# why liberals are so obsessed with racism and sexuality issues



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

This explains it completely.

"Conservatives care about logic. Liberals care about emotion. Conservatives care about whether a program works or not. Liberals care about how supporting a program makes them feel. Conservatives take the positions they do because they believe theyâre best for society. Liberals take the positions they do because they make them feel and look compassionate or superior to hold those positions.

Once you understand those basics, itâs very easy to see why both sides hold the positions they do on most issues and to comprehend why thereâs so little middle ground. Once you get the mentalities, you can predict where each side will come down on issues.

An extremely expensive program designed to help disadvantaged minority children read better that has been proven not to work? Liberals will support it and conservatives will oppose.

A program that cuts the deficit by cutting people off the welfare and disability rolls who donât belong there in the first place? Conservatives will support it and liberals will oppose.'

More

http://townhall.com/columnists/john...ism-homosexuality-and-transsexualism-n2173342


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

Makes perfect sense. Seth


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

I don't know. Both extremes tend to only care about logic when they aren't emotionally invested. Here's an example... Some people say we have the right to burn the flag if we so choose, and that we should protect that right.

Now go ahead and spit lightning at me.

Now go ahead and read logic.

https://www.aclu.org/their-own-words-compendium-veterans-quotes-against-flag-desecration-amendment

Here's my favorite example.



> *When I volunteered for service, I took an oath to defend and preserve the Constitution of the United States. I still feel bound by that oath.
> 
> During basic training, the Army made sure that all soldiers were taught military courtesy, including proper ways to show respect for the flag. The word "courtesy" was used because we took no oath of loyalty to the flag, and we certainly were not required to to regard the flag as a sacred object in and of itself. The Flag Code, saluting the flag, and showing proper respect to the flag were ways of demonstrating our respect for the ideas that the flag symbolizes.
> 
> ...


Still love logic? If so, that's great, we might stand a chance of getting out of this decade in one piece.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Flag burning, OK.

In the first place, when the rash of it started back in the 1960's, I was a bit amused, because it was regarded as a "brave" thing to do, but those who did it didn't think they would or should be punished for it. HUH? If you think you are being brave, but also believe you should not be punished and will not be punished, where does the bravery come in? Because you made a gesture that was unpopular, but that would cost you nothing at all except the price of a flag? Bravery is made of sterner stuff.

Bravery would be to go ahead and burn it, knowing you would pay a high price for having done so. As it is, it is meaningless.

I am a patriot, but I have no strong feelings about flag burning laws. Patriotism, like bravery, is made of sterner stuff.....Joe


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

poppy said:


> A program that cuts the deficit by cutting people off the welfare and disability rolls who donât belong there in the first place? Conservatives will support it and liberals will oppose.'http://townhall.com/columnists/john...ism-homosexuality-and-transsexualism-n2173342


What program does that? We already have a huge army of social workers who verify eligibility. What program would do better than they can do?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

Nevada said:


> What program does that? We already have a huge army of social workers who verify eligibility. What program would do better than they can do?


You missed the point. It isn't speaking of any particular program. It's saying that IF such a program was proposed, liberals would oppose it and conservatives would support it. BTW, there are people on welfare and disability who have no right to be on them. Some work for cash under the table to escape detection. Yes, I know some who do it.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

poppy said:


> You missed the point. It isn't speaking of any particular program. It's saying that IF such a program was proposed, liberals would oppose it and conservatives would support it.


I don't know that I would oppose such a program. I mean, I'm not opposed to social workers vetting welfare recipients.


----------



## hippygirl (Apr 3, 2010)

Nevada said:


> I don't know that I would oppose such a program. I mean, _*I'm not opposed to social workers vetting welfare recipients*_.


I had to laugh at that one, Nevada. IF they did their job and actually vetted welfare recipients (ALL welfare recipients), we probably wouldn't be having this conversation because there wouldn't be nearly as many on welfare as there are now. As it is (at least around here), they don't seem to put much effort into it at all...I know/have known too many on welfare that in NO WAY qualify for it. I also have known quite a few that DID qualify, but were refused.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

hippygirl said:


> I had to laugh at that one, Nevada. IF they did their job and actually vetted welfare recipients (ALL welfare recipients), we probably wouldn't be having this conversation because there wouldn't be nearly as many on welfare as there are now. As it is (at least around here), they don't seem to put much effort into it at all...I know/have known too many on welfare that in NO WAY qualify for it. I also have known quite a few that DID qualify, but were refused.


You think the problem is incompetent social workers? They're all college graduates. How do you propose fixing it?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

joebill said:


> Flag burning, OK.
> 
> In the first place, when the rash of it started back in the 1960's, I was a bit amused, because it was regarded as a "brave" thing to do, but those who did it didn't think they would or should be punished for it. HUH? If you think you are being brave, but also believe you should not be punished and will not be punished, where does the bravery come in? Because you made a gesture that was unpopular, but that would cost you nothing at all except the price of a flag? Bravery is made of sterner stuff.
> 
> ...


That's exactly why some people burn the flag. 

It's good that you can get past the emotional reaction to it, because that's the point, burning a flag cannot and should not be illegal, and those who think there should be laws against it understand nothing about the things the flag has come to symbolize. 

But not a lot of "conservatives" feel the way you do these days. Most of them call it "desecration" now, which is by definition religious in nature...as the opposite of "consecrate."


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> What program does that? We already have a huge army of social workers who verify eligibility. What program would do better than they can do?


Give me a break.
Being a social worker is a job.
If they want to keep their job they better have people using their services.
If they want to have the opportunity to advance in their job they better have an increase in number of people using their services.

What you stated is like the guy who sells gas determining how much mileage a car should get.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

wiscto said:


> That's exactly why some people burn the flag.
> 
> It's good that you can get past the emotional reaction to it, because that's the point, burning a flag cannot and should not be illegal, and those who think there should be laws against it understand nothing about the things the flag has come to symbolize.
> 
> But not a lot of "conservatives" feel the way you do these days. Most of them call it "desecration" now, which is by definition religious in nature...as the opposite of "consecrate."


It should be legal to burn the flag.
I oppose it, as the flag is a symbol of the American people in my eyes. Especially those who have sacrificed everything for the freedom we have.
Even if that involves burning the flag.
The problem is, are you burning the flag in protest or are you burning the flag to offend someone?
How is burning the flag to offend someone any different from walking through a Black neighborhood and calling out the "N" word at the top of your lungs? 
If you burn a flag and some vet walks up and smacks you in the head then you are the offended party.
If while screaming out the "N" word some guy walks up and smacks you in the head, well then you got what you deserved, right?
In both situations the person getting smacked has deeply offended someone.
Just because something is legal does not make it right.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

Nevada said:


> You think the problem is incompetent social workers? They're all college graduates. How do you propose fixing it?


So college prevents incompetence in your reality. Fascinating. Biggest entitlement scam of our time. People feel that they are entitled to a college education, and then when they get one, they are entitled to piles of money.
A degree is no substitute for morality. One of our social workers was handing out approval in exchange for sexual favors. Dude went to law school, had a degree. Should have known better, or at least been more "competent" at not getting caught.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

JJ Grandits said:


> It should be legal to burn the flag.
> I oppose it, as the flag is a symbol of the American people in my eyes. Especially those who have sacrificed everything for the freedom we have.
> Even if that involves burning the flag.
> The problem is, are you burning the flag in protest or are you burning the flag to offend someone?
> ...


