY OF DEMOCRAT OPPOSED CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION. The northern liberals, located in cities that were becoming filled with minorities, sold out the same people they had supported for years. The media - being they lying sacks of shit that they are - gave far too much of the credit to the Dems. BTW The farthest reaching Civil Rights Legislation in our history was the 13thm 14th and 15th Amendments - and REPUBLICANS passed those.

QuoteExplain why Andrew Johnson was a firm believer in states' rights.

Because he was a Tennessee DEMOCRAT, but a unionist, who was added to the ticket as a bipartisan gesture.

QuoteExplain why the Southern Manifesto was signed entirely by conservative states such as Mississipi, and used strict constitutionalists and states' rights arguments.

Because the South which was glad to suck off the Federal teat, always raised the fake banner of "States Rights" when ever the issue of blacks was raised.

QuoteExplain why the Klan is most prominent in conservative states.

Like Obama's Illinois, or Pennsylvania, or Ohio or Indiana, where klan membership number in the hundreds of thousands in the 20's. Like I said, you really need to brush up on your history, Start here, you should trust PBS: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/flood-klan/ (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/flood-klan/)

QuoteNewsflash: welfare and civil rights were heavily interconnected.  You'll find that the same societies who opposed slavery in the late 19th century were also the first to make a serious push for social welfare.

Pushing for Social Welfare does not equate to pushing for centralized government. You can't simply co-opt every movement for social improvement into "Liberalism".

QuoteWait, so by your logic, the confederacy was liberal.  Yet the confederacy held a fanatical hatred of big government; huh?

Sure they were. They were all in favor of people working while other's enjoyed the fruits of those peoples labor. Sort of like today's liberals claiming they have a "right" to the fruits of other peoples labor.

Quote from: kramarat on August 01, 2012, 12:58:48 PM
Many would attribute it to the Southern Strategy, popularized by Nixon, but I don't see that as completely accurate. The fact of the matter, is that racist democrats, upon seeing that the left was attempting to take ownership of the civil rights movement, either left the party, or voted republican.

Does this not imply that racists fled to the republican party, and presumably remain there?

Quote
 
Once the civil war was won, and particularly after the civil rights act was passed, many republicans bought into the lie, that liberals were the good guys. Short answer: Feel good, liberal bullshit.

:lol: So everyone magically turned their political ideology 180 degrees because they believed liberals were the "good guys"?

How about the south?  As we all know, the south has not the best race history, and it is conservative.  For your theory to work, the south would have to have been liberal once.  The confederacy was liberal??  Why did the south turn conservative?

Quote
See #1. They are former democrat racists, that left the party in disgust. They are not true conservatives.

Wait; so we know democrats are liberals today.  According to you, they were always liberal.  Yet now, you're arguing that racists left the democratic party in disgust.  Does this not imply that the democratic party turned anti-racist, and therefore that my party switching claim (supported by the vast majority of historians) is correct?

Quote
For votes.

So what?  JFK was a liberal, so he would do whatever would appeal to liberals.  That civil rights appealed to them merely supports my point.  Nixon was a conservative, and a lying sack of shit, so he would do whatever a lying sack of shit would do to appeal to conservatives.  That racism appealed to them merely supports my point.


---------

Mdgiles, I'll get to your own oppositions soon.  But have you ever wondered why you and kramarat come up with entirely different and ridiculously complex rationalizations for why the two parties switched demographics yet magically remained the same?

QuoteDoes this not imply that racists fled to the republican party, and presumably remain there?

No. It doesn't imply it, it states it very clearly. They are not conservatives, nor are RINOs. Some joined the republican party, others remain democrat and vote republican. They are not voting for something. They are voting against something. They couldn't care less about conservative principles.

QuoteSo everyone magically turned their political ideology 180 degrees because they believed liberals were the "good guys"?

How about the south?  As we all know, the south has not the best race history, and it is conservative.  For your theory to work, the south would have to have been liberal once.  The confederacy was liberal??  Why did the south turn conservative?

Modern liberalism within the US didn't get kicked off until after the New Deal.

Yes, the south was made up of primarily democrat conservatives that wanted to both keep, and expand the practice of keeping black slaves.

People didn't "turn" from conservative to liberal. The New Deal was the beginning of the march toward modern liberal socialism. The beginning of people thinking that the government's role was to insure that we were all safe, socially equal, and now, with Obama..........economic equals.

QuoteWait; so we know democrats are liberals today.  According to you, they were always liberal.  Yet now, you're arguing that racists left the democratic party in disgust.  Does this not imply that the democratic party turned anti-racist, and therefore that my party switching claim (supported by the vast majority of historians) is correct?

No. Southern democrats were conservatives. The democrat party never turned anti-racist. They merely pretended to, otherwise the party would have evaporated. They turned black people into victims, convincing them that they could do nothing on their own, and that they needed the kind, tolerant democrat party to make the way for them. Just another way to keep blacks in their place, and secure their votes. Democrats have never looked at blacks as equals. That continues to this day. They bring in people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton for political expediency.................same with women, same with gays, etc. They care about no one but themselves, and holding onto power.

JFK was not a great president. He was good looking, charismatic, everyone liked him, and he got shot. It doesn't make his policies good.

Once again, I know you have a lot of respect for what we say, and I'm assuming that you're sitting in front of a computer. Please read up on history before you post.

One more thing: I've noticed that in almost every one of your responses, (throughout the forum), you demonstrate your basic ignorance, by assuming that conservatives and republicans are one in the same. You also seem to believe that democrats and liberals are one in the same.

Allow me to clear things up for you......................and I'm talking modern times, not civil war era, definitions. Liberal, democrat, conservative, and republican, are 4 different things, not 2.

Liberal and conservative refer to philisophical ideologies in regard to the role of government in our lives. There are other things, but that is the primary difference.

