Why Don't Republicans Identify What They Are Fighting?

[easyt65]

Go play little boy, the flame zone is your forte. You have nothing else to offer.

Saul Alynski would be proud of how the Liberals are using his techniques / rules to try to flip the argument around.

We have a President so worried about offending radical extremists and attempting to protect terrorists that he called an attack where a self-professed 'soldier of Allah' - who had threatened to cut his fellow officers' head off if they refused to convert to Islam, who had been in contact twith Al Qaeida, and who was screaming Allahu Ackbar as he gunned down his fellow soldiers in the name of Allah - a case of 'Workplace violence'.

We have a President so worried about offending radical extremists and attempting to protect terrorists that he MOCKED Americans and their VALID concerns for our national security and their safety - declaring Americans are just afraid of widows and orphans' - just days prior to his touted 'thorough vetting process' being exposed as a complete failure by a terrorist his vetting process allowed into the US who killed 14 US citizens.

We have a President so worried about offending radical extremists and attempting to protect terrorists that he sent his new 'Attorney General' out to THREATEN American citizens and their right to Free Speech with prosecution if they talked negatively about Islamic Extremists 'to the point of suggesting violence'.

We have a President so worried about offending radical extremists and attempting to protect terrorists that he ordered several years ago the term “unprivileged belligerents" replace the term 'Unlawful Combatants' which replaced the term 'terrorist'. (WTF is an 'unprivileged belligerent'? It sounds like a drunk non-member of a local club who came in and refuses to leave...)

We have a President so worried about offending radical Extremists and attempting to protect terrorists that he declared that is OUR - Americans - responsibility to accept in 65,000+ Syrians (whose numbers most assuredly contain terrorists) despite a broken / failed betting process (that already allowed a terrorist in who killed American citizens) JUST TO PROVE to the world that we are not racist anti-Muslims. (To Obama that is more important than protecting lives...sorry, Obama - we already tried that. You gave a Muslim terrorist a visa, welcomed her in, and she killed 14 Americans.)

We have a President who has aided the terrorist group the Muslim Brotherhood take over the govt of our ally Egypt, assigned associated members of that group in positions throughout his Cabinet, brought members of that group who were on the 'No-Fly' terrorist watch list to the WH, armed Al Qaeida in Libya before dragging the country to war there on his own to help them take over their own country, and has supplied, armed, trained some of their troops, and protected ISIS.

Obama and Liberals don't just have a problem CALLING the enemy the 'enemy'...they can't even IDENTIFY the 'enemy'. (At least I am giving them the benefit of the doubt by using that explanation of his / their actions....) ... yet the OP poses the question regarding GOP / Conservatives....

 

[IsaacNewton]

99% of the population has never heard of 'Saul Alynsky'. Its similar to Ayn Rand, no one had heard of him/her and still no one gives a shite. These things are thrown out there by con media and you dopes then think everyone knows about and is talking about the same garbage you are talking about. No one cares.

The bugwits of the society think a magical name will defeat our enemies. This is another false meme concocted by and continued by con media. Isis couldn't care less what they are called or haven't you noticed. Action is what counts and except for another invasion, which I think we should invade with 100k troops to scour the middle east of all these splinter asstard groups, the president has our military doing everything else it can.

But you cons listen to your manipulators in con-media and Faux News and you believe the steaming pile of phoney crap they sell on a daily basis. You don't live in reality and that is how they designed it.

 

[easyt65]

99% of the population aren't using his techniques, especially so well, as the Libs on this board and other Obama apologists do ...

 

[Boss]

99% of the population has never heard of 'Saul Alynsky'.

Yes... and 99% of the population of Oz had never heard of the man behind the curtain.

Did you have a point to make?

 

[Boss]

Action is what counts and except for another invasion, which I think we should invade with 100k troops to scour the middle east of all these splinter asstard groups, the president has our military doing everything else it can.

Whoa... hold on a minute, John Wayne... We went into the region guns-a-blazing with Bush the "Cowboy" ....don't you remember how that turned out?

It took about 6 months for the radical left to protest and scream enough to turn it into another Vietnam debacle, and nothing would do until we completely abandoned the efforts. NOW... you think we need to send 100k of our sons and daughters back over there to be slaughtered? Pfft! ....DREAM. FUCKING. ON!

Your political dunderheads promised us that they could resolve the problem without boots on the ground. We were told that US presence militarily was causing all the turmoil and we needed to get the hell out and leave them be. So much for that plan, huh?

This is the problem with knee-jerk emotive reactionary policies. You can't be yo-yoing back and forth every 8 years... send troops-- pull troops-- send troops... that's insanity. We either have to pull up our big girl panties and go get the job done or stay the fuck out of it. This wishy-washy back and forth is just pure stupidity that ends up getting American soldiers killed FOR NOTHING!

So no... NOT ANOTHER BOOT ON THE GROUND OVER THERE! The American public will not support it and there is no need for us to do it. All it will accomplish is creating another political football for the left to kick around and in the end, blame on the right. We're NOT going to stand with our allies in the region, we've proven that we'll bail on them at the first signs of change in political winds. They simply don't trust us anymore and there is no way to unfuck that mess. We've left them twisting in the wind too many times.

Now.... You want to ammo up a bunch of stealth bombers and obliterate the place with carpet bombing... go right ahead... be prepared for our enemy to show the world pictures of little dead children all over the place, because that's going to happen. War is just not pretty... never has been, never will be. That's a fact of life and some of us just need to accept it.

 

[regent]

But conservatives and Republicans do the same thing. They, too, almost never identify what they are fighting — namely, leftism and the left. (Note to left-wing websites that monitor conservative writings: This is not a comparison of the left with Islamic terrorists; it is about not naming an ideological foe.)

It's difficult for Conservatives to name an ideological foe because Conservatism is a philosophy and not an ideology. Conservative is the opposite measure from extreme. In an ideological sense, it is the more moderate view opposing liberal radicalism. But ideology does not define a conservative. They may have specific ideologies rooted in their conservative philosophies but those can differ greatly. It's mostly about pragmatism vs. radicalism.

If conservatism is not an ideology all those college texts will have to be discarded because, of course, they label conservatism, liberalism and other topics as ideologies, even to defining the difference between an ideology and philosophy.

 

[Boss]

If conservatism is not an ideology all those college texts will have to be discarded because, of course, they label conservatism, liberalism and other topics as ideologies, even to defining the difference between an ideology and philosophy.

Conservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conservatism as a political and social philosophy promotes retaining traditional social institutions in the context of culture and civilization.

There is no single set of policies that are universally regarded as conservative, because the meaning of conservatism depends on what is considered traditional in a given place and time. Thus conservatives from different parts of the world—each upholding their respective traditions—may disagree on a wide range of issues.

IDEOLOGY:
It can be described as a set of conscious and unconscious ideas which make up one's goals, expectations, and motivations.