Liberalism is Not Conducive to Happiness

okie wrote:

Now I'm confused. I'm told terrorists are a trivial problem, just a hobgoblin trumped up by Bush. Now we learn they are multiplying faster than we can eliminate them. Which is it, according to the Democrats?

I am deeply troubled to see you confused, and hasten to relieve you: I am not a Democrat, so what I said about terrorism has nothing to do with how Democrats think about the issue.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I guess we are supposed to think like the Hollywood leftists,

and we love you too, baby. coochie-coo. give senator mccarthy my best wishes.

0 Replies

I strongly believe that Thomas is really a democrat and a Liberal - but as true as it is, it will confuse even more Laughing

0 Replies

Terrorists are the hobgoblin used to get us into an unneeded war in Iraq.

Terrorists exist. They did not exist as a threat from Iraq.

Because terrorists exist does not mean they live in Iraq. Because dust is in your room doesn't mean hobgoblins live in your closet.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

okie wrote:
Now I'm confused. I'm told terrorists are a trivial problem, just a hobgoblin trumped up by Bush. Now we learn they are multiplying faster than we can eliminate them. Which is it, according to the Democrats?

I am deeply troubled to see you confused, and hasten to relieve you: I am not a Democrat, so what I said about terrorism has nothing to do with how Democrats think about the issue.

My deepest apologies, Thomas. I actually knew you probably could not be classified as an American styled Democrat type of personality from your posts on global warming, but I had heard the same arguments from Democrats that terrorism is really something that we should just tolerate from now on, kind of like traffic accidents, so I used your post to make a point.

P.S. I just thought of another liberal hobgoblin, global warming, yes thats a perfect example. According to a book written by Al Gore, the internal combustion engine is the most serious threat to mankind. At least thats what many people have said. I've not read the book.

0 Replies

We will eliminate hunger before we eliminate terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic. It isn't a group of people. There will always be groups willing to resort to terrorism because of perceived wrongs. We can only attempt to reduce the number of reasons people turn to terrorism.

Since we can never eliminate terrorism, the goal should be to make it as minute as possible. That is what Thomas is saying. When the threat is small but people say it is large it is a hobgoblin.

Global warming exists but it is not the threat some people claim it is.
Terrorism exists but it is not the threat some people claim it is.

YOu can't call global warming a hobgoblin okie without recognizing the same thing about terrorism.

0 Replies

Your last sentences about Al Gore and the Internal Combustion engine are a great example of a Straw Man; my guess is that it stems from a site such as this:

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/gore.html

And you accuse the Dems of throwing around talking points...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Terrorism exists but it is not the threat some people claim it is.

I very much disagree with you for obvious reasons.

cycloptichorn wrote:

Your last sentences about Al Gore and the Internal Combustion engine are a great example of a Straw Man; my guess is that it stems from a site such as this:

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6315/gore.html

And you accuse the Dems of throwing around talking points...

No, not from that site. I've heard it for years on talk shows about Gore's book. Are you contending it isn't in his book?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

parados wrote:
Terrorism exists but it is not the threat some people claim it is.

I very much disagree with you for obvious reasons.

The obvious reason is you are scared by hobgoblins.

0 Replies

I am beginning to believe "common sense" is not all that common anymore.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I am beginning to believe "common sense" is not all that common anymore.

So, okie.. simple question -

Are we safer from terrorism today than we were in 2000?

0 Replies

Better question -

Are we more aware of the possibility of a terrorist attack now than we were in 2000?

or

Are we doing more to stop future terror attacks now than we were in 2000?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

okie wrote:
I am beginning to believe "common sense" is not all that common anymore.

So, okie.. simple question -

Are we safer from terrorism today than we were in 2000?

I am not going to repeat what some may say. No, I do not know for sure that we are safer than we were before 911. Obviously we were not as safe as we thought we were then. However, I believe we are just as safe, and possibly safer now than we would have been now if we had not waged war against the Taliban and taken Hussein out of power. I believe additional terrorist attacks will happen in some form at some point, until the tide is turned, and I cannot know at what point that will occur. I believe additional attacks may have even happened already if we had done nothing.

This is not to say that I agree that everything has been done that could be done. I think we need much more action with border security. I am not happy with the status of things in that arena.

I definitely agree with McGentrix that we are doing more now to prevent terrorist attacks than we were before 911. Clintons method of ignoring the problem so it would go away obviously did not work, and history has shown such a tactic seldom or never works.

0 Replies

Under Clinton there was one attack by Muslim extremists on US soil. The idea that somehow he was much worse at security isn't born out by the facts. Your prediction that we will get hit again doesn't support your contention that we are doing more now. It is in direct conflict with it.

We are safer but we are not safer is what you are saying. No wonder you believe in hobgoblins.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

We will eliminate hunger before we eliminate terrorism. Terrorism is a tactic. It isn't a group of people. There will always be groups willing to resort to terrorism because of perceived wrongs. We can only attempt to reduce the number of reasons people turn to terrorism.

Since we can never eliminate terrorism, the goal should be to make it as minute as possible. That is what Thomas is saying. When the threat is small but people say it is large it is a hobgoblin.

Global warming exists but it is not the threat some people claim it is.
Terrorism exists but it is not the threat some people claim it is.

YOu can't call global warming a hobgoblin okie without recognizing the same thing about terrorism.

What gets me is that it's always the rubes who live in say, Bumfuck, Oklahoma or places like that who fear getting hit by terrorists. They have a better chance of an asteroid landing on their house.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I definitely agree with McGentrix that we are doing more now to prevent terrorist attacks than we were before 911. Clintons method of ignoring the problem so it would go away obviously did not work, and history has shown such a tactic seldom or never works.

You are living in a dream world my friend, when Cliton met with Bush ton help him transition, Clinton told him OBL was his biggest threat. Bush disagrred saying Iraq was the biggest probelm. You guys are simply not dealing with reality. What support Bush has left is coming not from supporters but cultists.

0 Replies

Roxxxanne wrote:

What gets me is that it's always the rubes who live in say, ****, Oklahoma or places like that who fear getting hit by terrorists. They have a better chance of an asteroid landing on their house.

jeez, tell me about it. downtown l.a. is over the hill and about 3 miles from my house as the crow flys. hollywood is about 5 miles to the west through the los feliz pass. not to mention that it's far more likely that the entire west coast could be on the receiving end of a big, nukey love kiss from l'il kim than most anywhere else in the u.s.

but somehow, my folks in east tennessee seem to think that they have the real grasp on terrorism.

0 Replies

From what some of you have said, apparently some of you only are concerned whether you personally are in danger, but some of us care when we watch New Yorkers die needlessly or Californians, or wherever it might be next. You are correct, many of us do not live in what we would consider high risk areas, but is it every man for himself now according to some of you?

By the way, if Clinton thought OBL was the biggest threat, how come he didn't accept his capture when Sudan offered him up, as Clinton indicated happened?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/6/29/123745.shtml

0 Replies

okie wrote:

From what some of you have said, apparently some of you only are concerned whether you personally are in danger, but some of us care when we watch New Yorkers die needlessly or Californians, or wherever it might be next. You are correct, many of us do not live in what we would consider high risk areas, but is it every man for himself now according to some of you?

By the way, if Clinton thought OBL was the biggest threat, how come he didn't accept his capture when Sudan offered him up, as Clinton indicated happened?

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/6/29/123745.shtml

that's not at all what i said, so don't misquote me.

this, however is not a misquote;

okie wrote:

I guess we are supposed to think like the Hollywood leftists,

you really voiced your love of californians there, buddy.

also, i know fox news loves to stir up the pot about the alleged clinton/sudan deal (with the able assistance of the discredited mansoor ijaz), however, even the republican chairman of the 9/11 commission said that

1) it was not until after the cole in october of 2000 that the intelligence was able to link bin laden to the incident.

2) previous to that time, there was no legal way to take bin laden into custody.

3) remember alla the fun hannity has with the "clinton bombed an aspirin factory" shtick ? ya know, usually right before he contradicts himself and claims clinton did nothing?

hmmmm, seems to me that maybe bush should have paid attention to ol' bill about obl. and maybe cheney should have made time in his busy schedule of iraq intel manipulation to, at least once, convene the anti-terrorist task force that he was put in charge of (by bush) in febuary of 2001.

see, you come across to me as one of the folks that likes playing the game. new england liberals and hollywood lefties. terrible people. ruining the country and our kids.

but when those liberal new yorkers take it in the neck, then all of a sudden your "one of them".

at least until the ink on the "remember 9/11" bumpersticker wears off. then it's back to the same old crap.

so no, it's not every man for himself. but don't pretend that you give a flyin' flip through a rollin' donut about us lefty hollywood types.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

... but some of us care when we watch New Yorkers die needlessly or Californians, or wherever it might be next. You are correct, many of us do not live in what we would consider high risk areas, but is it every man for himself now according to some of you?

Or New Orleans. Don't forget to mention New ....

No, wait. That was a natural catastrophe....

...

So, just why do these f*cking Dems think that we are somehow responsible if people can't be bothered to stay out of harm's way? This is no communist country, for heaven's sake. Accept the risk, or move to North Dakota, is what I'm saying!

0 Replies

Liberalism is Not Conducive to Happiness

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know