Democrats lie to their liberal base to hold onto power in Washington.

Republicans lie to their conservative base to hold onto power in Washington.

Liberals tend to believe that the democrats actually represent them.

Conservatives know better, than to think the same of republicans. Hence the effort to get conservatives in Washington, the Tea Party, etc. We know and recognize that our run of the mill politicians, (from both sides), are liars. Hope this helps.

QuoteNo. Southern democrats were conservatives.

Many. But their were also many reactionaries. To some it wasn't a question of slow and measured change with a healthy respect for those things that had been tried and worked (i.e., Conservatives); but an attempt to return to an idealized past (i.e., Reactionaries). Just off the top of my head I would guess the reactionaries stayed with the Dems, that might account for they're continually acting as if it was still the New Deal 30's.

Quote from: mdgiles on August 02, 2012, 12:02:50 PM
Many. But their were also many reactionaries. To some it wasn't a question of slow and measured change with a healthy respect for those things that had been tried and worked (i.e., Conservatives); but an attempt to return to an idealized past (i.e., Reactionaries). Just off the top of my head I would guess the reactionaries stayed with the Dems, that might account for they're continually acting as if it was still the New Deal 30's.

True, but I think the very meaning of liberal, conservative, democrat, republican has changed since the days of the civil war. I think one of the things we all tend to forget, (which you would never know, by listening to the news or the people in Washington), is that today, the vast majority of Americans fall, just slightly, to the right or left of direct center. I get along fine with people that tend to vote democrat. They aren't radicals. Quite frankly, I think Obama, and his particular brand of politics, took everyone by surprise. His presidency in no way resembles what he said on his 08 campaign.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 01, 2012, 11:59:42 AM
Then explain why the south is Republican, when it was once Democratic.

Explain why the Northeast is now Democratic, when it was once Republican.

Explain why Republicans now support states' rights, when they once supported a strong national government.

Explain why all confederate sympathizers are conservatives.

Explain why JFK supported civil rights, while Nixon opposed integration and ran on a party platform to appeal to his base[/b].

Explain why LBJ, the most liberal president in our history, passed the farthest reaching civil rights legislation in our history.

Explain why Andrew Johnson was a firm believer in states' rights.

Explain why the Southern Manifesto was signed entirely by conservative states such as Mississipi, and used strict constitutionalists and states' rights arguments.

Explain why the Klan is most prominent in conservative states.

Newsflash: welfare and civil rights were heavily interconnected.  You'll find that the same societies who opposed slavery in the late 19th century were also the first to make a serious push for social welfare.

Wait, so by your logic, the confederacy was liberal.  Yet the confederacy held a fanatical hatred of big government; huh?

What drivel. Prepare to learn, butthead.

The Northeast is now largely a Democrat enclave because of urbanization, which has taken place most quickly in the Northeast. A notable exception is obviously New Hampshire, the "Live Free Or DIE!!" state, where there are literally no large urban areas. (New Hampshire's largest city, Manchester, boasts a population of barely 110,000.) Democrats comprise the party of "gimme, gimme," and will always win the largely urbanized states like New York and California.

The Republican party opposed slavery, and came into being for that purpose. The Republican party espoused federal power for the purpose of eliminating slavery, and for no other purpose. It followed that Lincoln's party opposed secession by any state, which led to the Civil War. SHAME on those evil Republicans!

Explain to me, sir, why you undoubtedly support the federal government's "right" to impose the existence of gay marriage on the several states.

All confederate sympathizers are conservatives? Really? Where do you get this shit, or do you just make it up as you go along? GIVE ME JUST ONE EXAMPLE. Robert Byrd was a Confederate sympathizer. George Wallace was a Confederate sympathizer. Orval Faubus was a Confederate sympathizer. All were Democrats, as were practically ALL the opponents of racial desegregation. Do you want me to go on?

John Fitzgerald Kennedy, while a senator representing Massachusetts, voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act. During his brief presidency, he signed absolutely NOTHING into law that forwarded civil rights one inch. So what the hell are you talking about?

Lyndon Baines Johnson isn't even CLOSE to being the most liberal or progressive president in recent history. That crown belongs to our current asshole-in-chief, and you know it AND love it. But was LBJ, or any other Democrat, a benevolent lover of minorities? Not exactly. The love has more to do with votes, I think.

• "I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side. ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

Robert C. Byrd, US Senator from West Virginia, former "Grand Kleagle" in the Ku Klux Klan, who served more than 51 years in the Senate, after a six-year stint in the US House of Representatives.

• "These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days, and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness."

Lyndon Baines Johnson, US Senator from Texas

• "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

Lyndon Baines Johnson, President of the United States

Ah, fresh young Democrat voices.

I don't have to, and don't want to, explain Andrew Johnson's failed policies to anyone. He was Lincoln's vice president for a year, and was Lincoln's choice only out of political expedience. If it matters to you at all, you might note that Johnson, an abysmal failure as a president and the first president impeached by the House of Representatives (of course, Slick Willie was #2), was a Democrat. Why am I not surprised?

Your entertainment value has long since lapsed. If you honestly think you've actually made some point in the remainder of your screed, box it up and stick it out as another post. I'm too tired and have too much to do to blow any more time on this charade.

Quote from: tbone0106 on August 02, 2012, 04:02:04 PM
What drivel. Prepare to learn, butthead.

The Northeast is now largely a Democrat enclave because of urbanization, which has taken place most quickly in the Northeast. A notable exception is obviously New Hampshire, the "Live Free Or DIE!!" state, where there are literally no large urban areas. (New Hampshire's largest city, Manchester, boasts a population of barely 110,000.) Democrats comprise the party of "gimme, gimme," and will always win the largely urbanized states like New York and California.

The Republican party opposed slavery, and came into being for that purpose. The Republican party espoused federal power for the purpose of eliminating slavery, and for no other purpose. It followed that Lincoln's party opposed secession by any state, which led to the Civil War. SHAME on those evil Republicans!