Post of the day award.


----------



## hippygirl (Apr 3, 2010)

Nevada said:


> You think the problem is incompetent social workers? They're all college graduates. How do you propose fixing it?


I have no idea how to fix it, Nevada...all I know is that it's broken. Until someone smarter than you or I figures it out, though, those who abuse the system will continue to do so.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Lol this thread is based on a conservatives flawed definition of a liberal. 
If you build on that rotten foundation how good can it be ?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

poppy said:


> This explains it completely.
> 
> "Conservatives care about logic. Liberals care about emotion. Conservatives care about whether a program works or not. Liberals care about how supporting a program makes them feel. Conservatives take the positions they do because they believe theyâre best for society. Liberals take the positions they do because they make them feel and look compassionate or superior to hold those positions.
> 
> ...


Utterly worthless opinion piece. Why do you think liberals are emotional whack jobs and conservatives are logical calm people? Poltics is all about emotion - there is very little logic in it because most sociology is hypothetical or theoretical at best.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

JJ Grandits said:


> It should be legal to burn the flag.
> I oppose it, as the flag is a symbol of the American people in my eyes. Especially those who have sacrificed everything for the freedom we have.
> Even if that involves burning the flag.
> The problem is, are you burning the flag in protest or are you burning the flag to offend someone?
> ...


Actually no, in all cases the person who responds violently was wrong, and this conversation doesn't really need to happen if everyone respects the logic of liberty over their emotions. And is burning the flag really wrong? It's a matter of perspective. And if you really love liberty then you don't care why someone is burning it. You might not like it, but if it makes you angry that's entirely your own problem. Throw a punch...you got to jail and that's where you belong.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Sometimes that which is legal is immoral, while sometimes that which is illegal is moral.


----------



## Ozarka (Apr 15, 2007)

The reason folks burn the flag is to protest the actions of a viscous government that has been corrupted by the corporate shills that have slowly been placed in every agency. The foxes have totally replaced the guards of the Hen House...How could it be right for us to have murdered a million and a half middle eastern citizens to punish them for living on top of our oil? Whether we are talking about protests of the Viet Nam war, Desert Storm, any of the wars, we are so conditioned by the heavily spun "news" that we are ignorant of what is really going on in the World or the World's opinion of the US's "kinder, gentler Machine Gun Hand" Read Noam Chomsky, for instance. It's all about Multinational Corporations exploiting the world's resources for their gain. The news we see in Amerika is heavily spun, all of it. I spent one winter listening to shortwave radio and English language broadcasts of world news and am here to point out that what we are doing all over the globe is viewed differently by EVERYBODY else. Just the difference in the BBC telling of the story vs the 6 o'clock news in Kansas City blew my mind. We are Jackboot thugs in the view of the entire world whilst the Power Structure feeds the American citizens this pablum, paper mache' mix of lies and half truths with huge attention to emotional upheaval to divert us from the real issues going on. All this crap about trans ppl using the bathrooms and scaring/scarring our little girls is all smokescreen to keep ppl occupied whilst the world burners continue to burn the world. Shell Oil has two gigantic oil spills occurring RIGHT NOW, how much have you heard about that? After the Valdez polluted forever the Alaskan coastline the public opinion was so anti Big Oil that Exxon simply bought the state newspaper and shut the criticism off...
They have to have wars or war-like events every generation to kill off many of the young men and women to prevent a revolution in the streets. Look up the report from Iron Mountain....

It ain't the whole story if you saw it on the evening news.....

In just one campaign in Iraq the US military buried alive 150,000 people with giant D9 Caterpillars, bulldozed entire villages, flattened huge areas of land, crushed human beings. How did our oil get under them anyway?

An aside...every middle eastern pow captured is carrying hash, they have to stay stoned to endure the prospect of certain death. So our troops are well supplied with hash to smoke...so they can endure being forced to murder innocent women and children so the folks back in Topeka can have cheap gasoline. Deployed troops do not have to pee in a bottle to prove they are good soldiers.....

There are many on HT who are so totally unaware of the realities of the American War Machine. I use the VA and get to see the aftermath in the form of broken bodies, minds and spirits of the brave men and women tho joined the Army to save the Homeland from the Commie Aggressors or whatever label was being applied to the manufactured enemy du jour.....

If you are not outraged you are not paying enough attention.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

The Democrat Party (I will not use the term "liberal" to describe them as they are anything but) uses sexuality, race, and any number of other such demarcations in order to subjugate and bully people. It is a power grab and we should expect nothing less from the party of slavery and the Trail of Tears.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Ozarka said:


> The reason folks burn the flag is to protest the actions of a viscous government that has been corrupted by the corporate shills that have slowly been placed in every agency. The foxes have totally replaced the guards of the Hen House...How could it be right for us to have murdered a million and a half middle eastern citizens to punish them for living on top of our oil? Whether we are talking about protests of the Viet Nam war, Desert Storm, any of the wars, we are so conditioned by the heavily spun "news" that we are ignorant of what is really going on in the World or the World's opinion of the US's "kinder, gentler Machine Gun Hand" Read Noam Chomsky, for instance. It's all about Multinational Corporations exploiting the world's resources for their gain. The news we see in Amerika is heavily spun, all of it. I spent one winter listening to shortwave radio and English language broadcasts of world news and am here to point out that what we are doing all over the globe is viewed differently by EVERYBODY else. Just the difference in the BBC telling of the story vs the 6 o'clock news in Kansas City blew my mind. We are Jackboot thugs in the view of the entire world whilst the Power Structure feeds the American citizens this pablum, paper mache' mix of lies and half truths with huge attention to emotional upheaval to divert us from the real issues going on. All this crap about trans ppl using the bathrooms and scaring/scarring our little girls is all smokescreen to keep ppl occupied whilst the world burners continue to burn the world. Shell Oil has two gigantic oil spills occurring RIGHT NOW, how much have you heard about that? After the Valdez polluted forever the Alaskan coastline the public opinion was so anti Big Oil that Exxon simply bought the state newspaper and shut the criticism off...
> They have to have wars or war-like events every generation to kill off many of the young men and women to prevent a revolution in the streets. Look up the report from Iron Mountain....
> 
> It ain't the whole story if you saw it on the evening news.....
> ...


