I'm Happy Obama is Politically Failing- Are You?

[frigidweirdo]

The failure of Obama's policies illustrates the failure of liberal ideology.

I believe most rational Americans are starting to recognize this and the mid-term elections will certainly tell the tail.

Why?

Why what?

What do you think it would be? Have a guess.

 

[Jarhead]

Again, I prefer Obama to Bush, I'd prefer a monkey in a clown's outfit to Bush.

That's redundant.

Redundant? How's that?

Bush is still alive isn't he?

Me thinks you don't know what redundant means.

Go on then, give us all your logic as to why this is. Or is it just you want to try and belittle people?

I don't try to belittle people on this board. Most do it themselves.

If you don't see why, in a sarcastic why, that statement was redundant....then you don't know what redundant means. That is not belittling you. It is stating fact. Not knowing the definition of a word is not an indication of ones intelligence, or lack of it. There are hundreds of thousands of words in the English Language. No one can know the definition of all of them.

Look up redundant. Edumucate yourself.

 

[Meathead]

Go on then, give us all your logic as to why this is. Or is it just you want to try and belittle people?

You've belittled yourself and Obola in the process, and in a very racist way I might add.

 

[Jarhead]

Again, I prefer Obama to Bush, I'd prefer a monkey in a clown's outfit to Bush.

That's redundant.

Redundant? How's that?

Bush is still alive isn't he?

Me thinks you don't know what redundant means.

Go on then, give us all your logic as to why this is. Or is it just you want to try and belittle people?

Oh....and by the way....whether Bush was dead or alive, your statement would be deemed as redundant non the less by many.

 

[DriftingSand]

Happy days. Every day that I wake up happy, means Obama is not.

That equates to a positive moment for our country

Good times

Won't be much longer now......

-Geaux

I agree with your basic premise but I'm so saddened by all the damage done by him and his administration. I was just thinking about it this morning. All of America's little kids being born right now or on their way to Kindergarten will be introduced to a New America based on Marxist/Draconian philosophies and ideals. The greatest among them will be held down and stifled in an effort to force a false sense of "equality" that looks good on paper but doesn't actually exist in the real world. A team of Social Engineers will dictate all the details of their young lives while stripping them of any incentive to reach for the stars.

So, yes, I'm glad folks are waking up to the fact that YoMamma is a fraud and a worthless piece of cow dung but I'm afraid the damage is done and I'm not too sure that there is anyone in D.C. with the balls to reverse the trend.

I've posted this OP I wrote in 2013 at USAcarry, as it was one of my finest hours lol... Seriously, when I read a post like yours I think its time for a revisit for those who may be new here.

-Geaux

The Decay of Society


Our society, and it’s associated culture, have made the expected choices at the polling booth. It was a paradigm shift of epic proportions. The decisions by those in the slight majority did not come to pass by accident. It was by design and the results (Obama re-election) as I said were expected by those who have designed this current strife. To get here though, it took an investment over many years to swing public opinion into thinking traditional American values, (hard work, accountability, religion, guns, etc) are not the values our country should stand for.

The Democrat machine knew the mental capacity of our youth, coupled with its watered down education system, were ripe for reprogramming. Education camps? Not such a stretch to believe the deliberate infiltration of liberal teachers, administrators, professors within our education system laid the foundation over the years that have come to fruition at the polls.

In addition, we have a POTUS who even today remains on the campaign trail like no other President in our history. He is the master of orchestrating social divide like no other. Obama convinced the majority you are either with me/us or you are with the 1%. An issue is, Obama has done an excellent job at eliminating opportunities that were available for the 99% to apply hard work, and acceptable risk, with hopes of entering the community of the 1%. Interesting enough, not much emphasis being made on increasing the band width of the middle class. Obama’s agenda does not allow for the middle class to thrive. He wants 2 classes for now. Those who still decide to remain in the 1% are going to be under assault for years to come, while the remainder of society will tread water right at or slightly above the poverty line. Eventually, like buying firearms, the government will do its best to influence you into not pursuing the investment of time, money and hard work to reach the 1% pool. Like the future demise, relative to the quality and availability of Physicians as a result of Obamacare, very few will want to take the risk to excel.

I’m not sure America can win this war. And make no mistake, that is exactly how it feels to many in this country who have not gone through the indoctrination process. Like I mentioned, the investment in our education system to reach this point, combined with the media assaults and the never ending coverage of the Obama’s and their escapades, have all come together at the right place and time.

I have to hand it to the Democrat machine. They made a plan, stuck with it over decades, and the investment has come to fruition.

For liberals it has to feel like Shangri-La

Great post and essay. It's so true.

