2
   

Was It Americas Fault

 
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 10:49 am
And they are for lower taxes, smaller government, individual responsibility and fiscal responsibility.

Joe(Ask any mullah)Nation
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 10:49 am
They may be Islamic conservatives, but beyond trying to make a comparison to American conservatives to try to slam the few people here that disagree with the liberal agenda, what bearing does that have on anything?

They are anti-abortion. Good for them! Even terrorists see the abortion of babies as a bad thing. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to stop them from killing more innocent people.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 10:53 am
McGentrix wrote:
Don't know too many terrorists that are for lower taxes, smaller government, individual responsibility, fiscal responsibility or supports civil equality.

I don't know many conservatives who are either.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 10:54 am
joefromchicago wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Don't know too many terrorists that are for lower taxes, smaller government, individual responsibility, fiscal responsibility or supports civil equality.

I don't know many conservatives who are either.


Hi, I am McGentrix. Good to meet you. I am a conservative and I am for all the things mentioned above.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 10:56 am
McGentrix wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Don't know too many terrorists that are for lower taxes, smaller government, individual responsibility, fiscal responsibility or supports civil equality.

I don't know many conservatives who are either.


Hi, I am McGentrix. Good to meet you. I am a conservative and I am for all the things mentioned above.

Did you vote for Bush?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 10:58 am
joefromchicago wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Don't know too many terrorists that are for lower taxes, smaller government, individual responsibility, fiscal responsibility or supports civil equality.

I don't know many conservatives who are either.


Hi, I am McGentrix. Good to meet you. I am a conservative and I am for all the things mentioned above.

Did you vote for Bush?


Yep, and I would do it again if he ran against Kerry or Gore.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 10:58 am
See, just like the Iraq war and War on Terror, Joe, McG is only for those things as long as he doesn't actually have to take any personal action to make them happen.

So he can vote for Bush and STILL be for the things you mentioned. It's a central tenet of membership for the 101st Keyboard Kommandos.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 11:04 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
See, just like the Iraq war and War on Terror, Joe, McG is only for those things as long as he doesn't actually have to take any personal action to make them happen.

So he can vote for Bush and STILL be for the things you mentioned. It's a central tenet of membership for the 101st Keyboard Kommandos.

Cycloptichorn


Rolling Eyes

The general maturity of the lefties here. Way to make a good example Cyc.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 11:04 am
My main beef with both the US Conservatives and the terrorists is that they justify violence and torture. I only mentioned the social issues because okie brought it up (and I thought it ironic), but they are a side issue to this conversation.

The problem with conservatives and terrorists is that they always come up with excuses about why their use of violence and torture is necessary and justified even as the condemn the other guys use of the same.

Liberals think that violence should only be used as a last resort and that torture should never be used. We believe that you should use diplomacy first... even with people that the conservatives are classifying as "enemy" is the hope of finding a solution that doesn't involve the deaths of civilians.

Of course this doesn't mean accepting terrorism or torture or helicopters firing in civilian areas for that matter. It does mean talking to people in the region who may hold to the other perspective (in this case that society in the Middle East should be Islamic) but haven't turned to terrorism.

The conservatives in the US refuse to let the moderates talk to the moderates in the Middle East because every time we try, they accuse us of helping the "enemy". The conservatives in the Islamic world refuse to let the Islamic moderates talk to use for the same reason.

I am primarily against the barbaric cycle of violence that the conservatives (both the "terrorists" and the US coservatives") continue to use each other to justify.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 11:05 am
McGentrix wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
See, just like the Iraq war and War on Terror, Joe, McG is only for those things as long as he doesn't actually have to take any personal action to make them happen.

So he can vote for Bush and STILL be for the things you mentioned. It's a central tenet of membership for the 101st Keyboard Kommandos.

Cycloptichorn


Rolling Eyes

The general maturity of the lefties here. Way to make a good example Cyc.


Not that you have a specific answer to anything that I said; you just roll your eyes and act as if the contradictions between your stated positions and actions mean nothing.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 11:09 am
McGentrix wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Don't know too many terrorists that are for lower taxes, smaller government, individual responsibility, fiscal responsibility or supports civil equality.

I don't know many conservatives who are either.


Hi, I am McGentrix. Good to meet you. I am a conservative and I am for all the things mentioned above.

Did you vote for Bush?


Yep, and I would do it again if he ran against Kerry or Gore.

Then you're not in favor of lower taxes, smaller government, individual responsibility, fiscal responsibility, or support civil equality.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 11:13 am
ebrown_p wrote:
My main beef with both the US Conservatives and the terrorists is that they justify violence and torture. I only mentioned the social issues because okie brought it up (and I thought it ironic), but they are a side issue to this conversation.

The problem with conservatives and terrorists is that they always come up with excuses about why their use of violence and torture is necessary and justified even as the condemn the other guys use of the same.

Liberals think that violence should only be used as a last resort and that torture should never be used. We believe that you should use diplomacy first... even with people that the conservatives are classifying as "enemy" is the hope of finding a solution that doesn't involve the deaths of civilians.

Of course this doesn't mean accepting terrorism or torture or helicopters firing in civilian areas for that matter. It does mean talking to people in the region who may hold to the other perspective (in this case that society in the Middle East should be Islamic) but haven't turned to terrorism.

The conservatives in the US refuse to let the moderates talk to the moderates in the Middle East because every time we try, they accuse us of helping the "enemy". The conservatives in the Islamic world refuse to let the Islamic moderates talk to use for the same reason.