Explain to me, sir, why you undoubtedly support the federal government's "right" to impose the existence of gay marriage on the several states.

All confederate sympathizers are conservatives? Really? Where do you get this shit, or do you just make it up as you go along? GIVE ME JUST ONE EXAMPLE. Robert Byrd was a Confederate sympathizer. George Wallace was a Confederate sympathizer. Orval Faubus was a Confederate sympathizer. All were Democrats, as were practically ALL the opponents of racial desegregation. Do you want me to go on?

John Fitzgerald Kennedy, while a senator representing Massachusetts, voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act. During his brief presidency, he signed absolutely NOTHING into law that forwarded civil rights one inch. So what the hell are you talking about?

Lyndon Baines Johnson isn't even CLOSE to being the most liberal or progressive president in recent history. That crown belongs to our current asshole-in-chief, and you know it AND love it. But was LBJ, or any other Democrat, a benevolent lover of minorities? Not exactly. The love has more to do with votes, I think.

• "I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side. ... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."

Robert C. Byrd, US Senator from West Virginia, former "Grand Kleagle" in the Ku Klux Klan, who served more than 51 years in the Senate, after a six-year stint in the US House of Representatives.

• "These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days, and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness."

Lyndon Baines Johnson, US Senator from Texas

• "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

Lyndon Baines Johnson, President of the United States

Ah, fresh young Democrat voices.

I don't have to, and don't want to, explain Andrew Johnson's failed policies to anyone. He was Lincoln's vice president for a year, and was Lincoln's choice only out of political expedience. If it matters to you at all, you might note that Johnson, an abysmal failure as a president and the first president impeached by the House of Representatives (of course, Slick Willie was #2), was a Democrat. Why am I not surprised?

Your entertainment value has long since lapsed. If you honestly think you've actually made some point in the remainder of your screed, box it up and stick it out as another post. I'm too tired and have too much to do to blow any more time on this charade.

Great post! Oh, the truth. :wink:

You forgot one other quote, and I'm paraphrasing: " Just think, not too long ago, that boy would have been serving us drinks."- Former president Bill Clinton, in reference to Obama. (2007)

Quote from: kramarat on August 02, 2012, 10:21:42 AM
No. It doesn't imply it, it states it very clearly. They are not conservatives, nor are RINOs. Some joined the republican party, others remain democrat and vote republican. They are not voting for something. They are voting against something. They couldn't care less about conservative principles.

So then why do they win votes?  Why have white supremacists received up to 44% of the popular vote in various conservative states?  Why aren't these noble party-of-Lincoln conservatives expelling the Evil Liberal Racists to the democratic party?

Quote
Modern liberalism within the US didn't get kicked off until after the New Deal.

Yes, the south was made up of primarily democrat conservatives that wanted to both keep, and expand the practice of keeping black slaves.

My point.

Quote
People didn't "turn" from conservative to liberal. The New Deal was the beginning of the march toward modern liberal socialism. The beginning of people thinking that the government's role was to insure that we were all safe, socially equal, and now, with Obama..........economic equals.

And without this new movement, the civil rights movement would never have gathered momentum.  How many small government, southern conservatives marched with MLK?

Quote
No. Southern democrats were conservatives.The democrat party never turned anti-racist. They merely pretended to, otherwise the party would have evaporated. They turned black people into victims, convincing them that they could do nothing on their own, and that they needed the kind, tolerant democrat party to make the way for them. Just another way to keep blacks in their place, and secure their votes. Democrats have never looked at blacks as equals. That continues to this day. They bring in people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton for political expediency.................same with women, same with gays, etc. They care about no one but themselves, and holding onto power.

My point.

Quote
JFK was not a great president. He was good looking, charismatic, everyone liked him, and he got shot. It doesn't make his policies good.

I'm not getting into a prolonged debate on the accomplishments and failures of JFK's presidency.  This doesn't refute my point that JFK supported civil rights, while Nixon made a policy out of opposing them.  And the former needed liberal votes, while the latter needed conservative votes, which simply proves my point yet again.

Quote
Once again, I know you have a lot of respect for what we say, and I'm assuming that you're sitting in front of a computer. Please read up on history before you post.

*clap clap clap*

Quote
One more thing: I've noticed that in almost every one of your responses, (throughout the forum), you demonstrate your basic ignorance, by assuming that conservatives and republicans are one in the same. You also seem to believe that democrats and liberals are one in the same.

What the fuck have you been stuffing in your eyelids?

Me:

    Hint hint wink wink; the two parties switched ideologies.




I stated precisely the opposite.  Your reply:


The two parties did not switch ideologies. Republicans/Conservatives saw black people as equals. Democrat/liberals moved to create a welfare/nanny state, (in exchange for votes), and it continues to this day

Quote
Democrats lie to their liberal base to hold onto power in Washington.

Republicans lie to their conservative base to hold onto power in Washington.

Liberals tend to believe that the democrats actually represent them.

Conservatives know better, than to think the same of republicans. Hence the effort to get conservatives in Washington, the Tea Party, etc. We know and recognize that our run of the mill politicians, (from both sides), are liars. Hope this helps.

I don't think the statistics support this.  You all still worship the "conservative" Reagan, who performed everything you conservatives hate with a passion.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 10, 2012, 03:42:22 PM
So then why do they win votes?  Why have white supremacists received up to 44% of the popular vote in various conservative states?  Why aren't these noble party-of-Lincoln conservatives expelling the Evil Liberal Racists to the democratic party?

My point.

And without this new movement, the civil rights movement would never have gathered momentum.  How many small government, southern conservatives marched with MLK?

My point.

I'm not getting into a prolonged debate on the accomplishments and failures of JFK's presidency.  This doesn't refute my point that JFK supported civil rights, while Nixon made a policy out of opposing them.  And the former needed liberal votes, while the latter needed conservative votes, which simply proves my point yet again.