One of the biggest reasons the Socialists have made so much headway is the "watering down" of the education system. As they omit very important aspects of human history they introduce a sugar-coated version of the darker aspects of human history and various man-made philosophies.

The fact of the matter is that human history tells a vital story. It's an ongoing struggle between good & evil, dark & light, freedom & oppression, right & wrong, charity & greed, and, ultimately, God & man. Throughout time it has been man's desire to BE God. Not all men but a certain type of man. This craving for ultimate power and unlimited riches has been a driving force from the beginning of man's existence to the present. Inevitably, various historical figures have reached their goal then have created systems of governance based on their personal beliefs or philosophies. Some systems have worked fairly well while others failed miserably. None have been as good as ours (America's).

There's much to be said about history but it's especially important to understand why the Founding Fathers of the USA etched out the Constitution. The Constitution is a very important document but just as important (or maybe even more important) are the writings, musings, thoughts, experiences, and opinions of the Fathers and the underlying reason why they saw a need to break from England in the first place. These causes or incentives are ignored or glossed over in today's history classes. Today, the Constitution is presented as a passe', dusty, old document of the days gone by or the distant past. It's served its purpose but it's time to "move on" (Moveon.org). That dark force or cabal of evil men NEED folks to believe this lie. They NEED the Constitution swept aside so that they can swoop in and grab total control. The Founders were wise to the wiles of this dark philosophy. They realized that power couldn't be entrusted in man so they entrusted it in a document. The document was in direct response to the dark, Draconian edicts of the King of England who, like today's "kings of england" wanted total power and control.

Today's kids don't know what evils the people of England and surrounding lands had to endure under that Dictatorship/Oligarchy/Monarchy. They don't realize that the exact same, underlying force is at work at this very moment. If they DID know then they would fight tooth and nail to protect the Constitution and kick the Marxist/Socialist/Liberal/Democrats to the gutter where they belong.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The failure of Obama's policies illustrates the failure of liberal ideology.

I believe most rational Americans are starting to recognize this and the mid-term elections will certainly tell the tail.

Why?

Why what?

What do you think it would be? Have a guess.

Dude are you retarded?

I said " I believe most rational Americans are starting to recognize this and the mid-term elections will certainly tell the tail".

You ask why?

Read the first part of what I wrote and you'll know why I think that is.

"The failure of Obama's policies illustrates the failure of liberal ideology".

I write two sentences and then I have to explain the two sentences.

Damn what a dumbass you are.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Dude are you retarded?

I said " I believe most rational Americans are starting to recognize this and the mid-term elections will certainly tell the tail".

You ask why?

Read the first part of what I wrote and you'll know why I think that is.

"The failure of Obama's policies illustrates the failure of liberal ideology".

I write two sentences and then I have to explain the two sentences.

Damn what a dumbass you are.

Why would I be retarded for asking your opinion of things? Especially on a debate message board? You just expect me to insult you and you're shocked anyone would actually ask for an opinion?

Yeah, you write something and then you have to explain, back it up. That's the point of DEBATE.

I'll show you how it's done.

You said the mid term elections will tell the tail, or the tale, depending if you're going for the dog's ass or not.

Will they?

Voters are very fickle, you can often predict things that they will do, simply because they are quite easy to manipulate and very difficult to actually get to see the reality of the situation. They love to be advertised to and love to be ignorant of what they're actually voting for.

I mean, how many people who voted for Obama actually knew what they were voting for? How many were taken in by the "change" slogan? How many even understood the role and impact the president has on the country?

I'd say not a large percentage.

The same with Bush, the same with Clinton, the same with the other Bush, the same with Reagan and so on. Voters are, in general, foowkin stooopid.


Obama started life with a Democratic House and Senate. Then after 2 years he had a split house/senate.

Bush started life with a Republican House/Senate (based on Cheney being VP) and had that for a few years before it going totally Democrat in his last years.

Clinton Started life with a Democratic House/Senate before it changing to Republican after 2 years and staying like this.

So, we've gone back through 3 presidents, all of them started with their party being in charge in both houses, and then losing it.
Presidents bring people out, the turnout for House elections change massively based on whether they're electing the shiny dude up top or not.

Here's a chart where you can see the difference between the great popularity contest that is the farce of a presidential election in green, and those years where the popularity contest doesn't happen.