Thanks for giving me just one more reason not to burn fossil fuels.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Ozarka said:


> The reason folks burn the flag is to protest the actions of a viscous government that has been corrupted by the corporate shills that have slowly been placed in every agency. The foxes have totally replaced the guards of the Hen House...How could it be right for us to have murdered a million and a half middle eastern citizens to punish them for living on top of our oil? Whether we are talking about protests of the Viet Nam war, Desert Storm, any of the wars, we are so conditioned by the heavily spun "news" that we are ignorant of what is really going on in the World or the World's opinion of the US's "kinder, gentler Machine Gun Hand" Read Noam Chomsky, for instance. It's all about Multinational Corporations exploiting the world's resources for their gain. The news we see in Amerika is heavily spun, all of it. I spent one winter listening to shortwave radio and English language broadcasts of world news and am here to point out that what we are doing all over the globe is viewed differently by EVERYBODY else. Just the difference in the BBC telling of the story vs the 6 o'clock news in Kansas City blew my mind. We are Jackboot thugs in the view of the entire world whilst the Power Structure feeds the American citizens this pablum, paper mache' mix of lies and half truths with huge attention to emotional upheaval to divert us from the real issues going on. All this crap about trans ppl using the bathrooms and scaring/scarring our little girls is all smokescreen to keep ppl occupied whilst the world burners continue to burn the world. Shell Oil has two gigantic oil spills occurring RIGHT NOW, how much have you heard about that? After the Valdez polluted forever the Alaskan coastline the public opinion was so anti Big Oil that Exxon simply bought the state newspaper and shut the criticism off...
> They have to have wars or war-like events every generation to kill off many of the young men and women to prevent a revolution in the streets. Look up the report from Iron Mountain....
> 
> It ain't the whole story if you saw it on the evening news.....
> ...



I think you should enter that post into a science fiction writing contest.....Joe


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

joebill said:


> I think you should enter that post into a science fiction writing contest.....Joe


http://www.alternet.org/how-american-war-machine-sucking-vast-amounts-cash-screw-world

Go ahead and tell me why the US needs to be involved in every single war on the planet? We talk of peace and then we send "peacekeeping" forces everywhere.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

joebill said:


> I think you should enter that post into a science fiction writing contest.....Joe


 Boy you that right. Wow what a source of imagination for sure. Out military is at th slowest point since WWII, and that in itself is not good~! We need to get back to being powerful once again instead of this weakfish state we are in now, and the lowest moral in the armed forces for years, and all because of WHO IS IN HIGEST OFFICE at this time~!! OABAMA~! He owns it he deserves all this divisiveness in this country, as the rest of the world i looking at th euSA as a bunch of weaklings at this point in time, with no backbone, no willingness left to fight under such a president as we have now. So glad HE has just months left. WAY too much time left IMO. He still can do much harm yet to this country and its people, and the rest of what is left of our fighting forces.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

arabian knight said:


> Boy you that right. Wow what a source of imagination for sure. Out military is at th slowest point since WWII, and that in itself is not good~! We need to get back to being powerful once again instead of this weakfish state we are in now,


It's that attitude that makes a lot of people think of America as the international bully.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

arabian knight said:


> Boy you that right. Wow what a source of imagination for sure. Out military is at th slowest point since WWII, and that in itself is not good~! We need to get back to being powerful once again instead of this weakfish state we are in now, and the lowest moral in the armed forces for years, and all because of WHO IS IN HIGEST OFFICE at this time~!! OABAMA~! He owns it he deserves all this divisiveness in this country, as the rest of the world i looking at th euSA as a bunch of weaklings at this point in time, with no backbone, no willingness left to fight under such a president as we have now. So glad HE has just months left. WAY too much time left IMO. He still can do much harm yet to this country and its people, and the rest of what is left of our fighting forces.


Says someone who made every effort to NOT serve.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Just curious which news did you see or hear this on Ozarka?

It ain't the whole story if you saw it on the evening news.....

In just one campaign in Iraq the US military buried alive 150,000 people with giant D9 Caterpillars, bulldozed entire villages, flattened huge areas of land, crushed human beings. How did our oil get under them anyway?


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

Nevada said:


> You think the problem is incompetent social workers? They're all college graduates.


Leaving everything else aside.. graduating college does not mean you are smart or competent.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Heritagefarm said:


> http://www.alternet.org/how-american-war-machine-sucking-vast-amounts-cash-screw-world
> 
> Go ahead and tell me why the US needs to be involved in every single war on the planet? We talk of peace and then we send "peacekeeping" forces everywhere.


Well, if you choose to believe, as is stated in that post I quoted, that Americans "buried "ALIVE, 150 THOUSAND citizens" with D-9 cats", then you go right ahead, but my BS light is blinking. Actually, it just went from red to a pulsing purple and there are sirens sounding.

Of course, the citizens of the world would much rather choose our levels of military preparedness than to have us do it, that is until they need defending. Then, they want to complain that in the process we scratch the paint on their mosques. 



They call us bullies? REALLY?

If you are an effective fighting force, part of the "terrible" price you pay is that you may be called a bully, that is if you ever actually fight or maybe threaten to. I'm really not sure what that statement is supposed to convey. Is it really more important that people say bad things about us? Would you rather be well thought of and spoken about but helpless?

Throughout history, this world has been ruled by either the threat of or actual use of agressive force. Now, we can argue about when and where to employ it, certainly, but it is not reasonable to make it unavailable to us. The threat of a "star wars" defense is why we no longer have the soviets to trouble us, and I hope you know that the Nazis did not just get bored and quit.

If we completely disarmed tomorrow, do you believe our enemies would leave us alone? maybe you do. If that is your premise, I would suggest you check it closely.....Joe


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

mnn2501 said:


> Leaving everything else aside.. graduating college does not mean you are smart or competent.





joebill said:


> Well, if you choose to believe, as is stated in that post I quoted, that Americans "buried "ALIVE, 150 THOUSAND citizens" with D-9 cats", then you go right ahead, but my BS light is blinking. Actually, it just went from red to a pulsing purple and there are sirens sounding.
> 
> Of course, the citizens of the world would much rather choose our levels of military preparedness than to have us do it, that is until they need defending. Then, they want to complain that in the process we scratch the paint on their mosques.
> 
> ...


It's a fatalistic attitude. We're doomed before we've even started if you think all the world's problems can be solved with more force. Fight fire with fire? You just burn the house down faster. I'm not advocating total military deactivation and just turn into a bunch of pacifists, although I generally think of myself as a pacifist. Violence and hatred are generally learned - what if we stopped contributing to the notion that war is the solution?


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JJ Grandits said:


> Being a social worker is a job.
> If they want to keep their job they better have people using their services.


There's no shortage of poor people in this country, and that's not improving.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> It's a fatalistic attitude. We're doomed before we've even started if you think all the world's problems can be solved with more force. Fight fire with fire? You just burn the house down faster. I'm not advocating total military deactivation and just turn into a bunch of pacifists, although I generally think of myself as a pacifist. Violence and hatred are generally learned - *what if we stopped contributing to the notion that war is the solution*?


We would soon be speaking a different language and be subjugated. YOU might be ready to become a higher level of being and forego all violence but the rest of the world is a long way away from that. If we did not have a respectable military, we'd be attacked. This is one of the nicest pieces of real estate on the planet, who wouldn't want it if they thought it was theirs for the taking.


----------



## Ozarka (Apr 15, 2007)

no really said:


> Just curious which news did you see or hear this on Ozarka?
> 
> It ain't the whole story if you saw it on the evening news.....
> 
> In just one campaign in Iraq the US military buried alive 150,000 people with giant D9 Caterpillars, bulldozed entire villages, flattened huge areas of land, crushed human beings. How did our oil get under them anyway?


Personal stories told to me by a client who spent the majority of his career as a "Salesman for Democracy" as a Chief Master Sargent in the army and who will spend the balance of his life heavily medicated trying to forget the carnage we wrought on ppl who had no say in it either..