*clap clap clap*

What the fuck have you been stuffing in your eyelids?

Me:

    Hint hint wink wink; the two parties switched ideologies.




I stated precisely the opposite.  Your reply:


The two parties did not switch ideologies. Republicans/Conservatives saw black people as equals. Democrat/liberals moved to create a welfare/nanny state, (in exchange for votes), and it continues to this day

I don't think the statistics support this.  You all still worship the "conservative" Reagan, who performed everything you conservatives hate with a passion.

You are as mixed up as fish.

I'm sorry you didn't pay attention in school.................or maybe the truth just wasn't taught. Either way, I don't have time to educate you.

The facts are out there. If I want emotive responses that aren't based in reality, I'll feed my wife a few glasses of wine, and listen to her call me an asshole. :wink:

Quote from: kramarat on August 10, 2012, 08:30:35 PM
You are as mixed up as fish.

I'm sorry you didn't pay attention in school.................or maybe the truth just wasn't taught. Either way, I don't have time to educate you.

The facts are out there. If I want emotive responses that aren't based in reality, I'll feed my wife a few glasses of wine, and listen to her call me an asshole. :wink:

No need to bluff superior knowledge, kramarat; you already conceded the argument:

Quote
    Yes, the south was made up of primarily democrat conservatives that wanted to both keep, and expand the practice of keeping black slaves.

:thumbup:

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 11, 2012, 01:08:19 PM
No need to bluff superior knowledge, kramarat; you already conceded the argument:

:thumbup:

Who says it's superior knowledge?

It's just facts. The modern democrat party saw themselves in a position in which they were going to disappear.

They recruited people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to give them credence, and morphed into the all loving, all accepting, tolerant piece of shit that they are today. Bribing people with entitlements, lying to people, voter fraud, etc., is nothing more than the games they play to get votes.

They couldn't give a rat's ass about the people that vote for them, or the country. It's all about power.

Quote from: kramarat on August 11, 2012, 01:39:26 PM
Who says it's superior knowledge?

It's just facts. The modern democrat party saw themselves in a position in which they were going to disappear.

You yourself stated that southern democrats were conservatives who opposed civil rights.  Ergo, we can conclude that conservatives generally opposed racial equality, while liberals supported it. 

Quote
They recruited people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to give them credence, and morphed into the all loving, all accepting, tolerant piece of shit that they are today. Bribing people with entitlements, lying to people, voter fraud, etc., is nothing more than the games they play to get votes.

What's your point, kramarat?  By your own admission, the civil rights movement was primarily opposed by the conservative base, which implies that it was primarily driven by the left.  The democrats would never have been able to gain votes by turning anti-racist, regardless of the party's true motives, if their liberal base were not agreeable to such measures!  And if the conservative base were agreeable to civil rights, the conservative politicians would have adopted a civil rights platform, but they did not.

You seem to think that stating blindly proving that democratic politicians adopted an anti-racist platform merely to receive votes proves your point.  It doesn't.

Quote
They couldn't give a rat's ass about the people that vote for them, or the country. It's all about power.

Right.  And the conservatives constantly giving bailouts to and deregulating big banks and corporations, while coincidentally receiving massive campaign dollars from them, were acting with the best interests of the common man at heart.   :lol:

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 11, 2012, 01:54:35 PM
You yourself stated that southern democrats were conservatives who opposed civil rights.  Ergo, we can conclude that conservatives generally opposed racial equality, while liberals supported it. 

What's your point, kramarat?  By your own admission, the civil rights movement was primarily opposed by the conservative base, which implies that it was primarily driven by the left.  The democrats would never have been able to gain votes by turning anti-racist, regardless of the party's true motives, if their liberal base were not agreeable to such measures!  And if the conservative base were agreeable to civil rights, the conservative politicians would have adopted a civil rights platform, but they did not.

You seem to think that stating blindly proving that democratic politicians adopted an anti-racist platform merely to receive votes proves your point.  It doesn't.


Right.  And the conservatives constantly giving bailouts to and deregulating big banks and corporations, while coincidentally receiving massive campaign dollars from them, were acting with the best interests of the common man at heart.   :lol:

Please read up on some history.

You are blending threads. We simply cannot use the words conservative and liberal, when comparing slavery days to modern times.

If you refuse to do some basic research, I really can't continue to deal with you.

Quote from: kramarat on August 11, 2012, 02:10:26 PM
Please read up on some history.

Actually, I really don't.  Not only because I know more than enough to draw conclusions related to the topic, but your own statements already prove my case.  You admit that the driving force behind the opposition to the civil rights movement was conservative.  Notice how your lazy blanket statement that I need to study up on my history doesn't work?

Quote
You are blending threads. We simply cannot use the words conservative and liberal, when comparing slavery days to modern times.

Nobody said the ideologies translate perfectly into every era.  But give me any stretch in American - or world history, and I can easily list the agreed upon "good guys" of the era, and demonstrate that they were on the left.  Once you conclude that in almost every era in history, the left ended up on the right side, claiming that the conservatives are in the right this time around is nothing more than blind denial.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 11, 2012, 01:54:35 PM
You yourself stated that southern democrats were conservatives who opposed civil rights.  Ergo, we can conclude that conservatives generally opposed racial equality, while liberals supported it.

Why pointing out that a particular group of conservatives hold a particular opinion, doesn't necessarily mean that all conservatives hold the same opinion. You're making the assumption that conservatives are like Liberals who do tend to march in lockstep.

QuoteWhat's your point, kramarat?  By your own admission, the civil rights movement was primarily opposed by the conservative base, which implies that it was primarily driven by the left.

