Do Religious Extremists Control America?

I disagree with you. There may be some corruption but I doubt that it is nation wide or makes that great a difference. Perhaps both sides are corrupt and their corruption balances each other out. If the government swings too far to the right, wait a few years and it will swing to the left. If the government swings too far to the left, wait a few years and it will swing to the right. We had Carter. Then, for whatever reasons, people voted Reagan into office. Then we had Bush. Unfortunately, people didn’t like Bush very well so he only served 1 term. Then Clinton was overwhelmingly voted into office and served two terms. Then Bush Junior won in a very close race. He was more confidently re-elected for a second term. If people thought that Bush should have lost the 2000 election, why didn’t the Democrats get it together and vote him out in 2004? I guess that my main point is that we still have a republic. If there is enough outrage, the people will vote people out of office and vote different people into office.

As for William Joyce’s concern, he should get with others that feel likewise. It is supposedly bad for so many people in position of power to be Jews. If enough people feel the same way, religion will be a factor for people and the people will vote Jews out of office for the mere fact of them being Jews. If people are not so concerned, then it is too bad for William Joyce. That is the way that our representative democracy works.

The problem is that you feel that one can wait for the proverbial pendulum to swing back politically. One of these days the pendulum will cease to swing.

The actions of Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton and especially George W. Bush have put in motion many laws that will slow and eventually stop that political pendulum from swinging. And that is when our society will become a closed society and freedom will be what they tell us it is and nothing more.

In other words we have become fat and lazy politically and our freedoms are in jeopardy from a cabal of wealthy investors who will use media propaganda to divide us and convince us that all of this is not only for our own good, but is the American way...which is the exact opposite.

Ask yourself, what would Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, or Jefferson have said about all of this shit? :eusa_think:

Here is a hint; "Anyone who gives up a little freedom for a little security deserves neither." Benjamin Franklin.
 
It is easier to accept the official reasons. But take a closer look at what we say and what we do as a nation concerning these other countries.

Why don't you tell me? Specifically, I'd like to know in what way America is subservient to Britain because of British ties the the House of Saud and New York banks.

Maybe you're right. But trying to take a "closer look" would take hours, arguably weeks of research. Since you appear expert on this however, I assume you have the facts at your fingertips.

I'm not sure what this has to do with religious extremists controlling America, but what the hey.
 
Why don't you tell me? Specifically, I'd like to know in what way America is subservient to Britain because of British ties the the House of Saud and New York banks.

Maybe you're right. But trying to take a "closer look" would take hours, arguably weeks of research. Since you appear expert on this however, I assume you have the facts at your fingertips.

I'm not sure what this has to do with religious extremists controlling America, but what the hey.

I had said that Osama bin Laden and his family has ties to the House of Saud and New York banks.

For three days after 9/11 our country was grounded. No one was allowed to fly except for military units. But a number of Muslim nationals, specifically Osama bin Laden's family members, were flown out of the country. bin Laden's brothers were here in New York on financial business.

The Clinton administration had Osama bin Laden in their sights in 1999 and could have blown him to smithereens with a missile, but could not because a Saudi prince was visiting Osama bin Laden.

We rail against Muslim extremism and yet our biggest client state in the MIddle East is arguably the worst offenders of human rights...Saudi Arabia.

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, we told him that we would not interfere. It was Maragret Thatcher who insisted that we take action against Saddam Hussien, who at that time was our ally/client. I wonder why that is.
 
The problem is that you feel that one can wait for the proverbial pendulum to swing back politically. One of these days the pendulum will cease to swing.

The pendulum will continue to swing as long as America is a Republic. When enough people think that America is too pro-A, then the citizens will elect representatives that are anti-A. When there was supposedly too much regulation, someone was elected who favored deregulation.

The actions of Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton and especially George W. Bush have put in motion many laws that will slow and eventually stop that political pendulum from swinging. And that is when our society will become a closed society and freedom will be what they tell us it is and nothing more.

Would you be more specific? Do you have examples? Even if what you say is true, as long as we have a Republic and enough people are concerned, we can vote people into office who support repealing such laws.

In other words we have become fat and lazy politically and our freedoms are in jeopardy from a cabal of wealthy investors who will use media propaganda to divide us and convince us that all of this is not only for our own good, but is the American way...which is the exact opposite.

I’m inclined to agree with you there.

Ask yourself, what would Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, or Jefferson have said about all of this shit? :eusa_think:

Here is a hint; "Anyone who gives up a little freedom for a little security deserves neither." Benjamin Franklin.

Do you think that three should be metal detectors and x-rays in airports? If not, then you support giving up a little freedom. Should police be allowed to ask you for identification if your behavior seems to be suspicious? Let’s be free to drink and drive 120 miles per hour on our highways.

While Ben was an insightful and wise man, I disagree with him on that statement. Almost everything should be considered in moderation.
 
I had said that Osama bin Laden and his family has ties to the House of Saud and New York banks.

