Why the Left is so dangerous

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Tuesday, April 8, 2025 14:10
VIEWED: 15600
PAGE 15 of 23

PREV PAGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 NEXT PAGE

SERGEANTX

Sunday, July 15, 2007 8:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
That won't happen though, the fear will be less next time, the reaction less pronounced...
People already question some of the missuses of Patriot and that would continue even if there was another attack.

I hope you're right, but I'm not convinced you are. If we don't have the will to fight back against ill-conceived notions like Homeland Security and the phony War on Terror now, how do you see that improving with another attack? The sad fact is, our leadership (and most of the voters who are supporting them) is too stupid to realize we're being played, that we're following the script dreamt up by the terrorists in the first place. The Democrats have no more clue on this than the Republicans.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FLETCH2

Sunday, July 15, 2007 9:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
That won't happen though, the fear will be less next time, the reaction less pronounced...
People already question some of the missuses of Patriot and that would continue even if there was another attack.

I hope you're right, but I'm not convinced you are. If we don't have the will to fight back against ill-conceived notions like Homeland Security and the phony War on Terror now, how do you see that improving with another attack? The sad fact is, our leadership (and most of the voters who are supporting them) is too stupid to realize we're being played, that we're following the script dreamt up by the terrorists in the first place. The Democrats have no more clue on this than the Republicans.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

Well, you elected them. Sorry to be blunt but the voting record is public and the kind of represenative that can be paniced into voting for this stuff (or worse goes along with it for fear of being seen as "soft") needs replacing.

My view as an outsider is that after the attack congress were happy to rubber stamp anything rather than be painted as unpatriotic/soft on terror. The ones that took the unpopular choice and voted against it are the kinds of men the constitution envisaged running the country.

SERGEANTX

Sunday, July 15, 2007 9:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Well, you elected them...
The ones that took the unpopular choice and voted against it are the kinds of men the constitution envisaged running the country.

Indeed. The constitution also envisaged a population that demanded those kinds of leaders. We clearly no longer have that going for us.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

FLETCH2

Sunday, July 15, 2007 9:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I think Finn is saying that pulling out for purely domestic political reasons and failing to consider the wider consequences has as much chance of "blowback" as the invasion did.

That's a valid point...but blowback will happen regardless, should we not save as many of our troop as we can NOW, if only to be at a better strength to deal with it later?

I think that's a valid argument. This is really a question of second guessing the future. There are any number of consequences to staying in and to pulling out a lot of which can not genuinely be foreseen.

A pullout could lead to a terrorist attack that kills many thousand at which point the talking heads will claim a pullout was a mistake, or it might save 1000's of GI lives over the next 5 years in which case it would be considered a good call.

The tough choices are not the ones where one is obviously right and one obviously wrong, it's when you have to deal with degrees of right and wrongness.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, July 16, 2007 12:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Finn, this is the only 'dumb' thing I think you've ever posted (as opposed to AU, where it's like, wow, another dumb post*sigh*).

Wow! I’ve only said one dumb thing since I’ve been on this board? Not even I believe that.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
That's a valid point...but blowback will happen regardless, should we not save as many of our troop as we can NOW, if only to be at a better strength to deal with it later?

I think we should save as of our troops as we can because they are a valuable resource and human beings. From a military standpoint it is almost always easier to deal with these problems the first time. The truth is that we are probably wining in Iraq, just as we were winning in Vietnam. If we lose Iraq, it probably won’t be because of the military, just as it wasn’t the military that lost Vietnam. Accepting defeat because we aren’t breezing through the victory is a pretty stupid thing to do, but we’ve done it before. There are several sides to this that need to be considered, I’m not saying I have the answer, but I don’t always feel like the loyal opposition is really operating with a complete picture or with real American national interests at heart.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

ANTIMASON

Monday, July 16, 2007 12:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

Actually the American Colonists had it a lot better off than most people back on the home islands. Add to that, that most of the taxes the colonists were objecting to were being levied to defend the colonies, and colonists, from the French, and you may start to see why the British found the colonists demands so unreasonable.