Uh no. Saying that one side or the other doesn't care for the manner in which The Civil Rights movement was advanced doesn't necessarily follow that the conservative side of the political spectrum was against Civil Rights. Think for a moment, many people were against the war in Vietnam, that doesn't mean they were in favor of blowing up college buildings. And many of the people supported the war, that doesn't mean they were in favor of shooting college students. Much of the conservative argument against Civil Rights has to do with its advancement through the courts. Perhaps because they remember who much of Jim Crow was advanced in the first place - through the courts. Not to mention that there is always the point that the electorate is more likely to embrace a political outcome they've had a say in.

QuoteThe democrats would never have been able to gain votes by turning anti-racist, regardless of the party's true motives, if their liberal base were not agreeable to such measures!  And if the conservative base were agreeable to civil rights, the conservative politicians would have adopted a civil rights platform, but they did not.

On the contrary the conservative Republican Party had been pushing the cause of Civil Rights for years, while the Democrats had been fighting it tooth and nail. The Democratic party was quite willing to pay off Southern racist using Federal money, simply to maintain power. As the South became less dependent on federal dollars the Democrats faced a problem. As they became the one paying the taxes, white Southerners became less, and less, willing to support the high tax Dems. So the northern Liberal Dems ditched them, and replaced them with a dependent class of black Democrats.

QuoteYou seem to think that stating blindly proving that democratic politicians adopted an anti-racist platform merely to receive votes proves your point.  It doesn't.

And the fact that until that point they had be quite content to support the racist wing of the party?

QuoteRight.  And the conservatives constantly giving bailouts to and deregulating big banks and corporations, while coincidentally receiving massive campaign dollars from them, were acting with the best interests of the common man at heart.   :lol:

Why - as usual - are you accusing the conservatives of doing what the democraps have been doing?
Who's donating to Schumer again:
http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=n00001093&type=I (http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=n00001093&type=I)
And what party does Corzine belong to?

Mdgiles, nobody is arguing here that literally all liberals supported civil rights, and all conservatives opposed it.

To take your analogy, it is true that not all conservatives who supported the war supported shooting student protestors.  But [almost literally] all who supported shooting student protestors supported the war and were conservatives.  The same applies to anti-war protestors and blowing up college buildings.

Ergo, you are merely comparing different extremes of the political spectrum, and erroneously concluding that this means that the two were fundamentally different "types" of conservatives, for example.  The war hawks and those who supported shooting hippies were not fundamentally different; both were conservatives, just to different degrees.

The primary opposition to the civil rights movement came from the right.  Did some conservatives support it?  Sure.  Did some liberals oppose it?  Sure.  You can always find exceptions to trends.  Doesn't mean the trends do not exist.

---------

For example, I can think of conservative politicians who supported civil rights.  But few did so as fervently as liberals such as MLK or even JFK.  Partially because they knew their base opposed it, and also partially because they themselves were not feeling it.  Similarly, the most fervent opposition to the movement came from the south.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 11, 2012, 02:27:29 PM
Actually, I really don't.  Not only because I know more than enough to draw conclusions related to the topic, but your own statements already prove my case.  You admit that the driving force behind the opposition to the civil rights movement was conservative.  Notice how your lazy blanket statement that I need to study up on my history doesn't work?

Nobody said the ideologies translate perfectly into every era.  But give me any stretch in American - or world history, and I can easily list the agreed upon "good guys" of the era, and demonstrate that they were on the left.  Once you conclude that in almost every era in history, the left ended up on the right side, claiming that the conservatives are in the right this time around is nothing more than blind denial.

Here dummy. I put this link up once, and I guess you missed it.

Yes, the racist southern democrats were conservatives. They believed in the Constitution and the limits on the federal government. There was one problem. When it came to the words We The People, the racist democrats didn't believe that blacks, were people. It led to a lot of problems.

Now be a good boy, and read through this site. There are many facts there for you to review.

http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/ (http://www.black-and-right.com/the-democrat-race-lie/)

Democrat racism and segregationist ideals, ran well into the 20th century. It really wasn't until Martin Luther King came along, and the racial turmoil of the 60s, that democrats realized that they needed to change their message......................quickly. That's when they started embracing liberals of all stripes. They remade themselves into the party of the victim. Another neat trick that they employed, was to inject liberals into our public school system. From there, they were able to essentially erase the racist democrat history from being taught, and paint the rosy picture that lib/dems think of themselves today. By the way, once they got into the schools, the schools have been sliding into the shitter ever since. But, teachers are another subset of victims, of course.................they just need more money.

Hey moron: I don't give a shit about the history of the democratic party or the republican party.  I only care about the history of the two respective sides of the political spectrum.  Conservative democrats opposed civil rights.  That is my case in point.  I don't give a damn that they belonged to an arbitrary political party; they were conservative.

It's not as though the above is a carefully concealed viewpoint I conveniently pull out of my ass at the last minute, either.  I've been repeating the point to you again and again.  You all are incapable of reading.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 11, 2012, 04:47:29 PM
Hey moron: I don't give a shit about the history of the democratic party or the republican party.  I only care about the history of the two respective sides of the political spectrum.  Conservative democrats opposed civil rights.  That is my case in point.  I don't give a damn that they belonged to an arbitrary political party; they were conservative.

It's not as though the above is a carefully concealed viewpoint I conveniently pull out of my ass at the last minute, either.  I've been repeating the point to you again and again.  You all are incapable of reading.

You're trying to equate conservative democrat racists from the 1800s, with today's Tea Party conservatives. It doesn't fit dipshit. Not even if you stretch it.

I would say that you can't possibly be that dumb. But you've already proven otherwise.

Yes the democrat party is a racist party.............always have been. Yes, a long, long time ago, there were conservative democrats. They were racists that believed in the constitution. Today's democrats, now embrace liberalism and shun the constitution in favor of socialism.............................with them in charge.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 11, 2012, 04:47:29 PM
Hey moron: I don't give a shit about the history of the democratic party or the republican party.  I only care about the history of the two respective sides of the political spectrum.  Conservative democrats opposed civil rights.  That is my case in point.  I don't give a damn that they belonged to an arbitrary political party; they were conservative.