I am primarily against the barbaric cycle of violence that the conservatives (both the "terrorists" and the US coservatives") continue to use each other to justify.


You keep saying this tripe and I think you believe it.

Terrorists torture people to instill terror in others. The US does not torture anyone, but reserves the right to under dire circumstances to use methods that could qualify as torture under international law. Not the same techniques the terrorists use though. Drilling random holes with drills, using cigarettes to burn them, cutting off digits and appendages, poking out eyeballs, etc. Instead we use stress positions and create mental stress with loud music. Yet, in your mind, these are somehow equivalent.

Terrorists use car bombs and suicide bombers to target and kill as many civilians and innocent people as possible. The us uses smart bombs and tries as hard as possible to keep collateral damage to a minimum. Yet, to you , there is no difference.

We use violence to stop terrorists and enemies of freedom from killing people. They use violence as a tool to make people bow to their political whims. Yet, to you, there is no difference.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 11:16 am
joefromchicago wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Don't know too many terrorists that are for lower taxes, smaller government, individual responsibility, fiscal responsibility or supports civil equality.

I don't know many conservatives who are either.


Hi, I am McGentrix. Good to meet you. I am a conservative and I am for all the things mentioned above.

Did you vote for Bush?


Yep, and I would do it again if he ran against Kerry or Gore.

Then you're not in favor of lower taxes, smaller government, individual responsibility, fiscal responsibility, or support civil equality.


Right, because I didn't vote for a Democrat, naturally I must not be for the things I am for. That's the stupidest thing I've heard from you Joe.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 11:17 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
See, just like the Iraq war and War on Terror, Joe, McG is only for those things as long as he doesn't actually have to take any personal action to make them happen.

So he can vote for Bush and STILL be for the things you mentioned. It's a central tenet of membership for the 101st Keyboard Kommandos.

Cycloptichorn


Rolling Eyes

The general maturity of the lefties here. Way to make a good example Cyc.


Not that you have a specific answer to anything that I said; you just roll your eyes and act as if the contradictions between your stated positions and actions mean nothing.

Cycloptichorn


Say something worth responding to instead of the stupid crap you did and I wouldn't have to roll my eyes. Your post was nothing more then an attack on me personally and those you disagree with.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 11:19 am
McGentrix wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Don't know too many terrorists that are for lower taxes, smaller government, individual responsibility, fiscal responsibility or supports civil equality.

I don't know many conservatives who are either.


Hi, I am McGentrix. Good to meet you. I am a conservative and I am for all the things mentioned above.

Did you vote for Bush?


Yep, and I would do it again if he ran against Kerry or Gore.

Then you're not in favor of lower taxes, smaller government, individual responsibility, fiscal responsibility, or support civil equality.


Right, because I didn't vote for a Democrat, naturally I must not be for the things I am for. That's the stupidest thing I've heard from you Joe.

No, you're not for the things that you purport to be for because you vote for people who act contrary to your purported interests. That doesn't mean that you have to vote for Democrats (hell, you should probably be voting for Libertarians). It just means that you can't reconcile your support for those issues with your support for Bush.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 11:24 am
McGentrix wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
See, just like the Iraq war and War on Terror, Joe, McG is only for those things as long as he doesn't actually have to take any personal action to make them happen.

So he can vote for Bush and STILL be for the things you mentioned. It's a central tenet of membership for the 101st Keyboard Kommandos.

Cycloptichorn


Rolling Eyes

The general maturity of the lefties here. Way to make a good example Cyc.


Not that you have a specific answer to anything that I said; you just roll your eyes and act as if the contradictions between your stated positions and actions mean nothing.

Cycloptichorn


Say something worth responding to instead of the stupid crap you did and I wouldn't have to roll my eyes. Your post was nothing more then an attack on me personally and those you disagree with.


It's a valid point. As Joe said, you say that you are for certain things, but you don't do anything to support them (you don't fight in the WoT OR vote for those who uphold your interests). How can this mean anything other than what I said - you support things in name only?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 11:27 am
joefromchicago wrote:
No, you're not for the things that you purport to be for because you vote for people who act contrary to your purported interests. That doesn't mean that you have to vote for Democrats (hell, you should probably be voting for Libertarians). It just means that you can't reconcile your support for those issues with your support for Bush.


That's BS Joe. Bush, despite my disagreements with how Congress has wasted my money, best represented far more of my interests then any other presidential candidate. Though I am for lower taxes, smaller government, individual responsibility, fiscal responsibility, supporting civil equality, I am also for anti-terrorism, pro-life, strong US presence in the world, free trade, globalization, and many other things.

Neither Kerry, nor Gore could have possibly represented my or my political agenda very well.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 11:32 am
Well guys you finally stung Mc G into more than his one line bs retorts. Good going!
0 Replies
 
LoneStarMadam
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 11:52 am
ebrown_p wrote:
My point is that the Islamic terrorists are conservatives (in the US meaning of the word).

Sure there are "leftist terrorists" who use violence (resulting in the deaths of civilians) to further their political ends. I oppose them.

I oppose every ideology that relies on violence (except as a last resort), rationalizes torture and prefers demonizing an entire group of people rather then using diplomacy and understanding to find peaceful solutions to problems.

Bush, Al Qaeda and Greek leftists. They are all dangerous criminals in my mind. We can argue about which one of these is worse (and I am not saying there aren't degrees of dangerous criminality)... but I will stand by this statement.

My point is you got caught....again.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Jan, 2007 11:59 am
Caught at what? Being right?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 12/21/2024 at 10:09:10