2012 59.6 million people voted Democrat.
2010 38.9 million people voted democrat.
2008 65.2 million voted Democrat (when Obama was the man who was going to change the world)
2006 42.3 million voted Democrat
2004 52.9 million voted Democrat
2002 33.7 million voted Democrat
2000 46.5 million voted Democrat.
1998 31.4 million voted Democrat. (Clinton's last)
1996 43,5 million
1994 31.6 million
1992 48.6 million (Clinton was the man who was going to make women groan etc)

So, based on this I would estimate that, well, maybe less than 38.9 million people will vote Democrat. I would also estimate that Republicans will get more votes than Democrats, because the last 4 presidents have finished their term with the other party controlling congress. The last not to was Carter and politically that was a much different era, even Reagan was a different era, perhaps Bush was a changing era.

So I don't see people rejecting this "liberal ideology" as you choose to call it. I see people acting like sheep doing what they've always done in the media heavy era. Be sheep.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Oh....and by the way....whether Bush was dead or alive, your statement would be deemed as redundant non the less by many.

Flicking heal, there are many on this board who automatically assume anything I've ever said is redundant. What's your point?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Dude are you retarded?

I said " I believe most rational Americans are starting to recognize this and the mid-term elections will certainly tell the tail".

You ask why?

Read the first part of what I wrote and you'll know why I think that is.

"The failure of Obama's policies illustrates the failure of liberal ideology".

I write two sentences and then I have to explain the two sentences.

Damn what a dumbass you are.

Why would I be retarded for asking your opinion of things? Especially on a debate message board? You just expect me to insult you and you're shocked anyone would actually ask for an opinion?

Yeah, you write something and then you have to explain, back it up. That's the point of DEBATE.

I'll show you how it's done.

You said the mid term elections will tell the tail, or the tale, depending if you're going for the dog's ass or not.

Will they?

Voters are very fickle, you can often predict things that they will do, simply because they are quite easy to manipulate and very difficult to actually get to see the reality of the situation. They love to be advertised to and love to be ignorant of what they're actually voting for.

I mean, how many people who voted for Obama actually knew what they were voting for? How many were taken in by the "change" slogan? How many even understood the role and impact the president has on the country?

I'd say not a large percentage.

The same with Bush, the same with Clinton, the same with the other Bush, the same with Reagan and so on. Voters are, in general, foowkin stooopid.


Obama started life with a Democratic House and Senate. Then after 2 years he had a split house/senate.

Bush started life with a Republican House/Senate (based on Cheney being VP) and had that for a few years before it going totally Democrat in his last years.

Clinton Started life with a Democratic House/Senate before it changing to Republican after 2 years and staying like this.

So, we've gone back through 3 presidents, all of them started with their party being in charge in both houses, and then losing it.
Presidents bring people out, the turnout for House elections change massively based on whether they're electing the shiny dude up top or not.

Here's a chart where you can see the difference between the great popularity contest that is the farce of a presidential election in green, and those years where the popularity contest doesn't happen.

2012 59.6 million people voted Democrat.
2010 38.9 million people voted democrat.
2008 65.2 million voted Democrat (when Obama was the man who was going to change the world)
2006 42.3 million voted Democrat
2004 52.9 million voted Democrat
2002 33.7 million voted Democrat
2000 46.5 million voted Democrat.
1998 31.4 million voted Democrat. (Clinton's last)
1996 43,5 million
1994 31.6 million
1992 48.6 million (Clinton was the man who was going to make women groan etc)

So, based on this I would estimate that, well, maybe less than 38.9 million people will vote Democrat. I would also estimate that Republicans will get more votes than Democrats, because the last 4 presidents have finished their term with the other party controlling congress. The last not to was Carter and politically that was a much different era, even Reagan was a different era, perhaps Bush was a changing era.

So I don't see people rejecting this "liberal ideology" as you choose to call it. I see people acting like sheep doing what they've always done in the media heavy era. Be sheep.

You wanted me to explain my comments because your retarded as didn't understand it. And no explaining simple comments isn't part the point of a debate.

Yes the mid-term elections will tell the tail.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You wanted me to explain my comments because your retarded as didn't understand it. And no explaining simple comments isn't part the point of a debate.

Yes the mid-term elections will tell the tail.

WHY? WHY THE HELL WILL MID TERMS TELL THE TAIL OF YOUR POXY ARGUMENT?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't try to belittle people on this board. Most do it themselves.

If you don't see why, in a sarcastic why, that statement was redundant....then you don't know what redundant means. That is not belittling you. It is stating fact. Not knowing the definition of a word is not an indication of ones intelligence, or lack of it. There are hundreds of thousands of words in the English Language. No one can know the definition of all of them.

Look up redundant. Edumucate yourself.

Oh God, it's so painful. I squirm.

Why not just say you don't want to debate? Why not just say you're here just to piss around, then I wouldn't have to bother in the first place.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You wanted me to explain my comments because your retarded as didn't understand it. And no explaining simple comments isn't part the point of a debate.

Yes the mid-term elections will tell the tail.