It's not as though the above is a carefully concealed viewpoint I conveniently pull out of my ass at the last minute, either.  I've been repeating the point to you again and again.  You all are incapable of reading.

There goes the wide brush you liberals like to use.

Entertaining to watch.

Quote from: kramarat on August 11, 2012, 04:54:52 PM
You're trying to equate conservative democrat racists from the 1800s, with today's Tea Party conservatives. It doesn't fit dipshit. Not even if you stretch it.

I would say that you can't possibly be that dumb. But you've already proven otherwise.

Naw....  He just can't read.

:popcorn:

Quote from: rich_t on August 11, 2012, 04:56:05 PM
Naw....  He just can't read.

:popcorn:

Man!!! It's frustrating. I almost feel sorry for these guys.

Quote from: kramarat on August 11, 2012, 05:01:26 PM
Man!!! It's frustrating. I almost feel sorry for these guys.

I find it rather entertaining.  Of course it kind of sucks that they are allowed to vote......

:popcorn:

Quote from: kramarat on August 11, 2012, 04:54:52 PM
You're trying to equate conservative democrat racists from the 1800s, with today's Tea Party conservatives. It doesn't fit dipshit. Not even if you stretch it.

They are both conservatives.  They both stand on the same side of the ideological spectrum.  Furthermore, a very strong correlation can be established between being conservative, and being on the wrong side of history.

Conservative racists from the 1800s (and stretching into the late 20th century).  Anti-reform conservatives of the early 20th century.  Monarchists of the 18th century.  The Roman Catholic Mafia Church of the middle ages and renaissance.  Etc.

You're committing the same error I pointed out: thinking that the conservatives of this century are magically going to break the ideology's historical trend of abject failure.

Quote
I would say that you can't possibly be that dumb. But you've already proven otherwise.

You think you're fooling me with your shameless backtrack?  After arguing that the two parties did not switch ideologies, you suddenly come out and admit my point...but claim it is irrelevant.  Yeah, go on.

Quote
Yes the democrat party is a racist party.............always have been. Yes, a long, long time ago, there were conservative democrats. They were racists that believed in the constitution. Today's democrats, now embrace liberalism and shun the constitution in favor of socialism.............................with them in charge.

Your "logic" is pathetic.  You think that ideologies change parties, rather than parties change ideologies.  Right now, you just actually argued that, because democrats changed from conservative to liberal, the left turned racist.  Apparently, parties are real, while ideologies are just arbitrary! 

The stupidity here is so apparent, I'd encourage you to reread your reply.  I cannot believe you'd actually be this fucking dumb.

Quote from: rich_t on August 11, 2012, 05:12:23 PM
I find it rather entertaining.  Of course it kind of sucks that they are allowed to vote......

:popcorn:

Yeah, it's entertaining when they're arguing with Solar or someone else. Not so much when it's me. :rolleyes:

QuoteTo take your analogy, it is true that not all conservatives who supported the war supported shooting student protestors.  But [almost literally] all who supported shooting student protestors supported the war and were conservatives.

Many people who supported the shooting of students couldn't have care one way or the other about the war. The simply saw the students as riotous lawbreakers who needed to be stopped.

QuoteThe same applies to anti-war protestors and blowing up college buildings.

How many of the National Guardsmen who shot at the students at Kent State have be promoted to "hero of the right" status, as Bill Ayers has been elevated to "hero of the left" status?

QuoteErgo, you are merely comparing different extremes of the political spectrum, and erroneously concluding that this means that the two were fundamentally different "types" of conservatives, for example.  The war hawks and those who supported shooting hippies were not fundamentally different; both were conservatives, just to different degrees.

Actually you're simply displaying the Left's tendency  to think of people in groups and to ascribe the views and outlook to the entire group. If you actually knew anything about conservatives, you'd know that we run the spectrum from Paleo-Cons on the extreme right to Neo-Cons on the near right. The big difference between the left and the right is that the right won't necessarily close ranks on every left/right issue as the left always seems to do.

QuoteThe primary opposition to the civil rights movement came from the right.  Did some conservatives support it?  Sure.  Did some liberals oppose it?  Sure.  You can always find exceptions to trends.  Doesn't mean the trends do not exist.

As someone who lived through that era, which obviously you haven't, the primary opposition came from where it had always come - FROM DEMOCRATS. You're continual attempt to disown half of your party while claiming credit that rightfully belongs to Republics, wholly for the rump of your party, is fairly transparent. You Northern Liberal supported those racists for one hundred years, and then because a minority of you Dems FINALLY voted for a Civil Rights Bill - exactly like the ones all you Dems had voted against for decades - where supposed to give you credit for Civil Rights.

QuoteFor example, I can think of conservative politicians who supported civil rights.  But few did so as fervently as liberals such as MLK or even JFK.  Partially because they knew their base opposed it, and also partially because they themselves were not feeling it.  Similarly, the most fervent opposition to the movement came from the south.

IT CAME FROM DEMOCRATS IN THE SOUTH, THE EXACT SAME SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS, NORTHERN LIBERAL DEMOCRATS HAD SUPPORTED FOR YEARS. Again where did you ever get the idea that JFK supported Civil Rights? Mostly he was interested in keeping the Dems Southern base intact. That's what he was in Dallas for, to mend fences with Southern Dems.

Mdgiles, I know that you are old.  Really old.  So perhaps this would account for your startlingly short attention span/memory capacity.

I've already made it clear, several times in fact, that I don't give a shit about party histories.  I care about ideological histories.  Democrats were racist.  Too bad for you they were conservative.  That's all I care about.  Do you fancy the democratic party a corporation, and me its marketing director?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 11, 2012, 05:28:51 PM
Mdgiles, I know that you are old.  Really old.  So perhaps this would account for your startlingly short attention span/memory capacity.

