Explaining why "pseudo-conservative" crybabies are sowing fear in the U.S.

In 1955, the above flier, issued by the Keep America Committee, urged readers to "fight communistic world government" by opposing public health programs like water fluoridation.

For the most part, the current field of Republicans is riding the wave, ginning up panic whenever possible, in a campaign season that often seems less like an application to the White House and more like one for the ding farm. But will it work? Can this trembling, red-eyed, dark-minded impulse at the core of our national experience be marshaled to win a national election? And, perhaps more importantly, can it be stopped?

***

For all our talk of steady hands and rugged individualism, there’s a long and hallowed tradition of sheer barking panic in American politics. “There’s no country in the world that can get more hysterical!” Sinclair Lewis wrote in It Can’t Happen Here, his 1935 novel about a folksy American politician who leads a panicky nation into fascism. And indeed, we’ve done our part to prove him right. Over the decades, Americans, minds afire with doomsday visions of wild plots and schemes, have lost it over the illuminati, the Masons, the pope of Rome and his marauding Jesuits, the League of Nations, the U.N., communist infiltrators, welfare queens, Willie Horton, Jeremiah Wright, birtherism, gay plots, “death panels,” Jade Helm, no-go zones, the aforementioned Mexican rapists/ethnic cleansers/Ebola-infected ISIS supporters, and so on.

And throughout, most of those eruptions have come from a certain spot on the American political spectrum. Writing in 1954, historian Richard Hofstadter, borrowing a term from the social theorist Theodore Adorno, dubbed these people “pseudo-conservatives.” In his essay “The Pseudo-Conservative Revolt,” which Hofstadter wrote in response to the rise of far-right demagogues like Joe McCarthy and groups like the John Birch Society, he defined the type:

“Although they believe themselves to be conservatives and usually employ the rhetoric of conservatives, [pseudo-conservatives] show signs of a serious and restless dissatisfaction with American life, its institutions and traditions.” They may call themselves conservatives, Hofstadter noted, but they do so mainly for the veneer of political legitimacy the term confers. In reality, they are more a mix of ultraconservative, isolationist and, occasionally, radical. “They have little in common with the temperate and compromising spirit of true conservatism in the classical sense of the word.”

The pseudo-conservative, Hofstadter continued, “is likely to be antagonistic to most of the operations of our federal government except congressional investigations.” He is preoccupied with his loyalty and the perceived disloyalty of others and prone to constant patriotic “self-advertisement.” He “sees his own country as being so weak that it is constantly about to fall victim to subversion; and yet he feels it is so all-powerful that any failure it may experience in getting its way in the world ... cannot possibly be due to its own limitations but must be attributed to its having been betrayed.” He believes that “those who place greater stress on negotiation and accommodation are engaged in treasonable conspiracy or are guilty of well-nigh criminal failings in moral and intellectual fiber.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/11/panic-american-politics-213386

Does anyone honestly think this is a healthy approach to life?!

I think it is fairly accurate the pseudo-conservative voter is really just the cowardly.
it is not healthy to live a life so fearfully
and it is a terrible method of governance

That’s how it goes.
Republicans are exploiting the fears that Americans have about terrorism, while Democrats plug their heads into the sand and say, “What threat? ISIS who? Isn't that a JV team?”

One wants to carpet bomb a city, and the other side of the aisle wants to hug it out.
Hawks vs pansies. Extreme aggression vs naïve pandering.

Both are parties of inept and incompetent idiots. Why so many of you take to your party as if it was a newfound religion that saved you is dumbfounding.

IndependentThoughts wrote:That’s how it goes.
Republicans are exploiting the fears that Americans have about terrorism, while Democrats plug their heads into the sand and say, “What threat?  ISIS who?  Isn't that a JV team?”

One wants to carpet bomb a city, and the other side of the aisle wants to hug it out.
Hawks vs pansies.  Extreme aggression vs naïve pandering.

Both are parties of inept and incompetent idiots.  Why so many of you take to your party as if it was a newfound religion that saved you is dumbfounding.

Which Democrats specifically are saying that about ISIS?

Hillary and Obama can't even utter the words "Islamic Extremists", much less form a plan to beat them.

Look at the polls. More Democrats view global warming as a greater threat than ISIS. I don't know why. According to Gore's film, the US should be covered in ocean water by now because of "the melting ice in Antartica".

New data from the Pew Research Center indicates that self-identified Democrats are more concerned about global climate change than the threat posed by ISIS, the brutal terrorist army that has swept through much of Iraq and Syria in recent months. While 68 percent of Democrats say they view climate change as a "major threat" to the United States, 65 percent feel the same way about ISIS.

For Republicans, the numbers are switched and the gap vastly larger: 78 percent are worried about ISIS, and only a quarter are bothered by the prospect of global climate change.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/447166/poll-democrats-say-climate-change-bigger-threat-than-isis


I know we've all heard Obama try to downplay the threat of ISIS. Calling them the "JV team" and a group of murders with great social-media skills. Well, guess what? The JV team went pro under Obama's watch. He clearly ignored and downplayed the event. Now the Dems are defending and even doubling down on the JV remark. Unbelievable. Look at the spin Hillary tries to give it.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427355/hilllary-clinton-defends-obamas-isis-jv-label


The administration seems to think that being purposely blind to evil will simply make them go away. The American people (and some leading Dems) are fed up with the lead-from-behind approach Obama seems to have with everything.

Half of the country now backs "boots on the ground" to combat ISIS, a shifting political reality that has tied Hillary Clinton into knots. Left-leaning columnists from Ron Fournier to Frank Bruni to Eugene Robinson have criticized the president's absentee leadership and misplaced priorities. Battered from all sides amid sliding poll numbers, Obama has ramped up his vitriol against the only enemies he truly relishes attacking: Republicans

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2015/11/23/top-democrat-isis-threat-has-gotten-worse-under-obamas-policies-n2084500


And let's not overlook this gem, here:

The party of appeasement went off the deep-end this weekend in a way that is so off the rails that it’s beyond unfathomable.

It’s long been the narrative of the Democrat Party that just because all terrorists are Muslims, not all Muslims are terrorists, and therefore the religion of Islam is somehow a religion of peace.

As misguided as that twisted and delusional thinking is, it’s nothing in comparison to what a Democrat candidate for the Minnesota House of Representatives tweeted on Saturday.

Democrat Dan Kimmel tweeted on Saturday evening that “ISIS isn’t necessarily evil. It is made up of people doing what they think is best for their community. Violence is not the answer, though.”

Fortunately, enough people had their senses and pushed so hard against Kimmel’s stupidity that he soon not only apologized for the tweet, but also dropped out of the race, the Star Tribune reports:

“I’m folding up the campaign tent,” Kimmel told the Star Tribune. He later issued a written apology and called his tweet “stupid,” adding that it’s probably best for him to “shut up” for the time being.

http://politistick.com/democrat-candidate-isis-isnt-necessarily-evil/

Where do these people come from? Smh...

Maybe Obama won't say "Islamic extremism" because he's too busy doing things like knocking ISIS on its ass? Or, to go back a ways, getting bin Laden? Hillary Clinton ... well:

"We can’t close our eyes to the fact that at this time in our world history, there is a distorted and dangerous strain of extremism within the Muslim world that continues to spread." -- Hillary Clinton

For that matter:

"Extremist ideology has spread within some Muslim communities. This is a real problem that Muslims must confront, without excuse.” - Barack Obama

So there's that.