----------



## Ozarka (Apr 15, 2007)

arabian knight said:


> Boy you that right. Wow what a source of imagination for sure. Out military is at th slowest point since WWII, and that in itself is not good~! We need to get back to being powerful once again instead of this weakfish state we are in now, and the lowest moral in the armed forces for years, and all because of WHO IS IN HIGEST OFFICE at this time~!! OABAMA~! He owns it he deserves all this divisiveness in this country, as the rest of the world i looking at th euSA as a bunch of weaklings at this point in time, with no backbone, no willingness left to fight under such a president as we have now. So glad HE has just months left. WAY too much time left IMO. He still can do much harm yet to this country and its people, and the rest of what is left of our fighting forces.


Some folks need to go out back, sit on a shady rock by the creek and smoke a fattie and calm down. Your predictable responses are already tiring...


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Ozarka said:


> Personal stories told to me by a client who spent the majority of his career as a "Salesman for Democracy" as a Chief Master Sargent in the army and who will spend the balance of his life heavily medicated trying to forget the carnage we wrought on ppl who had no say in it either..


Just curious I thought you said it was in the news. As I spent three tours in Iraq thought I had just missed the news report.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

And O Yours was soooooo predictable. And how dare you what you did on this anniversary of D Day 72 years after that.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

MO_cows said:


> We would soon be speaking a different language and be subjugated. YOU might be ready to become a higher level of being and forego all violence but the rest of the world is a long way away from that. If we did not have a respectable military, we'd be attacked. This is one of the nicest pieces of real estate on the planet, who wouldn't want it if they thought it was theirs for the taking.


It just continues with or without our boots on the ground. Do I think we need to go in, I just don't know anymore.

Syria death toll: UN envoy estimates 400,000 killed

The UN special envoy for Syria has estimated that 400,000 people have been killed throughout the past five years of civil war, urging major and regional powers to help to salvage a crumbling ceasefire. 

Explaining that the death toll was based on his own estimate, Staffan de Mistura said on Friday that it was not an official UN statistic.

"We had 250,000 as a figure two years ago," he said. "Well, two years ago was two years ago."

The UN no longer keeps track of the death toll due to the inaccessibility of many areas and the complications of navigating conflicting statistics put forward by the Syrian government and armed opposition groups. 

In the latest violence, at least 30 civilians were killed on Saturday in regime and rebel bombardment of areas across Syria. 

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/...0-killed-syria-civil-war-160423055735629.html


----------



## DryHeat (Nov 11, 2010)

I'm, to say the least, liberal and anti-war, find the OP assertions of conservatives as rational versus liberals as non-logical and emotional to be such a joke as not to be worth responding to. Really. However, stories from a "heavily medicated" vet talking of 150,000 Iraqis buried alive by our troops have an obvious different possibility. That is to say, that fairly normal pressures of small-scale bloodshed and PTSD sent the fellow around the bend into frank psychosis and *that's* where the extreme claims come from: hallucinations. Ones he believes sincerely still despite the meds, but that nobody else should accept without a *lot* of supporting testimony plus exhumation of the supposed mass graves. Our troops couldn't be kept quiet in 'Nam after My Lai, nor did the low-level orders to execute civilians there have such agreement and acceptance that it kept one of our own helicopter crews from training their .50-cal door gun on some of our troops and ordering them to release one group of the 2-3 hundred that Calley wanted to execute. I'd be pretty sure stories of vast atrocities in Iraq are incorrect. There's been horror 2 or 3 or 10 or 20 at a time, often enough to send many vets around the bend, but no reason to accept the wildest tales. The realities are bad enough. I don't believe that tale any more than I believe there's any chance at all that a cruise missile instead of a hijacked jetliner hit the pentagon or that the gummint or illuminati organized 9/11, following the edicts of the elders of Zion or whatever of a huge number of just jackwagon-stupid rumors float around for the gullible nowadays.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> You think the problem is incompetent social workers? They're all college graduates. How do you propose fixing it?


Get the corruption out of the system?
Vet the vetters?
College degrees don't always translate to intelligence or honesty.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Nevada said:


> There's no shortage of poor people in this country, and that's not improving.


It's getting worse, and do you know who's to blame?
That's right, the government
Do you realize how many jobs Obama has destroyed in the last few months?
Even NPR, the propaganda machine of the left is talking about the dropoff in the work force.
Now Clinton is saying she'll kill even more jobs if she's elected.
Private citizens are not the problem, it's politicians.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> Get the corruption out of the system?
> 
> Vet the vetters?
> 
> College degrees don't always translate to intelligence or honesty.



"Don't always" don't you mean seldom ?


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

arabian knight said:


> Boy you that right. Wow what a source of imagination for sure. Out military is at th slowest point since WWII, and that in itself is not good~! We need to get back to being powerful once again instead of this weakfish state we are in now, and the lowest moral in the armed forces for years, and all because of WHO IS IN HIGEST OFFICE at this time~!! OABAMA~! He owns it he deserves all this divisiveness in this country, as the rest of the world i looking at th euSA as a bunch of weaklings at this point in time, with no backbone, no willingness left to fight under such a president as we have now. So glad HE has just months left. WAY too much time left IMO. He still can do much harm yet to this country and its people, and the rest of what is left of our fighting forces.


I am not sure how old you are, but I think the morale was much lower in the late Vietnam/post Vietnam period. And I recall it was a Republican in charge from 68-76.

Also I recall the country was deeply divided then too.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

MO_cows said:


> We would soon be speaking a different language and be subjugated. YOU might be ready to become a higher level of being and forego all violence but the rest of the world is a long way away from that. If we did not have a respectable military, we'd be attacked. This is one of the nicest pieces of real estate on the planet, who wouldn't want it if they thought it was theirs for the taking.


Yes we will have you speaking Canadian in no time, eh?


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

keenataz said:


> Yes we will have you speaking Canadian in no time, eh?


Oh, I already speak Canadian. Project, process with the long o, throw an "eh" in place of question marks, I got it! :hysterical:


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

keenataz said:


> I am not sure how old you are, but I think the morale was much lower in the late Vietnam/post Vietnam period. And I recall it was a Republican in charge from 68-76.
> 
> Also I recall the country was deeply divided then too.


I was around then too! I saw hippies spitting on our troops, Jane Fonda, etc...
It wasn't nearly as divided as America is today, not even close. Your recollection is biased.

Eta: aren't you Canadian?


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

JeffreyD said:


> I was around then too! I saw hippies spitting on our troops, Jane Fonda, etc...
> It wasn't nearly as divided as America is today, not even close. Your recollection is biased.
> 
> Eta: aren't you Canadian?


I am, well actually dual citizenship but have not lived in US since a baby 57 years ago.

I do not want to argue, so first I agree on the spitting and Jane Fonda-why she was not arrested I have no idea. She went beyond protesting when she went over to Hanoi.

Now where we will disagree-I grew up in Southern Ontario and remember the race riots in Detroit and also saw there aftermath when we went over to Tiger games the following year. I have not personally seen the damage from the riots in Baltimore or Ferguson. But from the images I have seen on TV, they pale in comparison to Detroit in 1968. This is on top of the riots in Newark, Watts etc,In _my_opinion we have not seen anything like that. Nor anything like the 68 Democratic convention. Or the assassinations of RFK or MLK.