WHY? WHY THE HELL WILL MID TERMS TELL THE TAIL OF YOUR POXY ARGUMENT?

What's a poxy and why are you mad?

 

[Rikurzhen]

Bus is responsible for things that happened over 5 years after having left office and Obola isn't after over 5 in?

I got news for you buddy, Obola's fucked up left and right despite your doctrine not allowing for such things.

You really think a president isn't responsible for things that happened in the past eh?

Come off it. Obama will be responsible for things in the future too, but nothing as bad as what Bush did, making Islam the common enemy, making wars, making so much hatred against the US and West.

It's funny watching you rant. You're totally clueless and you're ranting in order to give meaning to your anti-Bush angst, as though the ranting makes it real, as in ranting rewrites history to make it fit your narrative.

Bush didn't make Islam the common enemy. This was already noted back before Bush's time.

Bernard Lewis wrote 24 years ago int The Atlantic in an article entitled "The Roots of Muslim Rage:"

But Islam, like other religions, has also known periods when it inspired in some of its followers a mood of hatred and violence. It is our misfortune that part, though by no means all or even most, of the Muslim world is now going through such a period, and that much, though again not all, of that hatred is directed against us. . . .

If the fighters in the war for Islam, the holy war "in the path of God," are fighting for God, it follows that their opponents are fighting against God. And since God is in principle the sovereign, the supreme head of the Islamic state—and the Prophet and, after the Prophet, the caliphs are his vicegerents—then God as sovereign commands the army. The army is God's army and the enemy is God's enemy. The duty of God's soldiers is to dispatch God's enemies as quickly as possible to the place where God will chastise them—that is to say, the afterlife. . . .

In the classical Islamic view, to which many Muslims are beginning to return, the world and all mankind are divided into two: the House of Islam, where the Muslim law and faith prevail, and the rest, known as the House of Unbelief or the House of War, which it is the duty of Muslims ultimately to bring to Islam. But the greater part of the world is still outside Islam, and even inside the Islamic lands, according to the view of the Muslim radicals, the faith of Islam has been undermined and the law of Islam has been abrogated. The obligation of holy war therefore begins at home and continues abroad, against the same infidel enemy.​

This dynamic was talked about back in 1926 in the book Young Islam On Trek: A Study In The Clash Of Civilizations.

The Marine Barracks in Lebanon were blown up by Muslims during Reagan's term, the Embassy attacks on the Cole attack happened during Clinton's terms.

Samuel Huntington wrote about the Clash of Civilizations back in 1993:

The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.​

 

[frigidweirdo]

It's funny watching you rant. You're totally clueless and you're ranting in order to give meaning to your anti-Bush angst, as though the ranting makes it real, as in ranting rewrites history to make it fit your narrative.

Bush didn't make Islam the common enemy. This was already noted back before Bush's time.

Bernard Lewis wrote 24 years ago int The Atlantic in an article entitled "The Roots of Muslim Rage:"

But Islam, like other religions, has also known periods when it inspired in some of its followers a mood of hatred and violence. It is our misfortune that part, though by no means all or even most, of the Muslim world is now going through such a period, and that much, though again not all, of that hatred is directed against us. . . .

If the fighters in the war for Islam, the holy war "in the path of God," are fighting for God, it follows that their opponents are fighting against God. And since God is in principle the sovereign, the supreme head of the Islamic state—and the Prophet and, after the Prophet, the caliphs are his vicegerents—then God as sovereign commands the army. The army is God's army and the enemy is God's enemy. The duty of God's soldiers is to dispatch God's enemies as quickly as possible to the place where God will chastise them—that is to say, the afterlife. . . .

In the classical Islamic view, to which many Muslims are beginning to return, the world and all mankind are divided into two: the House of Islam, where the Muslim law and faith prevail, and the rest, known as the House of Unbelief or the House of War, which it is the duty of Muslims ultimately to bring to Islam. But the greater part of the world is still outside Islam, and even inside the Islamic lands, according to the view of the Muslim radicals, the faith of Islam has been undermined and the law of Islam has been abrogated. The obligation of holy war therefore begins at home and continues abroad, against the same infidel enemy.​

This dynamic was talked about back in 1926 in the book Young Islam On Trek: A Study In The Clash Of Civilizations.

The Marine Barracks in Lebanon were blown up by Muslims during Reagan's term, the Embassy attacks on the Cole attack happened during Clinton's terms.

Samuel Huntington wrote about the Clash of Civilizations back in 1993:

The great divisions among humankind and the dominating source of conflict will be cultural. Nation states will remain the most powerful actors in world affairs, but the principal conflicts of global politics will occur between nations and groups of different civilizations. The clash of civilizations will dominate global politics. The fault lines between civilizations will be the battle lines of the future.​

Rant huh? If you want I can back up everything I said with a decent argument that doesn't include insults or put downs.