I've already made it clear, several times in fact, that I don't give a shit about party histories.  I care about ideological histories.  Democrats were racist.  Too bad for you they were conservative.  That's all I care about.  Do you fancy the democratic party a corporation, and me its marketing director?

Yes, and the point you keep missing is, they still would not have been "one of us".  A conservative democrat does not equal a liberal republican.  You (again) are trying to narrow and twist statements, so that you sound rational, when the more you do that, the less rational you sound.  It is the old, love is blind, God is love, Ray Charles is blind, therefore Ray Charles is God argument, it does not wash.

Quote from: JustKari on August 11, 2012, 06:48:37 PM
Yes, and the point you keep missing is, they still would not have been "one of us".  A conservative democrat does not equal a liberal republican.  You (again) are trying to narrow and twist statements, so that you sound rational, when the more you do that, the less rational you sound.  It is the old, love is blind, God is love, Ray Charles is blind, therefore Ray Charles is God argument, it does not wash.

What he fails to understand, is that back in the days of slavery, "modern liberalism", (which began with the New Deal), didn't exist. Pretty much everyone was conservative. We didn't have people laying around and blaming the rich. We didn't have people railing for gay rights. We didn't have people calling for the government to take care of them.

By using his flawed and convoluted logic, the point he is attempting to make, is that, because there used to be conservative democrats, conservatives are racists. Since this line of thinking makes absolutely no sense, it's impossible to argue against it in a rational manner.

I'll continue reading sci fi's posts, for entertainment value, but I think I'm done responding to his nonsense. He stands as a reminder of why this upcoming election is so important.

Quote from: kramarat on August 12, 2012, 05:26:45 AM
What he fails to understand, is that back in the days of slavery, "modern liberalism", (which began with the New Deal), didn't exist. Pretty much everyone was conservative. We didn't have people laying around and blaming the rich. We didn't have people railing for gay rights. We didn't have people calling for the government to take care of them.

By using his flawed and convoluted logic, the point he is attempting to make, is that, because there used to be conservative democrats, conservatives are racists. Since this line of thinking makes absolutely no sense, it's impossible to argue against it in a rational manner.

I'll continue reading sci fi's posts, for entertainment value, but I think I'm done responding to his nonsense. He stands as a reminder of why this upcoming election is so important.

Ran away from my response to this, didn't you?  Even if we go by your assumption that "modern" liberalism did not exist until the 20th century, my point would still apply to the civil rights movement, the war on Evolution, contraceptive use and basic gay rights that even you would support today.  So you've "refuted" a portion of my argument, and then try desperately to pretend that you can ignore the other 90%.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 12, 2012, 07:13:30 AM
Ran away from my response to this, didn't you? 

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Ohhh  the Irony!!!
You have the audacity to claim someone else ran away?
Ohhh that's rich! :rolleyes:

Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2012, 07:22:57 AM
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Ohhh  the Irony!!!
You have the audacity to claim someone else ran away?
Ohhh that's rich! :rolleyes:

Actually, I responded to your accusation in seven separate posts.  You ignored all of them.  Who's being ironic now?

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 12, 2012, 07:27:49 AM
Actually, I responded to your accusation in seven separate posts.  You ignored all of them.  Who's being ironic now?

If you insist on continuing this lie, you will get a time out.
If you admitted that you were wrong about Palin, then simply copy and past the quote, if you fail, you will be taking a break from the forum.
One thing that all members understand, is if you make a bull shit claim and are asked for proof of said claim, be prepared to back it up with evidence.
So I will ask one last time, prove your claim, or take a timeout.
And I better not get some song and dance, just proof.

Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2012, 07:34:16 AM
So I will ask one last time, prove your claim, or take a timeout.
And I better not get some song and dance, just proof.

How am I supposed to prove I was using hyperbole?

How do you prove I was not using hyperbole?

You're just speculating on my intent now, and assuming my guilt until proven innocent.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 12, 2012, 07:43:31 AM
How am I supposed to prove I was using hyperbole?

How do you prove I was not using hyperbole?

You're just speculating on my intent now, and assuming my guilt until proven innocent.

You really are a piece of work.
So now, it was hyperbole :rolleyes:

I'll will let you see your post but not respond, so you can dwell on your answer, which I will bold and expand, so you can read what you said clearly.

Looks and sounds pretty childish and stupid when you see it blown up, doesn't it?
Well that's how we view all your posts, childish and stupid.

Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2012, 08:00:20 AM
So now, it was hyperbole :rolleyes:

I need to say no more.  You just proved my point here and now.

"now" is was hyperbole?  I stated so several pages ago, more than half a dozen times by now, half of them directed at you.

In other words, you accuse me of a crime, but have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you never even bothered to read anything I posted.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 12, 2012, 07:43:31 AM
How am I supposed to prove I was using hyperbole?

How do you prove I was not using hyperbole?

You're just speculating on my intent now, and assuming my guilt until proven innocent.

I am a book editor,hate to tell you, since you used examples of that libs commonly use as fact, hyperbole defense will not work in this situation.  From dictionary online:

hyperbole [ hahy-pur-buh-lee ]

noun Rhetoric 1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.

The only person that your statement was hyperbole to, was you, therefore NOT obvious, and NOT hyperbole.  Try again.

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 12, 2012, 08:01:49 AM
I need to say no more.  You just proved my point here and now.

"now" is was hyperbole?  I stated so several pages ago, more than half a dozen times by now, half of them directed at you.

In other words, you accuse me of a crime, but have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you never even bothered to read anything I posted.

You know why you are on timeout? It's your need to insult someones intelligence rather than man up when you make a mistake.
I've been using the term mistake, only out of courtesy, but I'm done being courteous, you are just a fuckin idiot that never uses critical thinking, let alone think for yourself.