if i may use this to prove my point above, there has been a deliberate movement to dumb down AMericans, through our (state)education system, to alter our historic perspective. in this case, taxes were relatively low at the time, like 1 or 2%(ive heard) of our gross product, compared to something like 50%(or more)today. the part about 'taxation without representation' has become meaningless in hindsight, since we still are not getting our 'representation'. if we're honost withourselves.. we dont get anything resembling accurate accounting of government spending anymore. to so obviously the true causes of the revolution are far more complex, and IMO conspiratorial, to openly admit to the public

in fact the Boston tea party was an orchestration by the Freemasons, by there own admission. in retrospect, the succession of events following this, the quartering of British soldiers and trade embargoes, really precipitated the revolution. thats why i maintain that secret societies, like the Freemasons, are far more influential then even history suggests.

Quote:
But far be it from me to point out that there are two sides to every story, I'm sure it all comes down to the evil Brits trampling all over the pure of heart Yankee, who did everything in their power to come to an understanding.

the true cause is actually more relevant today, because it was the Bank of England, wanting to force the colonies to borrow money from them, at interest, as a central bank. the colonies were flourishing primarily because they circulated their own 'script', which was debt free, backed in gold and silver. this is one reason why Jefferson and others have been so outspoken about central banks, like the Federal Reserve, and the damage and oppression they cause

Jefferson gets quoted alot.. but Franklin himself has said

Quote:
"the colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and others matters had it not been that England took away from the colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction."

CHRISISALL

Monday, July 16, 2007 12:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Wow! I’ve only said one dumb thing since I’ve been on this board? Not even I believe that.
The truth is that we are probably wining in Iraq, just as we were winning in Vietnam. If we lose Iraq, it probably won’t be because of the military, just as it wasn’t the military that lost Vietnam. Accepting defeat because we aren’t breezing through the victory is a pretty stupid thing to do, but we’ve done it before.

I believe that we can 'win' in Iraq, but I don't believe it will be worth the thousands upon thousands lost (our guys and girls) or the decades it will take to do it.
See? I disagree sometimes, but you have a viewpoint that is always worth considering, at least IMO.
1 dumb thing. That's all I can count.

Love-y my country Chrisisall

ANTIMASON

Monday, July 16, 2007 12:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:

France at that time is a monarchy so in effect the French Aristocracy back the Colonists.

When the colonies win their ideas of Republican government become the new radical idea in Europe, and take off in France leading to a revolution in which the same Aristocracy that backed the colonists lose their heads (literally.)

well.. no, to be fair their was quite a bit of difference between our revolution and the French. we retained our British cultural and religious heritages, but we disconnected our ties to the crown and its system of government. the French revolution was instigated and staged by the illuminati, who used contrived events to overthrow existing orthodoxies, the catholic church and the French monarchy. the French were doing quite well under the King, had one of the wealthiest and growing middle classes; so it didnt occur out of necessity. it was an attempt by the elite to reinstitute socialism.. since even the King had done away with forced labor laws and such

Quote:
Originally posted by Citizen-
But it's even more Ironic given the pivotal role the French played in the War of Independence (along side the Dutch and Spanish), that Americans seem to think so poorly of the French these days.

its more an ideological opposition to their secular, socialist leanings.. but i dont hold it against them, or you in the UK, or many AMericans.. we're all being decieved equally

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Monday, July 16, 2007 1:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
1 dumb thing. That's all I can count.

I’m sure that if I looked hard enough I could find a few more. I also don’t think some people give Auraptor enough credit either.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SERGEANTX

Monday, July 16, 2007 3:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
The truth is that we are probably wining in Iraq, just as we were winning in Vietnam. If we lose Iraq, it probably won’t be because of the military, just as it wasn’t the military that lost Vietnam. Accepting defeat because we aren’t breezing through the victory is a pretty stupid thing to do, but we’ve done it before.

OK, this is at least dumb thing #2.

Seriously though, the parallels with Vietnam are, in fact, much more pertinent than most people seem to be willing to talk about. We didn't lose in Vietnam because we 'wimped out'. We lost because it was a foolish war to begin with. There was no victory there worth the effort so we left. We're in exactly the same situation now.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

PREV PAGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 NEXT PAGE