IT wrote:More Democrats view global warming as a greater threat than ISIS.

Because it is a greater threat. By the way, nowhere in Gore's film (which you haven't seen) did it predict that the U.S. would be covered by oceans within 10 years (the film was released in 2006).

It's Republicans who refuse to declare war on ISIS, recall:

It's becoming ever more clear that lawmakers lack the appetite to take responsibility for President Obama's war against ISIS. The White House, after a long delay, sent Congress a proposed authorization for the use of military force in February. (The AUMF has become the modern-day equivalent of a declaration of war.) Never mind that the U.S. military had already been bombing ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria for half a year, nor that those airstrikes have continued throughout the two months that Congress has spent reviewing the three-page proposal.

In the last week, the top two Republican leaders in the House have confirmed that Obama's war proposal is going nowhere, and lawmakers are in no hurry to pass an alternative. Kevin McCarthy, the majority leader, told reporters the administration's draft simply could not garner the 218 votes it needed to pass the House. In effect, the president had invited Congress both to approve and to limit his authority to take on ISIS.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/the-war-against-isis-will-go-undeclared/390618/

As for Kimmel, I read that as a common-sense acknowledgement that, OF COURSE, ISIS thinks what it is doing is right. Nobody actually thinks of themselves as evil.

Oh, and you had to go all the way to a Minnesota state legislature candidate -- who dropped out of the race -- to find that "gem." That's pretty pathetic.

Independent Thoughts wrote:I know we've all heard Obama try to downplay the threat of ISIS. Calling them the "JV team" and a group of murders with great social-media skills. Well, guess what? The JV team went pro under Obama's watch. He clearly ignored and downplayed the event. Now the Dems are defending and even doubling down on the JV remark. Unbelievable. Look at the spin Hillary tries to give it.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/427355/hilllary-clinton-defends-obamas-isis-jv-label

But you’ve jumped over a minor point there…ISIS isn’t a threat.  

At least not to the US.  

They are bunch of rowdy boys raising hell half way round the world.  They have no air force.  They have no tank corps.  They are like a bunch of Texas plowboys riding in pickup trucks and drinking beer on Saturday night.

Independent Thoughts wrote:The administration seems to think that being purposely blind to evil will simply make them go away.

Or at least sober up.  C’mon, IT, boys will be boys.  Wait til they settle down and get jobs.

Look, we would be in real trouble if the underlying belly rumblings of the Islamic world were to erupt.  If the Sunnis and Shi’ites began their civil war in earnest, than all of North and Central Africa, the Middle East and the Western Pacific would become engaged.  Upwards of 2-billion people could be affected.  That could be trouble.

But ISIS?  There’s nothing in it for us.  It's a side-show. In the 1920’s there were a small group that called themselves anarchists. Italian-American anarchist Luigi Galleani and his followers, known as Galleanists, carried out a series of bombings and assassination attempts from 1914 to 1932 in what they saw as attacks on 'tyrants' and 'enemies of the people'. Certainly what they believed was a threat—to all of society—but they were small, and really not a world-wide force. ISIS is in that league.

ISIS is not a threat?
Yes it is a threat and very much Islamic terrorism is a threat to the US, to deny this is blatnatly ignoring the capabilities of these terrorist groups, where even more so in the US, with the accessability to weapons makes it a far greater risk of occuring than it does in Britain.
It is not even a side show to the US who is very much committed to defeating ISIS, this being backed up by Obama himself.
Now you may want to shy away and put your fingers in your ears Quill going "la la la la la la la"", but these are the facts, no matter how poorly and inaccurately you plan down the facts

Richard The Lionheart wrote:ISIS is not a threat?
Yes it is a threat and very much Islamic terrorism is a threat to the US, to deny this is blatnatly ignoring the capabilities of these terrorist groups, where even more so in the US, with the accessability to weapons makes it a far greater risk of occuring than it does in Britain.
It is not even a side show to the US who is very much committed to defeating ISIS, this being backed up by Obama himself.
Now you may want to shy away and put your fingers in your ears Quill going "la la la la la la la"", but these are the facts, no matter how poorly and inaccurately you plan down the facts

How is ISIS a threat to the US? Are they going to drive their pickup trucks over here?

Anyone who breaks the law in the US will be dealt with adequately by the police forces of the various different communities here. I have trust in them, and you should too.

Original Quill wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:ISIS is not a threat?
Yes it is a threat and very much Islamic terrorism is a threat to the US, to deny this is blatnatly ignoring the capabilities of these terrorist groups, where even more so in the US, with the accessability to weapons makes it a far greater risk of occuring than it does in Britain.
It is not even a side show to the US who is very much committed to defeating ISIS, this being backed up by Obama himself.
Now you may want to shy away and put your fingers in your ears Quill going "la la la la la la la"", but these are the facts, no matter how poorly and inaccurately you plan down the facts

How is ISIS a threat to the US?  Are they going to drive their pickup trucks over here?

Anyone who breaks the law in the US will be dealt with adequately by the police forces of the various different communities here.  I have trust in them, and you should too.

Well where they are different to your average homicide, then intent to cause maixmum fatalities and casulties, making them a very severe threat.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:ISIS is not a threat?
Yes it is a threat and very much Islamic terrorism is a threat to the US, to deny this is blatnatly ignoring the capabilities of these terrorist groups, where even more so in the US, with the accessability to weapons makes it a far greater risk of occuring than it does in Britain.
It is not even a side show to the US who is very much committed to defeating ISIS, this being backed up by Obama himself.
Now you may want to shy away and put your fingers in your ears Quill going "la la la la la la la"", but these are the facts, no matter how poorly and inaccurately you plan down the facts

How is ISIS a threat to the US?  Are they going to drive their pickup trucks over here?

Anyone who breaks the law in the US will be dealt with adequately by the police forces of the various different communities here.  I have trust in them, and you should too.

Well where they are different to your average homicide, then intent to cause maixmum fatalities and casulties, making them a very severe threat.

We deal with people like that all the time -- Dylan Roof, Jared Loughner, Christopher Sean Harper-Mercer, Elliot Rodger, Aaron Alexis, Adam Lanza, Andrew Engeldinger, Wade Michael Page, James Holmes, Omar S. Thornton, Robert Hawkins, Seung-hui Cho, Jeffrey Weise ... the list goes on of Americans asylum seekers who went for maximum fatalities were set up so that the government can take our guns away.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


Well where they are different to your average homicide, then intent to cause maixmum fatalities and casulties, making them a very severe threat.

We deal with people like that all the time -- Dylan Roof, Jared Loughner, Christopher Sean Harper-Mercer, Elliot Rodger, Aaron Alexis, Adam Lanza, Andrew Engeldinger, Wade Michael Page, James Holmes, Omar S. Thornton, Robert Hawkins, Seung-hui Cho, Jeffrey Weise ... the list goes on of Americans asylum seekers who went for maximum fatalities were set up so that the government can take our guns away.