Nor anything like the university student strikes/occupations or the Kent State killing.

Now as far as the military goes, and this is just my observation from outside. I think they are likely very frustrated that in the past 15 years they have been sent into war with missions that are not clearly defined and required to fight with one hand behind their back. I would think that would hurt anyone's morale. And this is not to debate the validity of fighting these wars.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

keenataz said:


> I am, well actually dual citizenship but have not lived in US since a baby 57 years ago.
> 
> I do not want to argue, so first I agree on the spitting and Jane Fonda-why she was not arrested I have no idea. She went beyond protesting when she went over to Hanoi.
> 
> ...


While I do agree with most of what you said, I live in Los Angeles, I was here for the Watts riots, it was tiny compared to the rampage caused by Rodney King supporters. And I don't believe that The Watts riots had anything to do with the war. I also agree not letting the military do what they do best is a very serious moral issue, since their not the ones making disions.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

The military is nearly always sent in with restrictions. 

Thank God for that or the nuke option would be the first use option.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

JeffreyD said:


> While I do agree with most of what you said, I live in Los Angeles, I was here for the Watts riots, it was tiny compared to the rampage caused by Rodney King supporters. And I don't believe that The Watts riots had anything to do with the war. I also agree not letting the military do what they do best is a very serious moral issue, since their not the ones making disions.


No I don't think it had much to do with war either, other than I suspect their was dissatisfaction with the number of African Americans going to Vietnam.

I will bow to your knowledge with respect to the King Riots as you were there, and I actually forgot about them.

As far as the military and restrictions go. That is so tough. A poster stated that their need to be or nukes would be the first option. I hope that would not be the case. but could be.

My point is that the last war the west really won, was WWII and that was total war and was not pretty. Since then it was Korea (Multi nation), Vietnam (France and US), Desert Storm (multi nation-heavy US), Afghanistan and Iraq. I would guess with the exception of Desert Storm none of these would be declared victories. And none of them were total war like WW II. And this is not a poke at the fighting forces. I guess my point is, if for some reason any nation decides to go to war, they should decide if they want to go to total war and the terrible consequences that will bring. My hope would be in most cases they would not. But I am not sure if going to war and try to fight a "nice" war is worth it when you look at 15 years in Afghanistan.
As Edwin Starr sang in the 60's " War, what is it good for; Absolutely nothing"


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

AmericanStand said:


> The military is nearly always sent in with restrictions.
> 
> Thank God for that or the nuke option would be the first use option.


I don't think you would find many if any at all military leaders that would consider a nuclear option, if any others are available.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> The military is nearly always sent in with restrictions.


We license the police & military to use deadly force on our behalf. They are expected to kill only under specific circumstances. It would not be reasonable, or even responsible, for us to license people to kill without restriction.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

wiscto said:


> Actually no, in all cases the person who responds violently was wrong, and this conversation doesn't really need to happen if everyone respects the logic of liberty over their emotions. And is burning the flag really wrong? It's a matter of perspective. And if you really love liberty then you don't care why someone is burning it. You might not like it, but if it makes you angry that's entirely your own problem. Throw a punch...you got to jail and that's where you belong.


Possibly true.

But I've taken many worse chances than that already.

And I haven't been in jail yet.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> We license the police & military to use deadly force on our behalf. They are expected to kill only under specific circumstances. It would not be reasonable, or even responsible, for us to license people to kill without restriction.


First off, I don't require a license to kill.

Secondly, such an action will only happen under very specific circumstances. 

I think that is very reasonable and responsible.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

JJ Grandits said:


> Secondly, such an action will only happen under very specific circumstances.


If we allow people to kill without restriction, how do you know they will do it responsibly?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

MO_cows said:


> We would soon be speaking a different language and be subjugated. YOU might be ready to become a higher level of being and forego all violence but the rest of the world is a long way away from that. If we did not have a respectable military, we'd be attacked. This is one of the nicest pieces of real estate on the planet, who wouldn't want it if they thought it was theirs for the taking.


Well, I know reality dictates we defend ourselves, but where does it dictate we stick our noses into the military business of 160 countries? The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and we have a heck of a lot of good intentions strewn all over the place. It know it's unrealistic to think we could all evolve past war, but these rose colored glasses, I'm keeping them.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

JJ Grandits said:


> First off, I don't require a license to kill.
> 
> Secondly, such an action will only happen under very specific circumstances.
> 
> I think that is very reasonable and responsible.


LOL well, good luck. I wouldn't personally burn the flag, but some people used to burn it ceremonially if it touched the ground. Not saying I agree with that, but I don't think we all have to "feel" the same way about the flag, and I don't think we will, so I guess in my opinion it's a waste of time to get angry about it. I don't, however, think it's a waste of time to get angry over someone interfering with someone else' freedom to express themselves how they like as long as they aren't interfering with anyone else' rights. I'm not interested in you and I getting all agitated at each other right here, but hypothetically, while I might not like a person who is burning a flag, I'd defend them physically if necessary. Now... Knowing that I personally treat the flag with respect, as a symbol of our country, do you think it's worth it to rumble with someone like me over whether or not someone else can burn it without you punching them in the face? Doesn't seem worth it to me. It just ends with two people who were bystanders fighting each other and claiming "freedom" as their cause. Sounds like a bunch of dang nonsense to me, and I think you should refrain from turning it physical. Just my two cents on that.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Nevada said:


> If we allow people to kill without restriction, how do you know they will do it responsibly?


Read his post again. Each of us can kill without a license.

The very vast majority will only do so under very specific circumstances, as in self defense, or the defense of others, a few other circumstances.

THAT is quite reasonable and responsible, considering the number of us who go armed, add in the number who can do so unarmed, the number who drive heavy vehicles, etc. 

Add in the fact that our military is no longer put together with a mandatory draft, and you have a very classy bunch of responsable, reasonable warriors out there working for us.....Joe


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Heritagefarm said:


> Well, I know reality dictates we defend ourselves, but where does it dictate we stick our noses into the military business of 160 countries? The road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and we have a heck of a lot of good intentions strewn all over the place. It know it's unrealistic to think we could all evolve past war, but these rose colored glasses, I'm keeping them.


You are welcome to your glasses, and I have nothing against them. I just think that broad statements like our "sticking our noses into the military business of 160 countries" are either a little or a lot overblown. One would have to examine each of those countries to determine if our military was the normal force guarding an embasy, on a training mission requested by the country, on a mission to LEARN from that country, guarding American assets in that nation, perhaps a hundred other possibilities. I know that Guam is a popular TDY destination. Are we sticking out "noses into"Guam's military affairs?"

Anyhow, I'm reluctant to profess military knowlege, since I don't really have any except the considerable amount I have read, and that don't really count for anything, and I'm inclined to believe that I really don't know why the military does what it does 90% of the time.

Yes, that makes it easy for them to pull the wool over my eyes, but it also makes it easy to do the same for our enemies, which is what we pay them for.

The same questions have been asked almost forever, and Rudyard Kipling wrote a great poem about expending young warriors against some of the same folks we are currently fighting, and facing many of the same problems, called "arithmetic on the frontier" and it is one of my favorites of his. Here is the link.

http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/arithmetic-on-the-frontier/

Enjoy....Joe


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Guam is a US protectorate, so yes we have our noses in their military affairs...