EDITED

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, we told him that we would not interfere. It was Maragret Thatcher who insisted that we take action against Saddam Hussien, who at that time was our ally/client. I wonder why that is.

Here's what you said:
No, one only needs to look at our own policies and actions concerning Britain, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Dude, we are subservient to them.

“I wonder why that is” is the sarcastic remark of anyone who has no proof, only theories, but wants to imply the truth of something they have alluded to in the previous sentence. E.g. I asked you for details but all you provided was opinion. I wonder why that is.

True, Mrs. Thatcher put pressure on GHWB to commit troops to ousting Saddam from Kuwait (her own memoirs make this clear). True, Bush was not a fan of the idea. But within a week the US was shipping troops to the Gulf and encouraging other countries to do the same.

Well, that must be case closed then. I’ll bet Mrs Thatcher used an old Jedi mind trick

You said that the US was subservient to Britain. I asked you for proof (I should have known better).

I was expecting proof of a global financial conspiracy, e-mails from Osama bin Laden to 10 Downing Street or the Foreign Office, or at very least proof that the British Government had photos of the President in bed with a sheep (a sort of Watergate / Iran-Contra thing with a stained blue dress, or woollen fleece in this case, thrown in for good measure).

But your proof is that nearly 20 years ago Margaret Thatcher put pressure on George Bush Senior to commit troops to throwing Saddam’s army out of Kuwait.

That’s it? That's your proof that the US was then and remains today subservient to Britain?

GMAFB. :eusa_wall:
 
Here's what you said:


“I wonder why that is” is the sarcastic remark of anyone who has no proof, only theories, but wants to imply the truth of something they have alluded to in the previous sentence. E.g. I asked you for details but all you provided was opinion. I wonder why that is.

True, Mrs. Thatcher put pressure on GHWB to commit troops to ousting Saddam from Kuwait (her own memoirs make this clear). True, Bush was not a fan of the idea. But within a week the US was shipping troops to the Gulf and encouraging other countries to do the same.

Well, that must be case closed then. I’ll bet Mrs Thatcher used an old Jedi mind trick

You said that the US was subservient to Britain. I asked you for proof (I should have known better).

I was expecting proof of a global financial conspiracy, e-mails from Osama bin Laden to 10 Downing Street or the Foreign Office, or at very least proof that the British Government had photos of the President in bed with a sheep (a sort of Watergate / Iran-Contra thing with a stained blue dress, or woollen fleece in this case, thrown in for good measure).

But your proof is that nearly 20 years ago Margaret Thatcher put pressure on George Bush Senior to commit troops to throwing Saddam’s army out of Kuwait.

That’s it? That's your proof that the US was then and remains today subservient to Britain?

GMAFB. :eusa_wall:
If I had hard proof, which is the only evidence you will accept (everything else you just claim is a lie), I would be leading the prosecution of our leaders and financial institutes.

You yourself admit that Britain pressured us to act on Saddam and we did. That is not evidence enough for you so now it is up to me to prove it? How about if I water board George H.W. Bush to make him talk? Will that convince you?

You are so impossible. You are so ready to believe whatever diarhea dribbles from the mouths of the White House and mainstream media and so quick to ignore glaring inconsistencies.

And I am the asshole?
 
If I had hard proof, which is the only evidence you will accept (everything else you just claim is a lie), I would be leading the prosecution of our leaders and financial institutes.

Did you get out of bed the wrong side or something? Let me address your response one section at a time.

I was unwilling to accept, based on your scant evidence, that the conclusion you were drawing was the correct one. On not one occasion did I say that any of the points you raised was a lie. In fact, I largely agreed with them. What I disagreed with was your conclusion. That doesn’t mean I think you’re a liar, only that I will not rush to judge based on that evidence alone.

You yourself admit that Britain pressured us to act on Saddam and we did. That is not evidence enough for you so now it is up to me to prove it? How about if I water board George H.W. Bush to make him talk? Will that convince you?

Yes, it is up to you to prove it. You are the one who is extrapolating an instance of political pressure at the beginning of the 1990’s into ongoing UK control over American foreign policy nearly 2 decades later. That’s arguably the basis for a theory but it’s not proof. I’m not sure what you are inferring with the waterboarding comment, so unless you’d care to expand I’ll assume you’re just trying to pick a fight with me and ignore it.

You are so impossible. You are so ready to believe whatever diarhea dribbles from the mouths of the White House and mainstream media and so quick to ignore glaring inconsistencies.

You’re guessing again. You don’t have a clue where I get my opinions from, other than the fact that I told you I had read Margaret Thatcher’s memoirs. So this comment about the White House and the media is, once again, you leaping to the conclusion that if I am unwilling to accept your point then it must be as a result of my believing diarrhoea from the White House and Fox. You couldn’t be further from the truth on this one.

