kapkomet

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 09:25 PM) The same thing applies in Iran too. By the way if the "larger cause" you're referring to is the expansion of Islam then the overt destruction of Israel wouldn't really help. They wouldn't really need to, all they'd have to do is wait a couple of generations for the Palestinians to out-populate the Israelis. Cause that's worked well since the 1960's and 70's. It has nothing to do with population. The palestinians will not take over that land, ever. Now, with that said, if they get some help, they will - but no one really wants to help them. They want the instability so that they can keep perpetuating the "Isreal is SO oppressive" line. Look, I know that this is your business and all, but Iran as a nation-state used to matter, but as they've gotten more tied into the fanaticism of the religious side, you can throw some of the so-called predictibility out the window.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 09:23 PM) There's a rope the FBI tries to walk that's pretty delicate, if they're aware someone is in a terrorist cell they won't go and arrest him right away. There isn't much value in that. They'll wait, see what he's doing, see who he talks to and basically give him as much rope as possible to hang himself with without allowing anything to happen. Then you can either take down his buddies or start watching them too. The more you have the easier you can prosecute them and the worse their sentence will be. I think it's pretty amazing that the FBI has been basically batting 1.000 on this sort of thing and they haven't missed a beat since the administration changed. Knock on wood. I guess the authorities were posing as "terrorists" trying to talk him out of doing his thing - they then delivered the intert explosives, gave him the cell phone to detonate, and he hit the send button. It's a damn good thing they got to him before the bad guys did or we'd have a few hundred or a thousand people dead today.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 09:13 PM) Them and basically all the Arab countries for the past 50-60 years. It doesn't count for much of anything. If the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was settled and they were still talking the same game then I'd be worried. Now, not so much. The arab world doesn't give a rats ass about the Palestinians. They're pawns to perpetuate the larger cause.

It cracks me up that everyone thinks that Iran is so "innocent" here. They just want to be a power broker in the Middle East. Right.

And the FBI busted up a plot to blow up a Dallas skyskraper today. The agents actually gave the guy intert explosives, he parked the SUV in an underground parking garage, called a number to denonate the explosives, and was arrested when he hit "send". That is just a little too damn close.

Yes. And John Paul Stevens. They are both going in the next year.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 08:50 PM) don't forget general welfare, kap. That's the bastardization. General welfare was never intended to have the government do everything for us.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 07:55 PM) What is a "society" if it isn't "collectivist" to some degree? I understand that. But to bastardize it and have the government take over damn near everything under the sun is not what the founders had in mind for our country. In fact, the concern was that the Constitution as written was too heavy, hence the bill of rights being introduced. The Federalist papers are a pretty good clue that they wanted to decentralize government as much as possible. I also understand that times change (hence the collection of income taxes as per constitutional amendment) but conservatives tend to want to go back to the constitution as intended, not a bastardization of utopia and huge "redistribution of wealth" schemes. The 14th amendment has been the most bastardized part of the constitution, and it's being interpreted no where near its intent. A common defense, a certain amount of regulation to not allow total anarchy, state rights to commerce and govern as they see fit - we are getting further and further away from this as more and more gets taken over by a more and more centralized government.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 07:46 PM) Seriously that is like me saying liberals want to take from the hardworking people in the country so that they can give to the lazy. In other words it is a load of crap. True conservative dogma basically is allowing individuals to make individual decisions, with as little interferences as possible. Conservative ideology goes back to the declaration of independence - you know, the one that wants rights for the individual that the government of England (yes, the monarchy) was trying to take away from the colonists. It is about the individual - not a collectivist society and an "equalization of wealth" (aka an utopia that provides everything for the individual) which is the direction we are heading on now.

It would mean a hell of a lot of money flowing in for infastructure. But I guess that's "bad"... with that said corruption of the flow money would be rampant.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 06:04 PM) Where do people get these kinds of ideas? (rhetorical question, I know the answer) This is from a facebook chat I had earlier. This is what happens when you listen to too much talk radio, he honestly believes that all liberals are disgusting pieces of s***, and since he has observed that I'm not one, that I can't possibly be a liberal. You're more "conservative" then you allow yourself to admit. But the guy's a moron to say what he said.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 05:24 PM) Meh, totally uninteresting discussion. Anything that requires a reference to the Holy Book of Partisan Grievances is a waste of time. Then butt out. It's a dumb conversation, yet, the ignorance of the "other side's" viewpoint is simply amazing to me.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 04:54 PM) Are you tired of right-wing extremists being called right-wing extremists? I mean, we could call them "extremists" but they are distinctly different from left-wing extremists. btw... I look at this stuff every day at work, and I did before the election, stuff the public will never see. Barack Obama being POTUS is absolutely a factor. The point of the thread was that people seem to be conveniently forgetting that there are extremeists on both sides... and are awful quick to point out how the "media factor of the right wing" (up to and including a representative in the House) is perpetuating a bunch of "madness" - well, as SS pointed out, that "extremeism" on the flip side is now sitting in the White House, if liberals want to keep equivalizing it. And it is a factor. On both sides. Bigsqwert and I on the conservative vs. liberal thing is just a side show.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 04:39 PM) Those are just a few examples. I'll give you more when I have time. Well, ok. And I'll seriously try to leave the snark at the door, if you do.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 04:32 PM) My father is conservative. I know what he thinks. Lower taxes so that YOU can have more money. Screw poor people. They're just lazy. In fact, screw everyone. It's all about amassing as much wealth for yourself as possible. Screw the environment if it doesn't help YOU somehow...preferably financially. You have to have a clue of a bigger picture if you think that's a total conservative mentality. Yet, it's "selfless" to continue to push a liberal viewpoint on everyone else? Oh, and since you're so selfless, why don't you just hand me your paycheck? I'm lazy and don't feel like working.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 04:31 PM) There was nowhere near the violence. From your perspective, because you want it to be that way in your lens of the world. That way, ultra right wingers are kooks that demonstrate unstability that you want to see. Kooks know no bias, they're just f***tards. But, people want to equate kooks with "right wing" because somehow it builds this morality that liberal thinking is "better". On the flipside, you can reverse the words in my last sentance above - but you all don't want to admit that because it might make your ever changing view or "morality" incorrect.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 04:21 PM) If only it weren't inherently true. And that goes along exactly with the equivalancy bulls*** that's inherent throughout this thread. You have NO CLUE what a conservative thinks if you think they're "selfish" compared to a liberal's "selfless", so you're talking out of your ass.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 04:15 PM) The general framework of Liberalism vs Conservatism is selflessness vs selfishness. That is the most pathetic quote I have ever read.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 04:11 PM) I want to know why a god damn equivalency needs to be drawn for everything and people can't just talk about things like they are. Hence, this thread is trash. Because liberals don't want to have a (MORAL) equivalancy, because that makes everything they do "right".

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 04:02 PM) I was mocking, rolling my eyes, and generally reacting with annoyance and/or disgust. Sure you were.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 04:02 PM) Did Rev. Wright have a national TV show and radio show or a seat in the Congress? Did anyone outside of a handful of people on the south side know about his crazy rantings? Our current president did.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 03:42 PM) and by the way, unless this dude was decomposing for 8 months, it was not well before any of the things we mentioned. No, but his killer's brains were. And I think that's more the point I'm trying to say - well before the correlation of Beck and Baughmann.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 02:38 PM) For s***s and giggles I wonder if someone can tell me what the political views/goals of far right extremists are. (disclaimer: in no way am I trying to link conservatives to far right extremists so don't try to act like I'm going there). No, you're not, but there's some people in here that are.

QUOTE (bmags @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 02:25 PM) when I write "It doesn't mean I want to throw them in jail for hate speech. But the voices who cry out against these lunatics should not be seen as illegitimate if stuff like this turns out to be true." Meaning, people should start paying attention and give legitimacy to the voices saying bachmann/beck are saying dangerous things, and you infer that what I'm saying that they should go on trial for this...that means you shouldn't infer things anymore. QUOTE (lostfan @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 02:25 PM) i find it funny that bmags is going out of his way to unambiguously say that he thinks the murderer acted on his own account but he is still being accused of trying to subtly imply that Beck and Bachmann are responsible for it. Exactly.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 24, 2009 -> 02:23 PM) At some point isn't there a moral responsibility for those that antagonize people that are easily manipulated? I guess we should all get Lewinskys, then.