The military doesn't do anything without the approval of civilian authority, the president with the consent of congress wages war.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

coolrunnin said:


> Guam is a US protectorate


Actually, Guam is a US territory. That means Guam is US soil.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Nevada said:


> Actually, Guam is a US territory. That means Guam is US soil.


Good point.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

joebill said:


> You are welcome to your glasses, and I have nothing against them. I just think that broad statements like our "sticking our noses into the military business of 160 countries" are either a little or a lot overblown. One would have to examine each of those countries to determine if our military was the normal force guarding an embasy, on a training mission requested by the country, on a mission to LEARN from that country, guarding American assets in that nation, perhaps a hundred other possibilities. I know that Guam is a popular TDY destination. Are we sticking out "noses into"Guam's military affairs?"
> 
> Anyhow, I'm reluctant to profess military knowlege, since I don't really have any except the considerable amount I have read, and that don't really count for anything, and I'm inclined to believe that I really don't know why the military does what it does 90% of the time.
> 
> ...


War is never the answer. Except when it is. Unfortunately, war seems to be the go-to option to solve everything from border disputes to oil and finances. Why can't we fight with words and money or something? Sometimes it ends the day, but it's way less bloody and messy.


----------



## Ozarka (Apr 15, 2007)

The US has been at peace only 29 years since 1776. The Military is the police force for the corporations that own the US govt. Seems a little over the top to me... Lots of info, few people really care to know what is going on behind the scenes. Ask first responders working the Federal Building in OKC about the govt. technicians scurrying around removing unexploded thermite charges from building columns while they were scraping up the pieces of kids in the day care center in the building. The truth is well hidden behind a huge smokescreen on purpose. The reality of the Govt. is not quite as simple as get BO out of the white house and replace him with a narcissistic mysogynist or another corporate brat. When they killed JFK it was not the first coup to happen behind the scenes and nobody in Iowa City and Birmingham ever knew.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

wiscto said:


> LOL well, good luck. I wouldn't personally burn the flag, but some people used to burn it ceremonially if it touched the ground. Not saying I agree with that, but I don't think we all have to "feel" the same way about the flag, and I don't think we will, so I guess in my opinion it's a waste of time to get angry about it. I don't, however, think it's a waste of time to get angry over someone interfering with someone else' freedom to express themselves how they like as long as they aren't interfering with anyone else' rights. I'm not interested in you and I getting all agitated at each other right here, but hypothetically, while I might not like a person who is burning a flag, I'd defend them physically if necessary. Now... Knowing that I personally treat the flag with respect, as a symbol of our country, do you think it's worth it to rumble with someone like me over whether or not someone else can burn it without you punching them in the face? Doesn't seem worth it to me. It just ends with two people who were bystanders fighting each other and claiming "freedom" as their cause. Sounds like a bunch of dang nonsense to me, and I think you should refrain from turning it physical. Just my two cents on that.


What the heck are you talking about?
Your response is totally out of context to my statement.

Are you feeling OK?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> Sometimes that which is legal is immoral, while sometimes that which is illegal is moral.


Post of he day award.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> The Democrat Party (I will not use the term "liberal" to describe them as they are anything but) uses sexuality, race, and any number of other such demarcations in order to subjugate and bully people. It is a power grab and we should expect nothing less from the party of slavery and the Trail of Tears.


Post of the millenneum award.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Nevada said:


> There's no shortage of poor people in this country, and that's not improving.


Once we get rid of the policies of the inept, unethical non-transparent administration who's kept the middle class from prospering & given us nearly 100% more folks on welfare & 62% of the work force OUT OF WORK, then it will improve.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Oh come on I know that 87% of internet statistics are made up on the spot but twice as many on welfare and two thirds unemployment ?
Where do those numbers come from ?


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Ozarka said:


> The US has been at peace only 29 years since 1776. The Military is the police force for the corporations that own the US govt.


And that right there is the crux of the matter.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Heritagefarm said:


> War is never the answer. Except when it is. Unfortunately, war seems to be the go-to option to solve everything from border disputes to oil and finances. Why can't we fight with words and money or something? Sometimes it ends the day, but it's way less bloody and messy.


I am inclined to think that a lot of these questions are rhetorical, which is fine, but in case this one is not, I'll take a crack at it.

St. Thomas Aquinas laid down some rules for engaging in a "just war", which, to me, was a simple nod to the fact that every major conflict in the history of mankind between nations or large groups has (or at least had at the time) been settled in one way only, that is, by war. The concept of a "just war" looks good on paper (or in his case, maybe, papyrus), but no war ever remained "just" for long after it began, because justice rarely matters to the generals and the combatants regard it "just" that they go on living, regardless of what they have to do to the enemy. No army does or ever has trained on how to treat the enemy with justice, as least not until he is defeated. 

So much for "just wars".

Very often, in fact usually, we DO fight with words and money. It's going on every day all over the world, and often we get ourselves into a situation where we keep on with the words while an enemy builds his strength and waits for our most profound moment of weakness. We were more than a tad late in WW2, and no doubt it cost a lot of lives. We are, no doubt, QUITE late with Iran, and I shudder to think what THAT is going to cost us in terms of human death and misery.

We are inclined to "settle" with money over and over and over again, with the same outfits, decade after decade, thereby supporting little monsters like the one in North Korea who holds an entire nation as slaves living in starvation and total domination. We watched them go nuclear, threaten the whole world, and keep paying and paying and paying. Maybe YOU should go talk to him! Sorry, I digress.

Often, I think that there is truth to the theory that it is all a big show for the benifit of those who are doing the paying and the dying, and when Clinton bombed an asprin factory to get he and Monica off of the front page, there was little doubt as to how the scales balanced between human life and his personal comfort or embarrasment. 

I'm dead certain that both the Soviet citizens and the US citizens belived for all those years that each country was only defending itself against "those maniacs that want to kill us" The only thing that ended the cold war was the conviction on the part of the soviets that they had already lost and could never catch up. THAT is the best argument for a strong military.

So, even this too-long post can't begin to cover a tiny percentage of an answer, but the simple fact is that people go to war because they can and always have. Wars end when one side cannot continue, so the faster that happens, the better for all concerned. The better equipped we are for a quick and conclusive victory, the fewer lives will be lost.

One more opinion. If you truly want to REALLY reduce the frequency of war, encourage assasinations of war-mongering animals like the one in NK. We didn't need to kill half an army to end Sadaam, in my opinion, and when the leaders see that they are the #1 target of the most effective military on the planet, thngs tend to get simplified.

OK, the cool morning is going to waste....Joe


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> And that right there is the crux of the matter.


Perhaps, but, one doesn't have to go outside of the Federal Government to find corruption. It is plenty corrupt all by its self.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

JJ Grandits said:


> What the heck are you talking about?
> Your response is totally out of context to my statement.
> 
> Are you feeling OK?


I just replied to the wrong post, that's all.



> Possibly true.
> 
> But I've taken many worse chances than that already.
> 
> And I haven't been in jail yet.