I'm not talking about there being friction between Islam and Christian countries, I'm talking about going from there being issues to there being a full blown out conflict between the two based on a sort Cold War style "them and us" sort of thing.

You're just proving what I already know, that there have been conflicts between the two for a long time. Nothing new. It wasn't the common enemy. The USSR was.

Also, what makes a common enemy is often how we act. Post WW2 Communism became a dirty word, and it still sticks. Sure, there are less films now where Soviets and Communists are the bad guys, they have been replaced by Arabs and Arabic music denotes the bad guys.

The way Bush set out his plan, he used the terms "al-Qaeda" and "War on Terror" so many times to make scared. It worked, it worked amazingly well, al-Qaeda became the cool cats in the extremist Muslim world, if you were anyone, you wanted to be al-Qaeda.

You can see the effects all over. In Europe the far right parties used to be anti-Semitic and anti-Black. Now they have become more more likely to use anti-Islamic stuff to express their racism, because they believe they can do so legitimately, and in many cases they can.
The EDL, a group of football hooligans pretending to be politic, would march through British streets claiming they were marching against extremist Islam, while being completely unable or unwilling to differentiate between a Muslim and an extremist Muslim.

The West has been invading, pillaging, toppling leaders in Muslim countries for a long time, the British Empire went into quite a lot of Muslim countries, Afghanistan, they made Iraq, Egypt, Sudan, British India which contained present day Pakistan and Bangladesh among many others. The crusades were there.

It's not new, what's new is that they are now the common enemy, the one to get all of the former allies behind, those in Western Europe, Canada, Australia etc.

Instability has increased massively in the last decade, thank you Bush.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You wanted me to explain my comments because your retarded as didn't understand it. And no explaining simple comments isn't part the point of a debate.

Yes the mid-term elections will tell the tail.

WHY? WHY THE HELL WILL MID TERMS TELL THE TAIL OF YOUR POXY ARGUMENT?

What's a poxy and why are you mad?

Poxy is an adjective. It means small and rubbish.

Why am I mad? Hmm. I ask you a question. You reply not answering the question, but making some other comment. Then you just keep avoiding the question.

Would you possibly be able to answer the question as to why the mid term elections will tell the "tail" of this mythical "liberal ideology" thing you're going on about?

You could also respond to the post that I went to all the effort writing and you have just completely frigging ignored too.

Repeating things 100 times doesn't make it true. If you want to debate, then debate, if not, tell me and I won't bother with you.

Okay?

 

[Rikurzhen]

I'm not talking about there being friction between Islam and Christian countries, I'm talking about going from there being issues to there being a full blown out conflict between the two based on a sort Cold War style "them and us" sort of thing

You do recall that 9/11 PRECEDED our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush wasn't the agent of change here, America wasn't the aggressor, this era came about because Muslims have been more proactive in taking the battle to what they see as The House of War, the non-Islamic lands. Look at Islamic terrorism in Bali, in Thailand, is that supposed to be a reaction to Bush too? Beheading Indonesian Christian school girls because they're minions of George Bush?

Sure, there are less films now where Soviets and Communists are the bad guys, they have been replaced by Arabs and Arabic music denotes the bad guys.

You mean like how Arabs were the bad guys in Tom Clancy's "Sum of all Fears" movie?

As for Communists being bad guys, nah, liberals don't like to show fellow travelers as bad guys. What we see instead are countless movies about the Hollywood Blacklist and how bad Senator Joe McCarthy was for hunting communists and that's why we don't see this:

Consider this year's Total Eclipse. Odd as it may seem, this is the first serious American film set against the background of the 1939 Nazi-Soviet Pact, the deal that allied Europe's two totalitarian powers against the West and helped plunge the world into war. With an ally on the eastern front, Hitler sent his Panzers west while Stalin helped himself to the Baltic states and invaded Finland. . . .

The sheer unexpectedness of the film is almost as shocking as its content. In one of the film's more chilling sequences, the Soviets hand over a number of German Communists, Jews who had taken refuge in Moscow, to the Gestapo. Modern audiences may find this surprising, but that incident too is taken from the historical record. Indeed, former KGB officials are credited as advisers on the film, whose cast also includes some of their actual victims.

There has simply been nothing like it on the screen in six decades. It has taken that long for moviegoers to see Soviet forces invading Poland and meeting their Nazi counterparts. Audiences would likely be similarly surprised by cinematic treatments of Cuban prisons, the Khmer Rouge genocide, and the bloody campaigns of Ethiopia's Stalinist Col. Mengistu, all still awaiting attention from Hollywood.

Total Eclipse is rated PG-13 for violence, particularly graphic in some of the mass murder scenes, images of starving infants from Stalin's 1932 forced famine in the Ukraine, and the torture of dissidents. Director Steven Spielberg (Schindler's List) deftly cuts from the Moscow trials to the torture chambers of the Lubyanka. More controversial are the portrayals of American communists during the period of the Pact. They are shown here picketing the White House, calling President Roosevelt a warmonger, and demanding that America stay out of the "capitalist war" in Europe. Harvey Keitel turns in a powerful performance as American Communist boss Earl Browder, and Linda Hunt brings depth to Lillian Hellman, who, when Hitler attacks the USSR in September of 1939, actually did cry out, "The motherland has been invaded."

Painstakingly accurate and filled with historical surprises, this film is so refreshing, so remarkable, that even at 162 minutes it seems too short.

Never heard of Total Eclipse? It hasn't been produced or even written. In all likelihood, such a film has never even been contemplated, at least in Hollywood. Indeed, in the decade since the Berlin Wall fell, or even the decade before that, no Hollywood film has addressed the actual history of communism, the agony of the millions whose lives were poisoned by it, and the century of international deceit that obscured communist reality. The simple but startling truth is that the major conflict of our time, democracy versus Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism--what The New York Times recently called "the holy war of the 20th century"--is almost entirely missing from American cinema. It is as though since 1945, Hollywood had produced little or nothing about the victory of the Allies and the crimes of National Socialism. This void is all the stranger since the major conflict of our time would seem to be a natural draw for Hollywood. . . . . . . .​

You can see the effects all over. In Europe the far right parties used to be anti-Semitic and anti-Black. Now they have become more more likely to use anti-Islamic stuff to express their racism, because they believe they can do so legitimately, and in many cases they can.

And why not legitimately? Bush didn't give them license, they're reacting to the destruction of their culture. Nowhere in the West were the populations polled about whether they favored replacing their cultures with multiculturalism, we all endured sub-rosa coups from socialists intent on destorying the foundations of society and only leaving citizens one relationship, to the State. Multiculturalism is the perfect vehicle to achieve that goal. Climate Change policies are a distant second.

The EDL, a group of football hooligans pretending to be politic, would march through British streets claiming they were marching against extremist Islam, while being completely unable or unwilling to differentiate between a Muslim and an extremist Muslim.

The Allies didn't bother distinguishing between extremist Nazis and Nazis when they launched their de-Nazification program in Europe. When an ideology, be it Nazism or Islam, is rotten at its core, then there is really little difference between a passive adherent and a faithful adherent.

The West has been invading, pillaging, toppling leaders in Muslim countries for a long time, the British Empire went into quite a lot of Muslim countries, Afghanistan, they made Iraq, Egypt, Sudan, British India which contained present day Pakistan and Bangladesh among many others. The crusades were there

Indeed. Been to the great Christian city of Constantinople lately?

Instability has increased massively in the last decade, thank you Bush.

Again, I remind you that 9/11 PRECEDED any Bush foreign policy initiative in the Middle East. Man up and direct the blame at those who deserve it, and that's not Bush nor the West.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You wanted me to explain my comments because your retarded as didn't understand it. And no explaining simple comments isn't part the point of a debate.

Yes the mid-term elections will tell the tail.

WHY? WHY THE HELL WILL MID TERMS TELL THE TAIL OF YOUR POXY ARGUMENT?

What's a poxy and why are you mad?

Poxy is an adjective. It means small and rubbish.

Why am I mad? Hmm. I ask you a question. You reply not answering the question, but making some other comment. Then you just keep avoiding the question.

Would you possibly be able to answer the question as to why the mid term elections will tell the "tail" of this mythical "liberal ideology" thing you're going on about?

You could also respond to the post that I went to all the effort writing and you have just completely frigging ignored too.

Repeating things 100 times doesn't make it true. If you want to debate, then debate, if not, tell me and I won't bother with you.

Okay?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm not talking about there being friction between Islam and Christian countries, I'm talking about going from there being issues to there being a full blown out conflict between the two based on a sort Cold War style "them and us" sort of thing

You do recall that 9/11 PRECEDED our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush wasn't the agent of change here, America wasn't the aggressor, this era came about because Muslims have been more proactive in taking the battle to what they see as The House of War, the non-Islamic lands. Look at Islamic terrorism in Bali, in Thailand, is that supposed to be a reaction to Bush too? Beheading Indonesian Christian school girls because they're minions of George Bush?

Again. I’m not making a claim that it went from nothing to full blown out common enemy status in the space of a few hours. There’s a lot of history that has gone on for a few hundred years.

The point is, the common enemy status was required.


You’re bring up points about Islamic terrorism before hand. It existed. Why? A lot of it has to do with either local conflicts that happen all over the place. XinJiang in China has nothing to do with global terrorism, for example. It’s exactly the same as what is happening in Tibet. However the proximity to Pakistan has led to a link between global terrorism and XinJiang issues.

However this global terrorism wasn’t started by the US. It was started by the British. For example, Jihad, the modern version of it, what we know it to be now, started in Afghanistan when the British went in during the 1800s. They found they couldn’t win through traditional warfare, so they became guerillas, but they needed more, discipline is hard to come by in non-traditional armies, so they had Jihad as a way of discipline.

The French and others, including the Dutch, also played their part in subjugating most of the Muslim world.

Where the US comes in, is post WW2, the support of Israel has clearly been a factor, but the hunt for oil, especially post-Cold War when things suddenly changed on the interest front.


However, you look at Bush pre-9/11. He was looking at playing games with China, which completely disappeared post 9/11. The right need a common enemy. The Cold War was perfect for the right in terms of being able to scare people.


Okay, presidents still flipped from party to party like normal, but it makes them feel more in control, they can be tough on things. This is why Bush pushed and pushed the al-Qaeda and “War on Terror” stuff. What Obama did when he got in was drop all of this, because he knew what was happening, knew why it was happening. However it’s got to the point where it’s too far along for anyone to stop it. Job well done by Bush, so his paymasters think.

 

[Meathead]

Weirdo, syphilitic (poxy) thinking and what passes for an education at even the finer madrassas in the Muslim world makes for an invariably hackney argument. If you're going to insist for being an apologist for a deeply failed religion and culture, you'd do far better by putting your pathologies and dogma behind you. You might then be able to defend terrorism and assault Bush with a little more credence.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sure, there are less films now where Soviets and Communists are the bad guys, they have been replaced by Arabs and Arabic music denotes the bad guys.

You mean like how Arabs were the bad guys in Tom Clancy's "Sum of all Fears" movie?


As for Communists being bad guys, nah, liberals don't like to show fellow travelers as bad guys. What we see instead are countless movies about the Hollywood Blacklist and how bad Senator Joe McCarthy was for hunting communists and that's why we don't see this:


Consider this year's Total Eclipse. Odd as it may seem, this is the first serious American film set against the background of the 1939 Nazi-Soviet Pact, the deal that allied Europe's two totalitarian powers against the West and helped plunge the world into war. With an ally on the eastern front, Hitler sent his Panzers west while Stalin helped himself to the Baltic states and invaded Finland. . . .


The sheer unexpectedness of the film is almost as shocking as its content. In one of the film's more chilling sequences, the Soviets hand over a number of German Communists, Jews who had taken refuge in Moscow, to the Gestapo. Modern audiences may find this surprising, but that incident too is taken from the historical record. Indeed, former KGB officials are credited as advisers on the film, whose cast also includes some of their actual victims.


There has simply been nothing like it on the screen in six decades. It has taken that long for moviegoers to see Soviet forces invading Poland and meeting their Nazi counterparts. Audiences would likely be similarly surprised by cinematic treatments of Cuban prisons, the Khmer Rouge genocide, and the bloody campaigns of Ethiopia's Stalinist Col. Mengistu, all still awaiting attention from Hollywood.


Total Eclipse is rated PG-13 for violence, particularly graphic in some of the mass murder scenes, images of starving infants from Stalin's 1932 forced famine in the Ukraine, and the torture of dissidents. Director Steven Spielberg (Schindler's List) deftly cuts from the Moscow trials to the torture chambers of the Lubyanka. More controversial are the portrayals of American communists during the period of the Pact. They are shown here picketing the White House, calling President Roosevelt a warmonger, and demanding that America stay out of the "capitalist war" in Europe. Harvey Keitel turns in a powerful performance as American Communist boss Earl Browder, and Linda Hunt brings depth to Lillian Hellman, who, when Hitler attacks the USSR in September of 1939, actually did cry out, "The motherland has been invaded."


Painstakingly accurate and filled with historical surprises, this film is so refreshing, so remarkable, that even at 162 minutes it seems too short.


Never heard of Total Eclipse? It hasn't been produced or even written. In all likelihood, such a film has never even been contemplated, at least in Hollywood. Indeed, in the decade since the Berlin Wall fell, or even the decade before that, no Hollywood film has addressed the actual history of communism, the agony of the millions whose lives were poisoned by it, and the century of international deceit that obscured communist reality. The simple but startling truth is that the major conflict of our time, democracy versus Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism--what The New York Times recently called "the holy war of the 20th century"--is almost entirely missing from American cinema. It is as though since 1945, Hollywood had produced little or nothing about the victory of the Allies and the crimes of National Socialism. This void is all the stranger since the major conflict of our time would seem to be a natural draw for Hollywood. . . . . . . .

Tom Clancy has used a lot of different scenarios, he even had Japs flying planes into US buildings. I’m not saying this is black and white, that ALL enemies were Soviets now ALL enemies are Arabs. I’m saying there are more. I watched a film with no Arabs in, but when they wanted to suggest danger they used Arabic music. For example.


The films show how bad McCarthy was (he was officially the worst Senator at the time you know) was done by someone who is a political activist and is presenting a version. These films exist, but these films are overtly political. I’m talking more underlying politicism that people don’t understand, they use things that people associate with bad and evil, and they’re turning to Islam for this more and more.

Of course it depends on the movie, clearly Frozen was never going to do that.

You can see the effects all over. In Europe the far right parties used to be anti-Semitic and anti-Black. Now they have become more more likely to use anti-Islamic stuff to express their racism, because they believe they can do so legitimately, and in many cases they can.

And why not legitimately? Bush didn't give them license, they're reacting to the destruction of their culture. Nowhere in the West were the populations polled about whether they favored replacing their cultures with multiculturalism, we all endured sub-rosa coups from socialists intent on destorying the foundations of society and only leaving citizens one relationship, to the State. Multiculturalism is the perfect vehicle to achieve that goal. Climate Change policies are a distant second.

The point being they were “reacting to the destruction of their culture” by Jews and Blacks. Now it’s by Muslims, and Jews and Blacks have taken a back seat. A lot of what these groups are is just anger, anger at their rubbish lives, and they take it out on those around them, and even each other. (Griffin, buddies with David Duke, Stephen “Don” Black and Preston Wiginton, some of the US’s biggest far right fascists, racists and anti-Semites, has even been kicked out of his own party recently.)


One thing is to fight immigration, another thing is to call for the killing of immigrants, or placing them in lower status or whatever.

The EDL, a group of football hooligans pretending to be politic, would march through British streets claiming they were marching against extremist Islam, while being completely unable or unwilling to differentiate between a Muslim and an extremist Muslim.

The Allies didn't bother distinguishing between extremist Nazis and Nazis when they launched their de-Nazification program in Europe. When an ideology, be it Nazism or Islam, is rotten at its core, then there is really little difference between a passive adherent and a faithful adherent.

I won’t disagree with that. I don’t like Islam. It’s not Islam I’m fighting for.

But while Islam and Nazism and Communism are rotten at their core, so is what is happening within the US.


This fight for oil, the scramble for resources that doesn’t take into account human beings, the claim that it’s all for democracy, liberty and freedom while the US govt goes around the world destroying all three of these, it’s plain disgusting.


The US is making Islam more radical, more despicable. It itself is continuing in the same vain that happened in the Cold War, supporting dictators, taking down democratically elected leaders, doing whatever it can to make sure its ideology is first in the world, and pretending its ideology is something different.


Most people in the US have been taken in by it. I’m not saying here that the US isn’t freer than North Korea, China, or even most Islamic countries. This isn’t the point.

The point is that the US is doing things that aren’t good, it’s causing more problems in the world than anyone else.

At home rights and freedoms and democracy are at a second rate level compared to various countries in Europe. But abroad is where the US laughs at democracy, freedom and liberty.


Taking down democratically elected leader Hugo Chavez in the 2002 coup d’etat while at the same time supporting Saudi Arabia, you couldn’t make it up.

The West has been invading, pillaging, toppling leaders in Muslim countries for a long time, the British Empire went into quite a lot of Muslim countries, Afghanistan, they made Iraq, Egypt, Sudan, British India which contained present day Pakistan and Bangladesh among many others. The crusades were there

Indeed. Been to the great Christian city of Constantinople lately?

Well I was in Constantinople airport in April, I haven’t visited the actual city since 2009.


However the point you seem to be making is that in history things have changed. Sure they have, however this happened before the contemporary era for this issue that I’d say started about 200 years ago, more or less.

Instability has increased massively in the last decade, thank you Bush.

Again, I remind you that 9/11 PRECEDED any Bush foreign policy initiative in the Middle East. Man up and direct the blame at those who deserve it, and that's not Bush nor the West.

And again I remind you that this isn’t so simple. I’m not talking about just muslims killing or whatever, I’m talking about the vilifying of Islam by Bush, the making of a common enemy for the US and the west to get behind, and for all of this to change massively. Bush changed the game.