As to inconsistencies, you haven’t pointed out any inconsistencies yet so I’m not sure what you think I’m being so “quick to ignore”. If you were to supply examples of inconsistencies, that would go some way to answering my earlier question and allowing me to form a more detailed opinion regarding the merits of your conclusion.
And I am the asshole?

I don't believe that I have ever called you an asshole. In fact, I don't believe that I have ever called you names of any kind. I'm prepared to be corrected on this, but it's the kind of thing I try not to do. I just happen to disagree with you, and you should not take that as a personal insult, merely as disagreement.

I guess I have to assume that your “asshole” comment is sarcasm once again (i.e. you’re calling me an asshole). If so, thanks, I’ll bear it in mind.
 
Taoman is one of those egotistical, know-it-all libs who thinks everybody else are dumbfucks. He/she picks fights with Jill and I even though we are pretty much left of centre ourselves. There is nothing more annoying than a know-it-all left wing, spiritual, conspiracy-theorist whackjob...but they do exist!
 
Taoman is one of those egotistical, know-it-all libs who thinks everybody else are dumbfucks. He/she picks fights with Jill and I even though we are pretty much left of centre ourselves. There is nothing more annoying than a know-it-all left wing, spiritual, conspiracy-theorist whackjob...but they do exist!

In the past when I've asked him a question he's at least made an effort to explain more fully. I still generally disagree with him, although at least I've had a better understanding of where his views emanate from, but this time he seems to be a bit testy. Oh well.....

Come to think of it, I've never seen him agree with anyone (though I don't keep track of all his input, so I could be wrong).
 
Taoman is one of those egotistical, know-it-all libs who thinks everybody else are dumbfucks. He/she picks fights with Jill and I even though we are pretty much left of centre ourselves. There is nothing more annoying than a know-it-all left wing, spiritual, conspiracy-theorist whackjob...but they do exist!

Pot calling the kettle black
 
In the past when I've asked him a question he's at least made an effort to explain more fully. I still generally disagree with him, although at least I've had a better understanding of where his views emanate from, but this time he seems to be a bit testy. Oh well.....

Come to think of it, I've never seen him agree with anyone (though I don't keep track of all his input, so I could be wrong).

Forgive me. So many people on this board do not simply disagree, they vehemently oppose an opinion even if facts are presented...and that is where that was coming from.

But most of the people on this board are military, ex-military or simply effete snobs, like Dr. Grump.
 
Forgive me. So many people on this board do not simply disagree, they vehemently oppose an opinion even if facts are presented...and that is where that was coming from.

But most of the people on this board are military, ex-military or simply effete snobs, like Dr. Grump.

Effete snob??? Grumb?!?!?? RAFLMAO!

Or maybe he just showed you up for the uninformed, misinformed hypocrite you are. Same as I did. And we know how cranky that makes you.
 
Effete snob??? Grumb?!?!?? RAFLMAO!

Or maybe he just showed you up for the uninformed, misinformed hypocrite you are. Same as I did. And we know how cranky that makes you.

Yeah, okay Jill. Let me know when reality visits you.
 
Forgive me. So many people on this board do not simply disagree, they vehemently oppose an opinion even if facts are presented...and that is where that was coming from.

But most of the people on this board are military, ex-military or simply effete snobs, like Dr. Grump.

I am far from a snob...what I don't do is suffer fools. You are a fool. You are not as half as smart as you think you are, and you think you are smarter than those that are twice as smart as you. That causes problems. A piece of advice: Learn something, learn it well, know it inside out and then comment on it. If you offer up uninformed, unprovable BS, chances are you're gonna get called on it:eusa_liar: :eusa_liar: Believing you're more spiritually aware than others, (say, like your brother for instance!) - is just that - a belief. It is not a fact. Get it yet?
 
I am far from a snob...what I don't do is suffer fools. You are a fool. You are not as half as smart as you think you are, and you think you are smarter than those that are twice as smart as you. That causes problems. A piece of advice: Learn something, learn it well, know it inside out and then comment on it. If you offer up uninformed, unprovable BS, chances are you're gonna get called on it:eusa_liar: :eusa_liar: Believing your are more spiritually aware than others, say - your brother! - is just that - a belief. It is not a fact. Get it yet?

Yes, I understand that you are a snob and an angry troll. I also learned that you were once a cop and that explains a lot about your personality.
 
Depends if you're done being an elitist arsehole. You do realise that is how you are coming across right? Whether accidentally or on purpose. As I stated before, you, I and Jillian have a lot in common with regard to politics, yet you seem to be going out of your way to insult us. Why is that?
 
Depends if you're done being an elitist arsehole. You do realise that is how you are coming across right? Whether accidentally or on purpose. As I stated before, you, I and Jillian have a lot in common with regard to politics, yet you seem to be going out of your way to insult us. Why is that?

Because we embarrassed him on the palestinian issue and showed that he's not mr. pacifist, but he's fine with violence as long as he agrees with who's doing the violent acts.

I figure that's why.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top