Anyway, this is great. So the point of this thread was to explain how liberals are emotional and conservatives are logical. Faced with flag burning liberty logic, all you can talk about is your emotional response to it. You want to feel justified in your violence, you want to rationalize it, but you can't because it is NOT LOGICAL and it shows no respect for the freedom you supposedly love. Instead of the government calling the shots and infringing on the rights of someone who is not infringing on anyone else' rights, you want to do it. That's called despotism, even if it's just on a local street corner.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

poppy said:


> You missed the point. It isn't speaking of any particular program. It's saying that IF such a program was proposed, liberals would oppose it and conservatives would support it. BTW, there are people on welfare and disability who have no right to be on them. Some work for cash under the table to escape detection. Yes, I know some who do it.


Liberals would oppose it because experience shows us that any push like this ends up with more honest people who are in need losing benefits because they aren't good at jumping through hoops. those the program was designed to find will find a way to scam the system.

If you feel strongly about the cheaters you should turn them in. That is the best way to change things.

Jim


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

joebill said:


> I am inclined to think that a lot of these questions are rhetorical, which is fine, but in case this one is not, I'll take a crack at it.
> 
> St. Thomas Aquinas laid down some rules for engaging in a "just war", which, to me, was a simple nod to the fact that every major conflict in the history of mankind between nations or large groups has (or at least had at the time) been settled in one way only, that is, by war. The concept of a "just war" looks good on paper (or in his case, maybe, papyrus), but no war ever remained "just" for long after it began, because justice rarely matters to the generals and the combatants regard it "just" that they go on living, regardless of what they have to do to the enemy. No army does or ever has trained on how to treat the enemy with justice, as least not until he is defeated.
> 
> ...


No no, not rhetorical. I sincerely believe that if we all put our minds to the task, we could eliminate warfare, especially of the physical kind. Unfortunately, violence seems to be almost as hard wired in the human as the sex drive. It can still be defeated, however.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/war-is-our-most-urgent-problem-let-8217-s-solve-it/

Here's a great article on what we can do to end wars. I think a great start would be to stop thinking we can solve ANY problem with violence or force. Using our military as a posturing tactic would be fine, if only we didn't then believe we had the right to be the world's police force. 



> Is there a more urgent problem in the world today than war? And when I say "war" in this post, I mean also militarism, the culture of war, the armies, arms, industries, policies, plans, propaganda, prejudices, rationalizations that make lethal group conflict not only possible but also likely.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Heritagefarm said:


> No no, not rhetorical. I sincerely believe that if we all put our minds to the task, we could eliminate warfare, especially of the physical kind. Unfortunately, violence seems to be almost as hard wired in the human as the sex drive. It can still be defeated, however.
> 
> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/war-is-our-most-urgent-problem-let-8217-s-solve-it/
> 
> Here's a great article on what we can do to end wars. I think a great start would be to stop thinking we can solve ANY problem with violence or force. Using our military as a posturing tactic would be fine, if only we didn't then believe we had the right to be the world's police force.


The only problem with that is we CAN and DO solve problems with violence. Convincing ourselves it isn't true is a pretty tough sell, when the fact is it IS true. "Imagine" was a great song, but the concept was imaginary.

SHE;
"Seth, you can't solve a problem with a gun"

HE: 
"If you can't solve it with a gun, it can't be much of a problem."

Exageration, I know, but if you are paying attention, you have to realize that ours is a world ruled by the aggresive use of force. I'm pretty sure that part of the ramifications of not believeing in heaven is thinking you can create it on earth without the unpleasant requirement of dying first.

Your concept is not new. I recall them saying back in the 60's. "what if they threw a war and nobody showed up?" I can TELL you "what if". They would break out the nukes.

We even had "the war to end all wars" early in the last century, shortly before the next war. No way to enforce a ban on war, except to go to war over it.

Let's see, we'll need LOTs of tanks, millions of small arms and light artillery......YES!, let's go back into production on NAPALM!....Joe


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

joebill said:


> The only problem with that is we CAN and DO solve problems with violence. Convincing ourselves it isn't true is a pretty tough sell, when the fact is it IS true. "Imagine" was a great song, but the concept was imaginary.
> 
> SHE;
> "Seth, you can't solve a problem with a gun"
> ...


One of the major problems that has driven wars in the last century is oil. We have a lot of greedy corporate rats, and greedy politicians, who get in bed together and send our American troops across the ocean to die for their cause. Do you honestly think that in any instance the US sends troops anywhere just because we care? Pttttt. I relent that the situations are much more complex than that, but it comes down to us wanting something, and someone else sitting on it, literally or figuratively. It's also been argued that by trying to fix problems with more war, we created ISIS. Yay! War begat war! Pacifism works - Canada is a pretty good example of that. When was the last time someone heard about Canada bombing someone or vice versa? I think if we actually moved forward with the express intention of embracing people and cultures for who they are, we could make some headway. Another great example where we could work on something is Obama's plan to revamp our nukes. He goes to Japan to mourn Hiroshima and refuses to take the nukes off hair-trigger alert. We can make progress, but we won't, perhaps because we played toy soldier too often as children. Then we grow up and play toy soldier with real people.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

I'll tell you what. Just to get warmed up for the job of ending war, let's decide that first we are going to end bullying and downright MEANNESS. That will be your job, and when you have accomplished it, I'll be happy to throw in with you and help end war.....Joe


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

joebill said:


> I'll tell you what. Just to get warmed up for the job of ending war, let's decide that first we are going to end bullying and downright MEANNESS. That will be your job, and when you have accomplished it, I'll be happy to throw in with you and help end war.....Joe


Yerp. I guess the best option is to just make our little corner of the universe as nice as possible.:knitting:


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

For the record, Canada kicked our butt twice, 1775 and 1812, lost most of it's invasion force at Dieppe (around 3000 men) during WW2, has been involved in every major conflict for over a century. Not many places where the US has fought that Canada has not fought. They are generally "joiners" not "instigators" but when they join, they are serious about it.

You don't see anybody bombing Mexico, either, (other than Mexicans in the drug war) but it's not because they are pacifists. It's because, like Canada, they are our next-door neighbors and we have what it takes to protect the neighborhood.

I know it has been said that we created Isis, but IF we did, we did it NOT by going to war, but by pulling out. Everybody tried to tell our gloious leader that he was screwing up, but he maintained that Isis was the "JV team" and nothing to worry about.....Joe


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

joebill said:


> For the record, Canada kicked our butt twice, 1775 and 1812, lost most of it's invasion force at Dieppe (around 3000 men) during WW2, has been involved in every major conflict for over a century. Not many places where the US has fought that Canada has not fought. They are generally "joiners" not "instigators" but when they join, they are serious about it.
> 
> You don't see anybody bombing Mexico, either, (other than Mexicans in the drug war) but it's not because they are pacifists. It's because, like Canada, they are our next-door neighbors and we have what it takes to protect the neighborhood.
> 
> I know it has been said that we created Isis, but IF we did, we did it NOT by going to war, but by pulling out. Everybody tried to tell our gloious leader that he was screwing up, but he maintained that Isis was the "JV team" and nothing to worry about.....Joe


Yes, but when other countries think of the international bully, it's the US that comes to mind. Face it: Our corporations move in, hire a bunch of workers for slightly more money than they were getting before, and still subject them to harsh work conditions. Our wars operate in a similar fashion. We probably don't attack Mexico for often out of convenience - poor as they are, we don't want them attacking us. They probably secretly want to - they don't exactly have prime real estate.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

joebill said:


> For the record, Canada kicked our butt twice, 1775 and 1812, lost most of it's invasion force at Dieppe (around 3000 men) during WW2, has been involved in every major conflict for over a century. Not many places where the US has fought that Canada has not fought. They are generally "joiners" not "instigators" but when they join, they are serious about it.
> 
> You don't see anybody bombing Mexico, either, (other than Mexicans in the drug war) but it's not because they are pacifists. It's because, like Canada, they are our next-door neighbors and we have what it takes to protect the neighborhood.
> 
> I know it has been said that we created Isis, but IF we did, we did it NOT by going to war, but by pulling out. Everybody tried to tell our gloious leader that he was screwing up, but he maintained that Isis was the "JV team" and nothing to worry about.....Joe


"Everybody" tried telling our glorious leader in 2002 that he was screwing up, but he maintained that Saddam Hussein had the means to destroy us, and so we went into Iraq with a bad plan organized by a bunch of egotistical fellows who manipulated a lot of people and failed to heed the warnings of knowledgeable men like Eric Shinseki, Brent Snowcroft, Hugh Shelton, Jim Webb... Generally everyone with credibility who no longer cashed government paychecks said it was a bad idea and made recommendations. Most of those recommendations included commentary on the limited intelligence we had, the fact that we would become bogged down at a time when we desperately needed to remain flexible, and that it would be costly in both blood and treasure. It was poorly contrived, unnecessary, and badly executed, even as people on the ground were calling for strategic adjustments. And "everybody" from a certain demographic of this country defended it to the very last, and continues to defend it. 

The president even blew the cover of a CIA operative because her husband, an ambassador, spoke out against the war. That's the kind of person some people in this country defend and love, and then somehow have the gall to call the ethics of the other side of the political aisle into question. 

Not to mention the fact that for a huge part of the war, most of the insurgents were not Iraqi but foreign fighters. You think that war didn't create ISIS? Where do you think all of this ISIS fighters came from? They're Iraq War veterans who bailed across the border and came back stronger. If we had never left Iraq, we might very well still be fighting ISIS commandos who built up their strength kicking Assad's butt up and down the Syrian desert. But at least this way we're fighting smart, we aren't setting ourselves up for IEDs, snipers, and car bombs. We aren't spending trillions of dollars and losing thousands of lives, and getting hundreds of thousands of civilians killed as collateral. 

And by the way... If we had stayed, Al-Sadr and the Shiite militia would have upgraded their insurgency in Baghdad to convince us otherwise. They knew we were leaving so that sat quietly and played nice so THEIR guy could be president of Iraq. So it was either going to be ISIS or the militia. One was funded by the Saudis. The other Iran. So if you think pulling out cost us, I have news for you.... Staying would have broken us. We'd probably be up to 6 trillion dollars and ten thousand Americans lost on a war that accomplished nothing.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

I guess we'll never know, will we? Seemed to me we had things pretty well in hand until we pulled out, and now we have a group building that somebody is going to have to do something about or regret it. Don't forget, young george kept calling for congressional approval or denial and getting the green light every time, that is, until after it was started. Then, the dems pretended they never had a say.

It takes resolve, and it has been lacking for some time.

The one that truly demonstrated the depth of thought involved in a lot of these dems was at the beginning of the first gulf war, when congress was debating whether to go to war or not.

Senator Gore spoke with both sides of the issue and asked them how much TV face time would they give him if he voted their way. Now THAT is thinking the issue through on it's merits.....Joe


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

poppy said:


> This explains it completely.
> 
> "Conservatives care about logic. Liberals care about emotion. Conservatives care about whether a program works or not. Liberals care about how supporting a program makes them feel. Conservatives take the positions they do because they believe theyâre best for society. Liberals take the positions they do because they make them feel and look compassionate or superior to hold those positions.
> 
> ...


You can't claim a group that is nominating Donald Trump for president cares about logic.

Jim


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

joebill said:


> I guess we'll never know, will we? Seemed to me we had things pretty well in hand until we pulled out, and now we have a group building that somebody is going to have to do something about or regret it. Don't forget, young george kept calling for congressional approval or denial and getting the green light every time, that is, until after it was started. Then, the dems pretended they never had a say.
> 
> It takes resolve, and it has been lacking for some time.
> 
> ...


They didn't have weapons of mass destruction. They weren't connected to any serious terror plot. They were actively putting down terrorist groups because terrorist groups were actually a threat to Saddam's regime. Everyone here freaked out over the Iran deal. Guess who got a puppet regime in Iraq before we even pulled out? Yup. Iran. Because Iran's leadership is Shiite, and they got a Shiite leader in Iraq with ties to the Shiite Militias. 

The truly googly eyed thing about the defenders of the Iraq War is this... If you talk about Iran, Jordan, Hezbollah, and Muslims in general they always say, "They'll never change. You can't change them." So your solution was to permanently occupy Iraq? To the tune of trillions. All so that nothing would really change. Meanwhile, you can say we had it in hand all you want, but this strategy is called whack a mole for a reason. The insurgency just moved to Syria... They moved to Syria, found a new supply/recruitment chain, and started knocking on Assad's door. If we had still been in Iraq when that happened, what next? Occupy Syria? 

All the resolve in the universe won't make that strategy viable.


----------



## joebill (Mar 2, 2013)

Congratulations! You have persuaded YOU!....Joe


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

joebill said:


> I guess we'll never know, will we? Seemed to me we had things pretty well in hand until we pulled out, and now we have a group building that somebody is going to have to do something about or regret it. Don't forget, young george kept calling for congressional approval or denial and getting the green light every time, that is, until after it was started. Then, the dems pretended they never had a say.
> 
> It takes resolve, and it has been lacking for some time.
> 
> ...


I agree that discussing the 2nd Gulf War should be within the context of the first one.
And a review of the debate and vote on that first war should be reviewed......

http://articles.latimes.com/1991-01-13/news/mn-374_1_persian-gulf


----------



## Riverdale (Jan 20, 2008)

Nevada said:


> What program does that? We already have a huge army of social workers who verify eligibility. What program would do better than they can do?


Nevada, the "huge army of social workers who verify eligibility" have a vested interest in either maintaining or growing the programs. Lose too many people, and they are unemployed!


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Riverdale said:


> Nevada, the "huge army of social workers who verify eligibility" have a vested interest in either maintaining or growing the programs. Lose too many people, and they are unemployed!



So the cops actually work for the crooks since if they run out of crooks they are unemployed ?

Sorry I don't think those arguments will float.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

AmericanStand said:


> So the cops actually work for the crooks since if they run out of crooks they are unemployed ?
> 
> Sorry I don't think those arguments will float.


Not a very good analogy, the cops will never run out of criminals, ever.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I go with the wisdom of Jesus. I belive he said " the poor will always be with you"


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> The president even *blew the cover of a CIA operative* because her husband, an ambassador, spoke out against the war. That's the kind of person some people in this country defend and love, and then somehow have the gall to call the ethics of the other side of the political aisle into question.


You realize that's not true don't you?
Why parrot such obvious lies?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Jim Bunton said:


> You can't claim a group that is nominating Donald Trump for president cares about logic.
> Jim


You got him there.


----------