Sorry how on earth did you actually deal with these people after they were able to carry their murdereous acts?
What you are saying is you have a number of people who would still pale in comparrison to what ISIS would set out to achieve in commiting ultimate carnage. So I am not even talking about asylum seekers in this aspect, I am talking about how you have a very organised and committed group, who's single objective is massive fatalities.
That makes your above list look pitiful in comparrison

An other who lives in a bubble!

I mean just take in for example the level of fatalities these extremist groups set out to achieve, which makes spree killers look insignificant in comparrison. Look at Paris, 9/11 or countless suicide bombings that have claimed the lives of hundreds and even thousands. Look at how such a group can enter a school in Pakistan and butcher 132 children? All follow the same extremist ideology and all have no care or value for those who are living. All they care about is being able to carry out the biggest most prolific murdereous terorist acts possible and have no issue dying in the process.
That is the resolve these people have and its time people started to wake up to that threat, because that threat is real. It does not mean we should bow down to any fear but realise we have to take measures to combat this very real threat.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:I mean just take in for example the level of fatalities these extremist groups set out to achieve, which makes spree killers look insignificant in comparrison. Look at Paris, 9/11 or countless suicide bombings that have claimed the lives of hundreds and even thousands. Look at how such a group can enter a school in Pakistan and butcher 132 children? All follow the same extremist ideology and all have no care or value for those who are living. All they care about is being able to carry out the biggest most prolific murdereous terorist acts possible and have no issue dying in the process.
That is the resolve these people have and its time people started to wake up to that threat, because that threat is real. It does not mean we should bow down to any fear but realise we have to take measures to combat this very real threat.

When I was a kid I dreamed of being a professional baseball star -- that didn't mean I was ever going to be able to.

ISIS dreams of conquering the U.S. and the rest of the West, but -- and I don't know why I have to keep pointing this out -- nobody is bowing down to fear, refusing to fight, or burying their heads in the sand. The U.S. and many other nations are fighting ISIS and winning. ISIS can't even hold onto its own territory, let alone conquer new land.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:I mean just take in for example the level of fatalities these extremist groups set out to achieve, which makes spree killers look insignificant in comparrison. Look at Paris, 9/11 or countless suicide bombings that have claimed the lives of hundreds and even thousands. Look at how such a group can enter a school in Pakistan and butcher 132 children? All follow the same extremist ideology and all have no care or value for those who are living. All they care about is being able to carry out the biggest most prolific murdereous terorist acts possible and have no issue dying in the process.
That is the resolve these people have and its time people started to wake up to that threat, because that threat is real. It does not mean we should bow down to any fear but realise we have to take measures to combat this very real threat.

When I was a kid I dreamed of being a professional baseball star -- that didn't mean I was ever going to be able to.

ISIS dreams of conquering the U.S. and the rest of the West, but -- and I don't know why I have to keep pointing this out -- nobody is bowing down to fear, refusing to fight, or burying their heads in the sand. The U.S. and many other nations are fighting ISIS and winning. ISIS can't even hold onto its own territory, let alone conquer new land.

First point:
No comparrison on any  level what so ever


Second point:
I am not stating in regards to a far feteched dream of ISIS thinking they can conquer the US and Europe.
That shows you just allowed every point to go over your head.
This is about a real threat of terrorism and what they are very capable of, due to thet fact, the US has seen just about the most devasting terrorist attack in history, you might think you would understand that.
This is about very committed people who can infitrate into your society if not there already, whos one objective is to make your list above of people look like amateurs in comparrison in what they will set out to do.
Now, do you understand how you just digressed off nothing I even said?

Maybe Obama won't say "Islamic extremism" because he's too busy doing things like knocking ISIS on its ass?

Ummmm... what?
You're among the 5% in the world that believes Obama is doing anything to combat ISIS.  Please do tell us what he's doing to fight ISIS. Please, please, please.  This is obviously an unsung tale because all I hear are disjointed Republicans and fed-up Democrats (yes, even the Dems are tired) criticizing Obama for sitting on his laurels while people get slaughtered by this Islamic Extremist group.

In my posts, above, I provided you with links to what California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein said about Obama’s “efforts” to knock “ISIS on its ass”.  

Dianne Feinstein wrote:I don't think the approach is sufficient for the job," said Feinstein, a top ranking Senate Democrat who serves on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. "I'm concerned that we don't have the time and we don't have years. We need to be aggressive now." ... "What I'm saying is this has gone on too long now and it has not gotten better, it's gotten worse.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2015/11/23/top-democrat-isis-threat-has-gotten-worse-under-obamas-policies-n2084500

No, those remarks aren’t from the evil Republicans, or even something that Trump said.  This is from a senior Democrat.  A liberal one, at that.

And let’s not forget how Obama’s administration spent $500 million to train Syrian fighters to combat ISIS.  $500 million.  Guess how many fighter were trained with that $500 million?  4 or 5.  Nope, that wasn’t a typo.  To train these fighters, we spent over $100 million per person.  And we’re still losing the fight.

The news that the Obama administration has spent $500 million to put “four or five” fighters on the ground in Syria adds an almost comic irony to what is ultimately a tragic farce.

Almost exactly one year ago, when President Obama announced his plan to build an army of Syrians to take out the Islamic State — a group he had only recently dismissed as the “jayvee squad” — he told the American people in a televised address:

“This counterterrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out [the Islamic State] wherever they exist, using our air power and our support for partner forces on the ground. This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years.”

Four months later, the terrorists Obama was degrading “successfully” toppled the government in Yemen.

Meanwhile, rumors of the Islamic State’s demise are greatly exaggerated. It still controls an area roughly the size of England. Foreign fighters still flock to its ranks. It’s winning the war in Syria, which is why the Iranians and the Russians are now racing to the regime’s aid.

http://nypost.com/2015/09/18/team-obama-has-spent-500m-to-train-four-or-five-syrian-rebels/


If his current course of action is his example of knocking anyone on their ass, I’d hate to see how WWII would have turned out with him at the helm.  I have no doubt he would have tried to kumbaya with the Japanese after they bombed Pearl Harbor and tried to understand what America did to piss them off and lay blame on our doorstep for their attack.

Again, I’m very confused with your stance that we are beating ISIS.  Who told you this?

Oh, and you had to go all the way to a Minnesota state legislature candidate -- who dropped out of the race -- to find that "gem." That's pretty pathetic.

You asked, I delivered.  
What’s pathetic is that he’s not the only liberal/Democrat that tries to justify ISIS' evil behavior, or believes it’s our fault that Islamic Extremists are mad at us.  I’m soooo tired of hearing the self-loathing and self-guilting left try to guilt Americans into believing that ISIS exists because of something we did.

IndependentThoughts wrote:

Maybe Obama won't say "Islamic extremism" because he's too busy doing things like knocking ISIS on its ass?

Ummmm... what?
You're among the 5% in the world that believes Obama is doing anything to combat ISIS.  Please do tell us what he's doing to fight ISIS. Please, please, please.  This is obviously an unsung tale because all I hear are disjointed Republicans and fed-up Democrats (yes, even the Dems are tired) criticizing Obama for sitting on his laurels while people get slaughtered by this Islamic Extremist group.

In my posts, above, I provided you with links to what California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein said about Obama’s “efforts” to knock “ISIS on its ass”.  

Dianne Feinstein wrote:I don't think the approach is sufficient for the job," said Feinstein, a top ranking Senate Democrat who serves on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. "I'm concerned that we don't have the time and we don't have years. We need to be aggressive now." ... "What I'm saying is this has gone on too long now and it has not gotten better, it's gotten worse.

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2015/11/23/top-democrat-isis-threat-has-gotten-worse-under-obamas-policies-n2084500

No, those remarks aren’t from the evil Republicans, or even something that Trump said.  This is from a senior Democrat.  A liberal one, at that.

And let’s not forget how Obama’s administration spent $500 million to train Syrian fighters to combat ISIS.  $500 million.  Guess how many fighter were trained with that $500 million?  4 or 5.  Nope, that wasn’t a typo.  To train these fighters, we spent over $100 million per person.  And we’re still losing the fight.

The news that the Obama administration has spent $500 million to put “four or five” fighters on the ground in Syria adds an almost comic irony to what is ultimately a tragic farce.

Almost exactly one year ago, when President Obama announced his plan to build an army of Syrians to take out the Islamic State — a group he had only recently dismissed as the “jayvee squad” — he told the American people in a televised address:

“This counterterrorism campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out [the Islamic State] wherever they exist, using our air power and our support for partner forces on the ground. This strategy of taking out terrorists who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years.”

Four months later, the terrorists Obama was degrading “successfully” toppled the government in Yemen.

Meanwhile, rumors of the Islamic State’s demise are greatly exaggerated. It still controls an area roughly the size of England. Foreign fighters still flock to its ranks. It’s winning the war in Syria, which is why the Iranians and the Russians are now racing to the regime’s aid.

http://nypost.com/2015/09/18/team-obama-has-spent-500m-to-train-four-or-five-syrian-rebels/


If his current course of action is his example of knocking anyone on their ass, I’d hate to see how WWII would have turned out with him at the helm.  I have no doubt he would have tried to kumbaya with the Japanese after they bombed Pearl Harbor and tried to understand what America did to piss them off and lay blame on our doorstep for their attack.

Again, I’m very confused with your stance that we are beating ISIS.  Who told you this?

Oh, and you had to go all the way to a Minnesota state legislature candidate -- who dropped out of the race -- to find that "gem." That's pretty pathetic.

You asked, I delivered.  
What’s pathetic is that he’s not the only liberal/Democrat that tries to justify ISIS' evil behavior, or believes it’s our fault that Islamic Extremists are mad at us.  I’m soooo tired of hearing the self-loathing and self-guilting left try to guilt Americans into believing that ISIS exists because of something we did.

Your comments and arguments call you out -- stop pretending to be anything other than a water-carrying Republican stooge. I've already refuted all your claims, only Republicans bulldog losing talking points like you're doing.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

IndependentThoughts wrote:

Ummmm... what?
You're among the 5% in the world that believes Obama is doing anything to combat ISIS.  Please do tell us what he's doing to fight ISIS. Please, please, please.  This is obviously an unsung tale because all I hear are disjointed Republicans and fed-up Democrats (yes, even the Dems are tired) criticizing Obama for sitting on his laurels while people get slaughtered by this Islamic Extremist group.

In my posts, above, I provided you with links to what California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein said about Obama’s “efforts” to knock “ISIS on its ass”.  


http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2015/11/23/top-democrat-isis-threat-has-gotten-worse-under-obamas-policies-n2084500

No, those remarks aren’t from the evil Republicans, or even something that Trump said.  This is from a senior Democrat.  A liberal one, at that.

And let’s not forget how Obama’s administration spent $500 million to train Syrian fighters to combat ISIS.  $500 million.  Guess how many fighter were trained with that $500 million?  4 or 5.  Nope, that wasn’t a typo.  To train these fighters, we spent over $100 million per person.  And we’re still losing the fight.


http://nypost.com/2015/09/18/team-obama-has-spent-500m-to-train-four-or-five-syrian-rebels/


If his current course of action is his example of knocking anyone on their ass, I’d hate to see how WWII would have turned out with him at the helm.  I have no doubt he would have tried to kumbaya with the Japanese after they bombed Pearl Harbor and tried to understand what America did to piss them off and lay blame on our doorstep for their attack.

Again, I’m very confused with your stance that we are beating ISIS.  Who told you this?




You asked, I delivered.  
What’s pathetic is that he’s not the only liberal/Democrat that tries to justify ISIS' evil behavior, or believes it’s our fault that Islamic Extremists are mad at us.  I’m soooo tired of hearing the self-loathing and self-guilting left try to guilt Americans into believing that ISIS exists because of something we did.

Your comments and arguments call you out -- stop pretending to be anything other than a water-carrying Republican stooge. I've already refuted all your claims, only Republicans bulldog losing talking points like you're doing.

For my part, I do not care who is water carrying republican.
I am more interestd how you just evaded the points posed you, by claiming superiour intellect level (unsubstanciated) status, based off no reasoning but you measuring dicks.

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

IndependentThoughts wrote:

Ummmm... what?
You're among the 5% in the world that believes Obama is doing anything to combat ISIS.  Please do tell us what he's doing to fight ISIS. Please, please, please.  This is obviously an unsung tale because all I hear are disjointed Republicans and fed-up Democrats (yes, even the Dems are tired) criticizing Obama for sitting on his laurels while people get slaughtered by this Islamic Extremist group.

In my posts, above, I provided you with links to what California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein said about Obama’s “efforts” to knock “ISIS on its ass”.  


http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2015/11/23/top-democrat-isis-threat-has-gotten-worse-under-obamas-policies-n2084500

No, those remarks aren’t from the evil Republicans, or even something that Trump said.  This is from a senior Democrat.  A liberal one, at that.

And let’s not forget how Obama’s administration spent $500 million to train Syrian fighters to combat ISIS.  $500 million.  Guess how many fighter were trained with that $500 million?  4 or 5.  Nope, that wasn’t a typo.  To train these fighters, we spent over $100 million per person.  And we’re still losing the fight.


http://nypost.com/2015/09/18/team-obama-has-spent-500m-to-train-four-or-five-syrian-rebels/


If his current course of action is his example of knocking anyone on their ass, I’d hate to see how WWII would have turned out with him at the helm.  I have no doubt he would have tried to kumbaya with the Japanese after they bombed Pearl Harbor and tried to understand what America did to piss them off and lay blame on our doorstep for their attack.

Again, I’m very confused with your stance that we are beating ISIS.  Who told you this?




You asked, I delivered.  
What’s pathetic is that he’s not the only liberal/Democrat that tries to justify ISIS' evil behavior, or believes it’s our fault that Islamic Extremists are mad at us.  I’m soooo tired of hearing the self-loathing and self-guilting left try to guilt Americans into believing that ISIS exists because of something we did.

Your comments and arguments call you out -- stop pretending to be anything other than a water-carrying Republican stooge. I've already refuted all your claims, only Republicans bulldog losing talking points like you're doing.

For my part, I do not care who is water carrying republican.
I am more interestd how you just evaded the points posed you, by claiming superiour intellect level (unsubstanciated) status, based off no reasoning but you measuring dicks.

I already answered all the points, IT just decided he/she would repeat them.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

For my part, I do not care who is water carrying republican.
I am more interestd how you just evaded the points posed you, by claiming superiour intellect level (unsubstanciated) status, based off no reasoning but you measuring dicks.

I already answered all the points, IT just decided he/she would repeat them.

As a neutral, I beg to differ.
You are on thin ice as to where your standing is on the debate

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:

For my part, I do not care who is water carrying republican.
I am more interestd how you just evaded the points posed you, by claiming superiour intellect level (unsubstanciated) status, based off no reasoning but you measuring dicks.

I already answered all the points, IT just decided he/she would repeat them.

As a neutral, I beg to differ.
You are on thin ice as to where your standing is on the debate

I don't know why.

In his address to the nation on Sunday, President Obama asked Congress to authorize the use of military force against the Islamic State. The ongoing U.S. military campaign against ISIS in Iraq and Syria is being conducted under the same legal authority Congress granted the president to combat terrorism after the September 11th attacks. It hasn't been updated since.

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/07/458828428/obama-urges-congress-to-authorize-use-of-military-force-against-isis

In a speech at the Pentagon on Monday, President Barack Obama said the U.S. military is hitting the Islamic State “harder than ever,” with nearly 9,000 airstrikes as of today, and in November, the military “dropped more bombs on ISIL targets than any other month” since U.S. military operations began.

“We are hitting ISIL harder than ever. Coalition aircraft, our fighters, bombers and drones have been increasing the pace of airstrikes – nearly 9,000 as of today,” said Obama, referring to the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL), also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or ISIS. “Last month, in November we dropped more bombs on ISIL targets than any other month since this campaign started.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-hunter/obama-us-military-launched-9000-airstrikes-against-isis-so-far

Republican Speaker Paul Ryan is finally getting around to thinking about an authorization of military force:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/08/us/politics/paul-ryan-orders-closer-look-at-authorizing-war-against-isis.html?_r=0

Seriously, do I get a different Internet than you guys or something?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Richard The Lionheart wrote:


As a neutral, I beg to differ.
You are on thin ice as to where your standing is on the debate

I don't know why.

In his address to the nation on Sunday, President Obama asked Congress to authorize the use of military force against the Islamic State. The ongoing U.S. military campaign against ISIS in Iraq and Syria is being conducted under the same legal authority Congress granted the president to combat terrorism after the September 11th attacks. It hasn't been updated since.

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/07/458828428/obama-urges-congress-to-authorize-use-of-military-force-against-isis

In a speech at the Pentagon on Monday, President Barack Obama said the U.S. military is hitting the Islamic State “harder than ever,” with nearly 9,000 airstrikes as of today, and in November, the military “dropped more bombs on ISIL targets than any other month” since U.S. military operations began.

“We are hitting ISIL harder than ever. Coalition aircraft, our fighters, bombers and drones have been increasing the pace of airstrikes – nearly 9,000 as of today,” said Obama, referring to the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (ISIL), also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or ISIS. “Last month, in November we dropped more bombs on ISIL targets than any other month since this campaign started.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/melanie-hunter/obama-us-military-launched-9000-airstrikes-against-isis-so-far

Republican Speaker Paul Ryan is finally getting around to thinking about an authorization of military force:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/08/us/politics/paul-ryan-orders-closer-look-at-authorizing-war-against-isis.html?_r=0

Seriously, do I get a different Internet than you guys or something?

So 3 links is your capability to reason for yourself by posting them?

Wow, give yourself a two finger ripple for that effiort 

Forget him, Ben.  You'll end up in an infinite regress.

Independent Thoughts wrote:You're among the 5% in the world that believes Obama is doing anything to combat ISIS.  Please do tell us what he's doing to fight ISIS. Please, please, please.  This is obviously an unsung tale because all I hear are disjointed Republicans and fed-up Democrats (yes, even the Dems are tired) criticizing Obama for sitting on his laurels while people get slaughtered by this Islamic Extremist group.

In my posts, above, I provided you with links to what California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein said about Obama’s “efforts” to knock “ISIS on its ass”.  

Dianne Feinstein wrote:
I don't think the approach is sufficient for the job," said Feinstein, a top ranking Senate Democrat who serves on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. "I'm concerned that we don't have the time and we don't have years. We need to be aggressive now." ... "What I'm saying is this has gone on too long now and it has not gotten better, it's gotten worse.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2015/11/23/top-democrat-isis-threat-has-gotten-worse-under-obamas-policies-n2084500

No, those remarks aren’t from the evil Republicans, or even something that Trump said.  This is from a senior Democrat.  A liberal one, at that.

You miss the entire point.  The US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, sometimes referred to as the War Powers Clause, vests in the Congress the power to declare war,  Currently, the American president has only authority to conduct military activities in Iraq.  Dr. Obama is not authorized to wage a war in Syria.

Now, Obama has had a war authorization proposal on the Congressional desk since 2013, but the Republican Congress has refused to act on it, or anything like it.  So the whole idea of conducting military activities against ISIS is blocked by Republicans.  

Republicans in Congress are screaming about Dr. Obama issuing executive orders regarding immigration; imagine, if he took it upon himself to start a war, what Republicans would say.  When you've got a Constitution, you've got to operate within the perimeters of the law.

That said, any person in his right mind would not heed the reckless, impulsive calls for war against ISIS from the right.  Since we just rid ourselves of the tar-baby of war-without-end, and the $18-trillion debt caused by the Republican Bush Administration's hawkish policies, anyone who calls for war today is out of his or her mind.

The person in the highest seat in the land--in the world, really--has to be concerned about the well-being of the nation, and not just the impulsive grunts of a dissatisfied few.  We may find temporary opinion polls that favor this military action or that, but as soon as ISIS starts chopping off heads on TV news shows, or we find ourselves on the brink of another Great Depression, as we did on the Republican watch in October, 2008, or we see infinite war on-and-on, the incumbent president will have to live with the reputation that goes beyond opinion polls.  Look at what has happened to the Bush name...Jeb can't even get on the main stage in the current Republican primary race, his Bush name is so sullied.  And that's with Republicans!!!  

You can't get involved in Syria without facing the prospect of endless war, or worst...initiating the big one, that implodes the entire Muslim world...or, beyond??  

Democrats don't do that.  Even Republicans wouldn't, if they had the capacity to think anything through.  Unfortunately, that's how GWB and Cheney got us into the Iraq War in the first place...not thinking it through.

This is the importance of the message I continually send: conservatives have only atrophied ability to reason things through.  We cannot afford to allow another conservative administration to run a major power in the future.  We certainly cannot allow ourselves to respond to the shrill panic of conservatives every time someone appears to insult our pride.  Vietnam?  Iraq?  Syria?  We can't run and jump every time someone looks at us crossed-eyed.  It's necessary for better minds to prevail.

Ben, this administration’s “fight against ISIS” is a political show. The links you provided are correct and they do highlight what this administration has done to “combat” ISIS, but they also provide a larger picture of what isn’t being done. Our military operations against ISIS aren't focused on winning or eliminating ISIS. Their sole purpose this to placate a frustrated constituency by doing just enough to claim that they’re doing something. They’re giving 8% effort while everyone else is expecting 100%.

Obama has repeated over and over that he would not put boots on the ground. And I’m okay with that. I can go along with his insistence to not put our soldiers in harm’s way… but what do you propose we do alternatively to that? He has no answer. He even admitted that he has no strategy.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/obama-no-isil-strategy-118743


And, no, I don’t wear political labels, or subscribe to any ideology. Whether Obama is a Democrat or Republican is inconsequential to the fact that he’s sorely incompetent and incapable of assuming a leadership position. His political affiliation would never change that.
If you brand everyone that disagrees with Obama as a Republican or conservative, then you’re going to be pretty busy labeling the majority of the Democrat party this coming election season, as they try to distance themselves from their party’s largest political liability: Obama, himself.

And let’s not get started on American voters, in general.
According to a recent NBC/WSJ poll, 70% of likely voters believe this nation is headed in the wrong direction. Only 20% think it’s headed in the right direction. That’s only 1 in 5 people!!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html


No, the discontentment and frustration for Obama and his failed administration isn’t exclusively held by Republicans/conservatives. It’s a feeling that is unanimously felt across the nation. I can assure you that 70% of Americans do not claim affiliation with Republicans/conservatives, although today’s directionless Democratic party just may drive them to become one.

Currently, the American president has only authority to conduct military activities in Iraq. Dr. Obama is not authorized to wage a war in Syria.

That is incorrect. How is it that we are we making airstrikes in another sovereign nation, if what you’re saying is true?

Your post sounds like you’re confusing (or conflating) the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 with the AUMF Against Terrorists that was voted into place in 2001. If you read the Wiki of the former, at the very top it warns the reader not to confuse it with the latter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Terrorists


Per that link:

The authorization granted the President the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determined "planned, authorized, committed or aided" the September 11th attacks, or who harbored said persons or groups. The AUMF was signed by President George W. Bush on September 18, 2001. As of December 2015, the AUMF remains in effect and provides Congressional authorization for the use of force against ISIS and other Islamic militant groups.

We aren’t at war with a recognized country/government. War Powers act was written within the context of conventional wars: country vs country. The AUMF grants the POTUS broader powers with using military force against non-governmental entities and terrorists.

As far as waiting for Congressional approval for a formal war declaration, he doesn’t need it. And it doesn’t seem like he’s looking for it, either. As with every other “plan” that comes from this administration, his request for approval was poorly conceived. You lay the blame squarely on the Republicans for it falling dead in Congress, but it was voted down by a bipartisan majority.

Obama sent his new war powers measure to Capitol Hill in early February, only to have it pronounced dead on arrival by Republicans and Democrats alike.

Republican hawks argued that language restricting “enduring offensive ground combat operations” could tie the hands of military commanders. Liberals griped that that language could lead to an open-ended ground presence in Middle East once again.

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/238619-gop-obama-war-request-is-dead

Please just admit you're a card-carrying Republican, otherwise it's impossible to take you seriously. Only Republican partisans talk the way you do, and you never criticize the GOP this way. You're no independent.

Or maybe you could just tell us you're a Trump supporter and end the "mystery"

Ben_Reilly wrote:Please just admit you're a card-carrying Republican, otherwise it's impossible to take you seriously. Only Republican partisans talk the way you do, and you never criticize the GOP this way. You're no independent.

Or maybe you could just tell us you're a Trump supporter and end the "mystery"

Poor deflection, as what does it matter whether he/she is a card carrying Republican?
Nothing worse than poor sterotypes when unable to couter the points at hand

Lol.
Is this your indirect way of saying that I'm correct and right in my arguments, but I'm a poo-poo head for not attacking the Republicans? Just which Republican am I supposed to attack?? The POTUS is the one royally screwing up and he's a Democrat.

Around this time next year, you'll see plenty of anti-Republican posts coming from me, as our next President will undoubtedly be a Republican. The nation isn't going to put a self-professed socialist (Sanders) into the white house.
Hillary is too embroiled in scandal to stand a chance at winning the election. Just today, the FBI announced it was expanding its investigation in to Hillary Clinton to include corruption (who's surprised?)
http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/11/report-fbi-now-investigating-hillarys-state-department-for-corruption/

The FBI has already said they have enough evidence to indict Hillary on other charges.

IndependentThoughts wrote:Lol.  
Is this your indirect way of saying that I'm correct and right in my arguments, but I'm a poo-poo head for not attacking the Republicans?  Just which Republican am I supposed to attack??  The POTUS is the one royally screwing up and he's a Democrat.

Around this time next year, you'll see plenty of anti-Republican posts coming from me, as our next President will undoubtedly be a Republican.  The nation isn't going to put a self-professed socialist (Sanders) into the white house.  
Hillary is too embroiled in scandal to stand a chance at winning the election.  Just today, the FBI announced it was expanding its investigation in to Hillary Clinton to include corruption (who's surprised?)
http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/11/report-fbi-now-investigating-hillarys-state-department-for-corruption/

The FBI has already said they have enough evidence to indict Hillary on other charges.

Your whole worldview is based on these right-wing hack websites, yet you say you're independent. You must think the other members here are pretty stupid.

Clinton Considered Secret Plan to Spark Palestinian Protests

Wanted billionaires to donate fortune to Palestinians

Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton considered a secret plan created by her then-advisers to foment unrest among Palestinian citizens and spark protests in order to push the Israeli government back to the negotiating table, according to emails released as part of the investigation into the Democratic presidential frontrunner’s private email server.In a Dec, 18, 2011, email, former U.S. ambassador to Israel Thomas Pickering suggested that Clinton consider a plan to restart then-stalled peace negotiations by kickstarting Palestinian demonstrations against Israel.

Pickering described the effort as a potential “game changer in the region,” recommending that the United States undertake a clandestine campaign to generate unrest. Clinton requested that his email be printed.“What will change the situation is a major effort to use non-violent protests and demonstrations to put peace back in the center of people’s aspirations as well as their thoughts, and use that to influence the political leadership,” Pickering wrote.

“This is far from a sure thing, but far, in my humble view, from hopeless,” he continued. “Women can and ought to be at the center of these demonstrations. Many men and others will denigrate the idea. I don’t and I don’t think that was your message.”

Palestinian women, he noted, are less likely than men to resort to violence. “It must be all and only women. Why? On the Palestinian side the male culture is to use force,” Pickering wrote, comparing the effort to the protests in Egypt that deposed former leader Hosni Mubarak. “Palestinian men will not for long patiently demonstrate — they will be inclined over time and much too soon to be frustrated and use force. Their male culture comes close to requiring it.”

Pickering noted that the administration must keep its role in the demonstration a secret, so as not to aggravate ties with Israel.“Most of all the United States, in my view, cannot be seen to have stimulated, encouraged or be the power behind it for reasons you will understand better than anyone,” he wrote, suggesting that the government enlist liberal non-profit groups in Israel. “I believe third parties and a number NGOs [non-government organizations] on both sides would help.”

As relations with Israel remained tense, another Clinton confidant, Anne Marie Slaughter, sent a staff-wide email to Clinton staffers recommending that they undertake a “Pledge for Palestine” campaign aimed at convincing U.S. millionaires and billionaires to donate significant portions of their wealth to the Palestinian cause. The effort, Slaughter wrote in the September 2010 email, could help shame Israel.

“Such a campaign among billionaires/multi-millionaires around the world would reflect a strong vote of confidence in the building of a Palestinian state and could offset the ending of the moratorium for Palestinians,” Slaughter wrote. “There would also be a certain shaming effect re Israelis, who would be building settlements in the face of a pledge for peace.”Slaughter, who described the effort as a “crazy idea,” suggested tapping the “Clinton fundraising network” in order to raise the money needed.“With even 30 calls to the right people in the Clinton fundraising network it should be possible to generate a substantial enough amount quickly enough to capture the public imagination,” she wrote in the email, which was sent to top Clinton staffers, including Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin.


http://freebeacon.com/national-security/clinton-considered-secret-plan-to-spark-palestinian-protests/

Didge wrote:Sorry how on earth did you actually deal with these people after they were able to carry their murdereous acts?

We didn't.  Nor did we deal with Dylann Roof after he committed his murders in Charleston.  But this is an excellent object lesson for you: How would going to war in the Middle East deal with Dylann Roof?  It wouldn't.  

Nor would starting a war in the Middle East deal with ISIS.  It would only involve us in an endless conflict, with no purpose, and certainly no end...and cost us another $17-trillion, causing another Great Depression as Iraq almost did in October 2008.  It's like using a hammer when a flyswatter is more appropriate.

During the Cold War years the US went around making a reputation as a bully--Korea, Vietnam, Bosnia, and Iraq--all because it was too much of a response.  Wars are overkill...all we do is gain a reputation for killing babies, raping teenaged girls, kidnapping, torture and murder.  What does that accomplish?  

Now ask yourself, what did we think we would accomplish, as we employed the military when only police were called for?  Absolutely nothing, because we didn't have a plan.  Hell, we didn't even have a real purpose.  We just believed in a visceral fantasy that if we went in and kidnapped, raped, tortured and killed, it would scare the shit outta them, and they would eventually turn around and kiss our ass.  You, nicko and tommy are still doing that, right now...that's your plan!  Only it won't turn out that way...Christ, it has never turned out that way!

The point is that ISIS is only capable of criminal acts.  It is not capable of real warfare. A military response is overkill.  If ISIS commits only criminal acts, you deal with it by calling the police.  A military response makes no sense as a solution to ISIS...there's only a downside to going to war.

Call the Police, to put down ISIS?
You live in cloud cuckoo land son'
Never read anything so stupid, are you serious, or are you having a laugh?

nicko wrote:Call the Police,   to put down ISIS?
You live in cloud cuckoo land son'
Never read anything so stupid, are you serious, or are you having a laugh?    

Yet your only answer is to use a sledge hammer for a flyswatter. Utter nonsense.

The real point is, leave it alone, it's none of our business! You only call the police if they come over to our country and commit criminal acts. If they stay in their own homeland, leave it be.

nicko wrote:Call the Police,   to put down ISIS?
You live in cloud cuckoo land son'
Never read anything so stupid, are you serious, or are you having a laugh?    

Why I have not bothered to answer his condescending post when he fails to grasp the US is already at war with ISIS.
It may have  escaped his attention the US is carrying out air strikes on ISIS.
Also American was not a bully in Korea, no idea where he gets that absurd idea, if anything the bully was of course North Korea. Neither was American a bully with Bosnia,, so I seriously doubt his ability to readson and understand conflicts when he has made those absurd accusations. There was no great depression in 2008 and even to equate to the one in 1929 is farcical. He seems to fail to grasp wars are a necessity to stop those committing the most heinous crimes, that we do so to protect the well being of people unjustly attacked and brutalized by a group or nation. I mean can you imagine his philosophy with WW2, how he would have gladly sat back and watched millions perish all becuase he holds a racial view only to look out for Americans? That is why I do not take him seriously when it comes to understanding what is a natural and rational threat to the well being of people.

u are right about him didge, I said he lives in a bubble, he has no idea what goes on, and what has gone on in real life. He has a childish view that all is peace and light in the World. I will ignore him in future, one day real life will bite him in the arse.

nicko wrote:u are right about him didge, I said he lives in a bubble, he has no idea what goes on, and what has gone on in real life.    He has a childish view that all is peace and light in the World.  I will ignore him in future, one day real life will bite him in the arse.

The biggest difference Nicko, is you have experinced and understand war, where neither Quill or I have, but at least I try to attempt to understand it, with never been able to ever fully do so without experincing. Knowing fundementally we should always try to help where there is injusticies in the world where we can actually do something about this.

Didge wrote:...he fails to grasp the US is already at war with ISIS.
It may have  escaped his attention the US is carrying out air strikes on ISIS.

The simple answer is that we need to stop it.  The bombing, I believe, is being done to placate Republicans who are died-in-the-wool warmongers.  It’s politics.  If we had a truly thinking Congress—ie, Democrats—we would not have to play this game.

The real significance is not how we are involved in a war, but how we have managed to successfully stay uninvolved.  I think we owe that blessing to the genius of Dr. Obama.

Didge wrote:Also American was not a bully in Korea, no idea where he gets that absurd idea, if anything the bully was of course North Korea. Neither was American a bully with Bosnia,, so I seriously doubt his ability to readson and understand conflicts when he has made those absurd accusations.

You are arguing with examples.  And you are missing the point.

America was the bully in all of those contests for two reasons: (1) we had no purpose, and consequently no plan; (2) war should not even have been an option in those conflicts, as we were trying to swat a fly with a sledge hammer.  

The second is related to the first.  Remember, purpose → plan → exit strategy.  As we had no purpose in those conflicts, we had nothing to guide us as to what we were trying to accomplish.  Thus we had no attack plan, no overall strategy, and no end-game.  

With no purpose, we had no idea what to do, or what tools to use.  We were blind, feeling our way around…and using the most destructive means to do so, because we were afraid of the dark.  We were using overkill.  We were conducting wars, when diplomacy or police tactics would have sufficed.  The use of war only placated people with huge egos and no self-confidence...with no self-awareness.

By use of overkill, we kill babies, mothers and families.  Then our frustrations even compel us to use torture.  And our passions cause us to rape a few teen-aged girls (remember, rape isn’t love; it’s power).  Finally, we fall into a kind of self-loathing, and, sick of ourselves, we leave in defeat.  It's happened in every last one of those conflicts.  No purpose...no plan.

Didge wrote:There was no great depression in 2008 and even to equate to the one in 1929 is farcical.

You are trying to rewrite history.  In October 2008 we were on the brink of a second Great Depression.  See, Wall Street Journal, “Bernanke: 2008 Meltdown Was Worse Than Great Depression.”  (August 28, 2014).  http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/08/26/2008-meltdown-was-worse-than-great-depression-bernanke-says/  It was caused by the Republican fiscal irresponsibility and the endless war in Iraq, which eventually cost $18-trillion.

Didge wrote:He seems to fail to grasp wars are a necessity to stop those committing the most heinous crimes, that we do so to protect the well being of people unjustly attacked and brutalized by a group or nation. I mean can you imagine his philosophy with WW2, how he would have gladly sat back and watched millions perish all becuase he holds a racial view only to look out for Americans? That is why I do not take him seriously when it comes to understanding what is a natural and rational threat to the well being of people.

WWII was not a fly swatting contest.  We had an actual enemy, with an actual plan, and both sides had equal resources—aircraft, canons, tanks, ships, guns, knives, and grenades.  

With ISIS, by contrast, we have essentially civilians, who are driving pickup trucks and firing pea-shooters.  And we are raining down upon them and their families, and their homes, and houses of worship, and on their hospitals, schools and nurseries, huge, bunker-busting bombs.  And yes, we are once again killing babies…soon we will be raping their daughters, and torturing them, motivated by all the self-loathing that Richard Cheney can muster.

Seeger wrote:Where have all the flowers gone, long time passing,
Where have all the flowers gone, long time ago,
Young girls pick them everyone,
When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn?
--Pete Seeger

Never read so much drivel in all my life and why it is not even worth entertaining.

Top claim we have no purpose when the lives of people are under threat just sums up why you are in some fantasy world.

Again the US needs to continue its bombing campaign, which at least now you admit the US is actually at war with ISIS, as is the majority of the world, if you may want to open your eyes and actually see the coalition of forces.

Second America has had plans and so effective was the plan it halted the advances of China and North Korea in the Korean war, started by the aggressors in North Korea itself. There is nothing worse than regressives lefties who insult those who feel defending South Korea from naked aggression of which the South Koreans are grateful for.

You need to understand that sadly civillians are casulties of war, but pale into comparrison how many would have been killed without the intervention of the US and other nations like Britain in the Korean and Bosnian conflicts. This is why the regressives fail to look at the possible consequences of what would have happened without intervention. In Bosnia  we have seen the attrocities carried out which would have continued to the point of the ethnic cleansing of countless different people. So continue to stick your head in the sand, sadly yes civillians are a casulties of war, but far more would have died without intervention.

No I am fundementally telling you the 2008 collaspe of the markets was in no way nothing like the great depression of 1929, which saw millions of americans desperate to just get food daily, which the 2008 crash never had anywhere near or like this when it happened in the UK. So for again the regressive lefties to claim that it is just proves how they blow anything way out of proportion and why more and more people listen less and less to their gibberish.

In Nazi Germany people were suffering appalling condditions just as they are under ISIS, it does not matter how well armed a group is but of those suffering under that oppression. Again you use a racist view only to help Americans, which is flawed, as if you use the reasoning to help someone 100 meters down the road the same applies 1000 miles down the raod, as we are all humans.

Now stop wasting my time Quill, you are not even worthy of a debate anymore with the nonsense you come out with

Didge wrote:Never read so much drivel in all my life and why it is not even worth entertaining.

You’re wasting time…and my patience.  Get to the point.

Didge wrote:Top claim we have no purpose when the lives of people are under threat just sums up why you are in some fantasy world.

Yet, you have nothing to offer still.  You just want to blow shit up, kill babies and rape daughters.

Didge wrote:Again the US needs to continue its bombing campaign, which at least now you admit the US is actually at war with ISIS, as is the majority of the world, if you may want to open your eyes and actually see the coalition of forces.

Why?

Didge wrote:Second America has had plans and so effective was the plan it halted the advances of China and North Korea in the Korean war, started by the aggressors in North Korea itself. There is nothing worse than regressives lefties who insult those who feel defending South Korea from naked aggression of which the South Koreans are grateful for.

So you are at least admitting it was a reactionary response, not a designed plan. Still, you’re resorting to the same speculative nonsense that led to the Korean War in the first place.  We created South Korea and the Soviets and China created North Korea.  All we managed to do was kill a few soldiers and lots of babies.

Didge wrote:You need to understand that sadly civillians are casulties of war, but pale into comparrison how many would have been killed without the intervention of the US and other nations like Britain in the Korean and Bosnian conflicts. This is why the regressives fail to look at the possible consequences of what would have happened without intervention.

Are you listening to yourself, Dr. Strangelove?  

Didge wrote:No I am fundementally telling you the 2008 collaspe of the markets was in no way nothing like the great depression of 1929, which saw millions of americans desperate to just get food daily, which the 2008 crash never had anywhere near or like this when it happened in the UK. So for again the regressive lefties to claim that it is just proves how they blow anything way out of proportion and why more and more people listen less and less to their gibberish.

I’m afraid I must repeat: you are wrong in your assessment of the economic crisis of October 2008.  Of the 13 major banking institutions in America, 12 of them were facing bankruptcy.  Unemployment was hovering around 10% (it’s below 5% now).  According to former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, the economy was in “free fall”.  In particular, America’s largest banking institution, AIG, would have brought the whole edifice down in a pile of rubble.  As Mr. Bernanke said:  “AIG’s demise would be a catastrophe” and “could have resulted in a 1930s-style global financial and economic meltdown, with catastrophic implications for production, income, and jobs.”  We flew into a meteor shower; just because the rock missed us doesn't mean the danger wasn't real.

Didge wrote:In Nazi Germany people were suffering appalling condditions just as they are under ISIS, it does not matter how well armed a group is but of those suffering under that oppression. Again you use a racist view only to help Americans, which is flawed, as if you use the reasoning to help someone 100 meters down the road the same applies 1000 miles down the raod, as we are all humans.

Now stop wasting my time Quill, you are not even worthy of a debate anymore with the nonsense you come out with

There is no comparison between Nazi Germany and ISIS.  One was driving around in Panther II tanks, the other is driving 20-year old Chevy pickups.  It does matter “how well armed a group is” because that is what justifies the use of force, and to what degree.  Think, FGS!  You are trying to argue the use of a sledge hammer to swat a fly.  The only thing that will get you is a reputation as a bully.

America is not a race; it is a nation.  These are geo-political arguments, not racial dialogues.  Your loose, untethered thinking is what leads you astray.  You are caught between disciplined reasoning and wanting to lash out; that motive causes you to lose touch with sound thinking and good argument.

So you only answered with the repeated claim that the 2008 recession was like the great depression, even though it is not referred to as the second great depression, but the 2008 recession. Which again did not see any of the levels of unemployment and people daily linning up for food as did happened in the 1929 great depression. So you will forgive me if I just laugh at that absurdity.

The only other point you addressed was ISIS, which is systematically enslaving people, of which the Nazi's did, is raping women, of which the Nazi's did, is committing genocide, of which the Nazi's did, I could go on the list of abuses to humans is very much the same, except on different scales. Germany had control of hundreds of millions of people, luckily ISIS have control of only around 7-8 million, as there would be no doubt if they controlled hundreds of millions we would be looking at genocide on an industrial scale as seen under Nazi germany. There is little to know what extent of how many people they have butchered as of yet and the clock is continuing to tick on this.

Again comparing German military hardware to ISIS and what they have is of utterly no siginificance, where what is of significance is that they hold around 8 million people the majority of which under subjucation and terror.  So again comparing Military arms is on no importance, what is though is utterly defeating them.

You are using a racial argumwent to help your own, as no group of people is biologically a seperate race, but you only want to help people in your country, which is again essentially selfish and born from a racial reasoning. Again if the view is to help someone 100 meters down the road, there is then no reason to not help someone 2000 miles down the road if you can indeed help them.