You repeated what you thought was the truth because you are a tool of the left, then when I called you on it to back it up with proof, you claim I'm an idiot for not seeing it as hyperbole.
This is just another one of those evasive moves that spoiled kids use to get out of admitting they are incompetent.

Own it son, you showed you are nothing but a fool and tool of the left, not worthy of posting on this forum.

Quote from: JustKari on August 12, 2012, 08:12:55 AM
I am a book editor,hate to tell you, since you used examples of that libs commonly use as fact, hyperbole defense will not work in this situation.  From dictionary online:

hyperbole [ hahy-pur-buh-lee ]

noun Rhetoric 1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.

The only person that your statement was hyperbole to, was you, therefore NOT obvious, and NOT hyperbole.  Try again.

This is where he makes mistakes, he thinks were as stupid as his peers, the people that post on lib sites. :laugh:

I'll add to that, his need to use (PIE) Parse, Insult and Evade.
Yes, it's something I've coined, but if you can remember it, it will help in spotting a troll.

It's something they have learned from the Marxists when responding to the Right, they needle in on one tiny point, something completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, then insult the one making the real point to try and put them on the defensive, and finally, they ask a question to throw the argument back in the lap of their perceived enemy.
All the while avoiding having to address the actual issue at hand.

Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2012, 09:15:12 AM
I'll add to that, his need to use (PIE) Parse, Insult and Evade.
Yes, it's something I've coined, but if you can remember it, it will help in spotting a troll.

It's something they have learned from the Marxists when responding to the Right, they needle in on one tiny point, something completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, then insult the one making the real point to try and put them on the defensive, and finally, they ask a question to throw the argument back in the lap of their perceived enemy.
All the while avoiding having to address the actual issue at hand.

I saw it in action this morning. For some reason, I subjected myself to watching Meet the Press, for the first time since Russert died. At least they are letting people on the right, talk. But I had to turn it off when they allowed Rachel Maddow to sit and screech like a wounded chicken for ten minutes. She could be sci fi's sister. :thumbdown:

Quote from: kramarat on August 12, 2012, 09:28:19 AM
I saw it in action this morning. For some reason, I subjected myself to watching Meet the Press, for the first time since Russert died. At least they are letting people on the right, talk. But I had to turn it off when they allowed Rachel Maddow to sit and screech like a wounded chicken for ten minutes. She could be sci fi's sister. :thumbdown:

:lol: :lol:
Good example, but I'm sure you meant Scifi's brother. :biggrin:

Quote from: Solar on August 12, 2012, 09:50:23 AM
:lol: :lol:
Good example, but I'm sure you meant Scifi's brother. :biggrin:

Maybe both. :lol:

It's a shame. Tim Russert left them a template on how to run a balanced show, and asked the tough questions to both parties.

They ruined it. :sad:

Now that the protests have expanded to over twenty location and shows no sign of abateing what are the libs going to do?

How is this W's fault?

Quote from: lessthantolerant on September 16, 2012, 05:54:54 AM
Now that the protests have expanded to over twenty location and shows no sign of abateing what are the libs going to do?

How is this W's fault?

I've yet to hear one single lib make a cogent connection to Bush, which is why they are avoiding trying, bu they are in full CYA mode until media matters comes up with new talking points.
At the moment Hussein owns this mess, and no one else, just like the economy, all they have to fall back on is lies and deception.

Quote from: lessthantolerant on September 16, 2012, 05:54:54 AM
Now that the protests have expanded to over twenty location and shows no sign of abateing what are the libs going to do?

How is this W's fault?

Doncha Know? It's "W's" Fault because he wasn't nice to the IslamoNuts way back when/[sarcasm].
He should have been "understanding" about the whole 9/11 thingy/[sarcasm].
I mean just because they murdered 3,000 American citizens, was no reason not to recognize that they also had their grievances/[sarcasm]!
He could have pulled a Clinton and pretended nothing was going on/[sarcasm].
At worse he could have fired a Tomahawk into an empty building or something/[sarcasm].
(Multiple sarcasm tags for the benefit of Lurking Libs)

Quote from: mdgiles on September 16, 2012, 06:47:36 AM
Doncha Know? It's "W's" Fault because he wasn't nice to the IslamoNuts way back when/[sarcasm].
He should have been "understanding" about the whole 9/11 thingy/[sarcasm].
I mean just because they murdered 3,000 American citizens, was no reason not to recognize that they also had their grievances/[sarcasm]!
He could have pulled a Clinton and pretended nothing was going on/[sarcasm].
At worse he could have fired a Tomahawk into an empty building or something/[sarcasm].
(Multiple sarcasm tags for the benefit of Lurking Libs)

You forgot the whole 7th century thing, where W went back in time and threatened Moohamud and slapped his child bride.
The libs are in no way culpable in the hatred towards the US, it's always been Ws fault, libs can never do no wrong. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Solar on September 16, 2012, 07:00:20 AM
You forgot the whole 7th century thing, where W went back in time and threatened Moohamud and slapped his child bride.
The libs are in no way culpable in the hatred towards the US, it's always been Ws fault, libs can never do no wrong. :rolleyes:

Nope. Need to go back even further. To the beginning of the Christian Era. To tell all Christians to prepare themselves to ignore Christ as our Lord and Savior, and to get ready to accept some camel driving, illiterate, pedophile, murderer, rapist and thief, as the "prophet" of GOD.

Quote from: mdgiles on September 16, 2012, 07:09:59 AM
Nope. Need to go back even further. To the beginning of the Christian Era. To tell all Christians to prepare themselves to ignore Christ as our Lord and Savior, and to get ready to accept some camel driving, illiterate, pedophile, murderer, rapist and thief, as the "prophet" of GOD.

I see, so W is off he hook, and it's all Christs fault? :laugh: