Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

 

2007-05-02 20:01:22
TrollmeaT
Aspiring Objectivist
+492|7121|Colorado
1. We need some sort of goal or plan to secure the boarders of Iraq from insurgency.
2. We need to instill in the Iraqi people a sense of pride in their nation , which I'm sure they already have , but polarize it into a sport like soccer or something & form leagues from every part of Iraq.
When Iraq was in the Olympics with their soccer team, all eyes were on the team , the 2 religious fractions were united in a common goal, and for the moment violence was curbed. Even though the team didn't appreciate bush trying to make them out as a bi-product of the post Saddam age, I think that misses the point.
3. We need Iraqi's to privately fund schools to educate the Iraqi people so that they know all the options & possibility's open to them, all so that tolerance may be taught for other peoples belief systems as long as it doesn't infringe upon or sacrifice them in the process.
4. We need their oil industry to ramp up & start providing Iraqis with their deserved dividends so that their quality of life can be improved. ie Saudi Arabia , Alaska.
5. Private land ownership, there can be no other rights without property rights.
6. Take responsibility for our actions & see this through to the end.
7. Reform our foreign policy & our government away from a mixed economy and towards a strictly laissez -faire one.

I have no idea what some of this would take admittedly as securing boarders isn't one of our strong suits. I really have no idea what state their oil industry is in or if they have a dividend system in place already. I'm not sure if you can buy land there or not.
In closing I'd like to say that many challenges await us in Iraq but I believe they all can be solved with time despite some of the mistakes made by our government. With what is at stake we cannot fail them, to do so would be a gross injustice to the world.
2007-05-02 20:29:49
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6977|Global Command

TrollmeaT wrote:

1. We need some sort of goal or plan to secure the boarders of Iraq from insurgency.
2. We need to instill in the Iraqi people a sense of pride in their nation , which I'm sure they already have , but polarize it into a sport like soccer or something & form leagues from every part of Iraq.
When Iraq was in the Olympics with their soccer team, all eyes were on the team , the 2 religious fractions were united in a common goal, and for the moment violence was curbed. Even though the team didn't appreciate bush trying to make them out as a bi-product of the post Saddam age, I think that misses the point.
3. We need Iraqi's to privately fund schools to educate the Iraqi people so that they know all the options & possibility's open to them, all so that tolerance may be taught for other peoples belief systems as long as it doesn't infringe upon or sacrifice them in the process.
4. We need their oil industry to ramp up & start providing Iraqis with their deserved dividends so that their quality of life can be improved. ie Saudi Arabia , Alaska.
5. Private land ownership, there can be no other rights without property rights.
6. Take responsibility for our actions & see this through to the end.
7. Reform our foreign policy & our government away from a mixed economy and towards a strictly laissez -faire one.

I have no idea what some of this would take admittedly as securing boarders isn't one of our strong suits. I really have no idea what state their oil industry is in or if they have a dividend system in place already. I'm not sure if you can buy land there or not.
In closing I'd like to say that many challenges await us in Iraq but I believe they all can be solved with time despite some of the mistakes made by our government. With what is at stake we cannot fail them, to do so would be a gross injustice to the world.
Cheers to Troll for best post of the thread.
2007-05-02 21:07:43
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7049|132 and Bush

ATG wrote:

TrollmeaT wrote:

1. We need some sort of goal or plan to secure the boarders of Iraq from insurgency.
2. We need to instill in the Iraqi people a sense of pride in their nation , which I'm sure they already have , but polarize it into a sport like soccer or something & form leagues from every part of Iraq.
When Iraq was in the Olympics with their soccer team, all eyes were on the team , the 2 religious fractions were united in a common goal, and for the moment violence was curbed. Even though the team didn't appreciate bush trying to make them out as a bi-product of the post Saddam age, I think that misses the point.
3. We need Iraqi's to privately fund schools to educate the Iraqi people so that they know all the options & possibility's open to them, all so that tolerance may be taught for other peoples belief systems as long as it doesn't infringe upon or sacrifice them in the process.
4. We need their oil industry to ramp up & start providing Iraqis with their deserved dividends so that their quality of life can be improved. ie Saudi Arabia , Alaska.
5. Private land ownership, there can be no other rights without property rights.
6. Take responsibility for our actions & see this through to the end.
7. Reform our foreign policy & our government away from a mixed economy and towards a strictly laissez -faire one.

I have no idea what some of this would take admittedly as securing boarders isn't one of our strong suits. I really have no idea what state their oil industry is in or if they have a dividend system in place already. I'm not sure if you can buy land there or not.
In closing I'd like to say that many challenges await us in Iraq but I believe they all can be solved with time despite some of the mistakes made by our government. With what is at stake we cannot fail them, to do so would be a gross injustice to the world.
Cheers to Troll for best post of the thread.
  • We can't secure our own border with Mexico. What makes us think we can stop the flow of insurgents from Iran, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, and Turkey?
  •   How can a foreigner instill personal pride? Isn't that something that is earned from within?
  •   1500 years has not yielded tolerance among the fundamentalist. If there is to be a chance it will only be from the hearts of the moderates.
  • The problem with Iraq and oil is getting foreign investors to invest into the instability. The Iraqi government still hasn't worked out plans on how to handle/legislate their oil industry.
  • Agreed
  • Define end
  • The US is due for a Diplomatic revolution. We need a more inclusive foreign policy while maintaining our military might. Economically the government of the US is realizing that unfair trade will hurt us in the long run. I predict some serious changes soon. Not as attempt to be "fair", but rather to prevent economic isolationism.


I'm not trying to sound like the pessimist but we know all these things need to happen. It is great to have a plan. However, the trouble is finding the best route to achieve your goals. Management 101.

I'm going back to watch my movie (The Last King of Scotland). I will return later to sound like the asshole again.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-05-03 01:10:52
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|7003

Kmarion wrote:

  • We can't secure our own border with Mexico. What makes us think we can stop the flow of insurgents from Iran, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, and Turkey?
  •   How can a foreigner instill personal pride? Isn't that something that is earned from within?
  •   1500 years has not yielded tolerance among the fundamentalist. If there is to be a chance it will only be from the hearts of the moderates.
  • The problem with Iraq and oil is getting foreign investors to invest into the instability. The Iraqi government still hasn't worked out plans on how to handle/legislate their oil industry.
  • Agreed
  • Define end
  • The US is due for a Diplomatic revolution. We need a more inclusive foreign policy while maintaining our military might. Economically the government of the US is realizing that unfair trade will hurt us in the long run. I predict some serious changes soon. Not as attempt to be "fair", but rather to prevent economic isolationism.


I'm not trying to sound like the pessimist but we know all these things need to happen. It is great to have a plan. However, the trouble is finding the best route to achieve your goals. Management 101.

I'm going back to watch my movie (The Last King of Scotland). I will return later to sound like the asshole again.
One of your best posts yet. Realism from a right winger. If I hadn't +1'd you earlier I'd +1 you again. Trollmeat's points 2 & 3 are particularly short-sighted.
2007-05-03 09:49:28
GATOR591957
Member
+84|7075

ATG wrote:

The situation is bad, but not comparable to government thugs tying peoples hands behind thier backs and bashing their heads in.

Those things and worse are happening, but it isn't U.S. troops that have done it, it is largely Shia/Sunni violence.

Call me a fool, but I do believe in a global responsibility to intervene in sisuations where people are killing themselves. Darfur for example.
The international community should step in even if that means redrawing borders and relocating people.
Airstrikes even.
My point is it continues to happen, even with our troops in country. 

We intervened into a country that was under control.  Not what we'd like to see, however, it was not our country and we did not have the "blessing" of the rest of the world to do it.  There is a reason for checks and balances, when one country continues to think it knows what's best for everyone (Bush) this is what happens.  The US is not responsible for this travesty.  George Bush and company are.  From the doctored reasons for proceeding into Iraq, to the contractor corruption still going on in Iraq.  Bush and family have enough oil money to pay for all or part of Iraq's reconstruction.  You know the saying, "you break it, you pay for it."
2007-05-03 10:01:17
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6977|Global Command

CameronPoe wrote:

I'm an isolationist ATG - as an Irishman who identifies with those dealing with interference and supposed 'do-gooding' - you'll never persuade me to intervene directly in a culturally alien region of the world far from my own doorstep.
I submit that isolationalism is not consistant with being a caring compasion slinging liberal.
2007-05-03 10:04:31
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|7097

ATG wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

I'm an isolationist ATG - as an Irishman who identifies with those dealing with interference and supposed 'do-gooding' - you'll never persuade me to intervene directly in a culturally alien region of the world far from my own doorstep.
I submit that isolationalism is not consistant with being a caring compasion slinging liberal.
Well, then I guess he's not one...

ATG, people's actions decide their label, not the other way around.
2007-05-03 10:14:36
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7049|132 and Bush

ghettoperson wrote:

ATG wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

I'm an isolationist ATG - as an Irishman who identifies with those dealing with interference and supposed 'do-gooding' - you'll never persuade me to intervene directly in a culturally alien region of the world far from my own doorstep.
I submit that isolationalism is not consistant with being a caring compasion slinging liberal.
Well, then I guess he's not one...

ATG, people's actions decide their label, not the other way around.
Or as ATG is trying to illustrate their inaction can dictate the label. (Insert middle ground here)

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." -Edmund Burke an Irish political philosopher
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-05-03 18:31:47
Reciprocity
Member
+721|7029|the dank(super) side of Oregon

ATG wrote:

I submit that isolationalism is not consistant with being a caring compasion slinging liberal.
As far as spreading democracy like it's our responsibility, I'm an isolationist.  I do not think it is our job to deliver democracy at the end of a gun, mostly because it doesn't work.  Unilaterally, it is especially difficult.
I'm all for helping people, but long term effects must be considered.  Removing Saddam Hussein was unarguably a good short term solution, but we all know what has happened since the mission was accomplished.  Helping the people in Darfur would be great.  It would be very satisfying to stomp on the Sudanese government, and especially the janjaweed.  But we must also consider what the long term outcome could possibly be.  How would neighboring states react?  What do these refugees want as far as goverment, foreign relations, religious interactions, etc?
2007-05-03 18:47:35
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6853|North Carolina

ATG wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

I'm an isolationist ATG - as an Irishman who identifies with those dealing with interference and supposed 'do-gooding' - you'll never persuade me to intervene directly in a culturally alien region of the world far from my own doorstep.
I submit that isolationalism is not consistant with being a caring compasion slinging liberal.
It's a very valid point.

By the same token, the massive spending that Iraq involves contradicts this "small government" idea that conservatives pretend to believe in.

You see, like Cam, I'm an isolationist, not a liberal or a conservative.  I sincerely believe that many of these conflicts are better off without our interference.  Democracy is a pipe dream among cultures that do not value individuality to the extent that we do.  Theocracy is better suited for most of the Islamic World.

I'm not sure where Cam fits into the economic or social issues pictures, but personally, I believe in aiding the less fortunate in America, not in other countries.  Foreign aid should be the province of charities.

By the same token, I'm antiwar, because war is one of the most expensive things the government can engage in, which certainly contradicts any true ideals of smaller government.
2007-05-03 19:00:01
jonsimon
Member
+224|6943
ATG talks about the Dem's being self-congratulatory? Ahem, "Mission Acomplished"?
2007-05-03 23:16:38
TrollmeaT
Aspiring Objectivist
+492|7121|Colorado
  • We can't secure our own border with Mexico. What makes us think we can stop the flow of insurgents from Iran, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, and Turkey?I have no idea what some of this would take admittedly as securing boarders isn't one of our strong suits. From my original post, but I would say the roads are the first priority, then maybe motion detection for the rest of the boarder that strike teams can be sent to in a few minutes.
  •   How can a foreigner instill personal pride? Isn't that something that is earned from within?By showing them what soccer did for them & encourage it, have them set up a league that each province can have represenitives.
  •   1500 years has not yielded tolerance among the fundamentalist. If there is to be a chance it will only be from the hearts of the moderates.That's because they have lacked the proper education.
  • The problem with Iraq and oil is getting foreign investors to invest into the instability. The Iraqi government still hasn't worked out plans on how to handle/legislate their oil industry.Which is why they need to light a fire under their asses, it's lost revenue that could be securing their nation.
  • AgreedCool
  • Define endUntil the only presence we need there is an embassy
  • The US is due for a Diplomatic revolution. We need a more inclusive foreign policy while maintaining our military might. Economically the government of the US is realizing that unfair trade will hurt us in the long run. I predict some serious changes soon. Not as attempt to be "fair", but rather to prevent economic isolationism.Yes, we need to have a separation of state & economics.


I'm going back to watch my movie (The Last King of Scotland). I will return later to sound like the asshole again.
Great movie! hope you enjoy it.

Last edited by TrollmeaT (2007-05-04 00:09:52)

2007-05-03 23:17:48
Sanjaya
Banned
+40|6675

jonsimon wrote:

ATG talks about the Dem's being self-congratulatory? Ahem, "Mission Acomplished"?
Thanks jon, maybe he'll listen to you.
2007-05-04 05:27:43
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7289|Cologne, Germany

Lord knows where America got the idea from, that it must help other nations to freedom and democracy.

I believe history has shown that values such as freedom and democracy ( or F&D ) cannot be forced upon people. They need to develop from within, over a longer period than just a couple of years. Only if the Iraqui people want F&D there is a chance it can prosper.

I believe the US has done enough. You removed Saddam ( under false reasons, but what the hell, you put him in his place, you might just as well remove him ), and gave Iraquis the first free democratic elections in a long time. Well done, I say, you have given Iraquis a chance at democracy. But now it is up to them to take that chance.

They have a government, they have an army, they have police forces. Let them sort their country out. It may be difficult, it may take a long time, it may eventually even fail. But it is the only way it can ever succede. From within.

Iraq is a run-down country. I am sure, if it has ever presented a threat to the national security of the US, that threat has been eliminated in the years of the conflict.

Fly home, and let the healing begin. You might want to invest some of your defense budget in education, health care, social programs, or border security. From my point of view, those are all areas that are in need of some additional funding.
2007-05-04 05:43:30
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|7009

B.Schuss wrote:

Only if the Iraqui people want F&D there is a chance it can prosper.
I'd disagree with that.  No-one would reject the idea of freedom of democracy, the key is firstly that they must be willing to risk their safety and happiness in the now, and secondly that it must be a version of freedom that is developed in the region according to local culture.  The reason that Western values tend to fail in the wider world is because they are Western values, which don't necessarily work everywhere else.
2007-05-04 07:16:08
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7289|Cologne, Germany

Bubbalo wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

Only if the Iraqui people want F&D there is a chance it can prosper.
I'd disagree with that.  No-one would reject the idea of freedom of democracy, the key is firstly that they must be willing to risk their safety and happiness in the now, and secondly that it must be a version of freedom that is developed in the region according to local culture.  The reason that Western values tend to fail in the wider world is because they are Western values, which don't necessarily work everywhere else.
I bet my ass there are some jihadists out there who'd disagree with you. They'd probably prefer an islamic theocracy, under sharia rule. I wouldn't exactly call that freedom & democracy.

But I'd agree with you that an islamic "version" of freedom & democracy is needed, one that fits into the local culture, as you rightly said.

And as far as the life-risking goes, most Iraquis I see on the news seem quite willing to do that, given the numbers that are killed while standing in line, applying for police jobs. Those people are dedicated, that's for sure.

How much the ordinary Iraqui can embrace the concept of democracy is something only time will tell. You cannot erase hundreds of years of tribal and religious rule in one generation, let alone 5 years. It will take much longer than that.

Given the general instability of the region, I have my doubts that anyone of us will see a free, democratic, peaceful Iraq in our lifetime.
2007-05-04 07:44:46
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|7009

B.Schuss wrote:

I bet my ass there are some jihadists out there who'd disagree with you. They'd probably prefer an islamic theocracy, under sharia rule. I wouldn't exactly call that freedom & democracy.
Allow me to create my statement:

No national majority would object to it, only extremists (and there are those who do even in the West).
2007-05-04 10:21:26
GATOR591957
Member
+84|7075
If anyone watched the Republican debate last night I was interested in one of the candidates (Tommy Thomson) that said the first thing he would do was ask the Iraqi government to take a vote on whether they want the US to stay and finish what was started, or whether the Iraqi people want us out and were ready to start their own government.  An interesting idea.  If they want us to stay we are obligated to.  If they want us out, we are also obligated to leave.

Last edited by GATOR591957 (2007-05-04 10:43:37)

2007-05-04 15:08:10
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|7049|132 and Bush

GATOR591957 wrote:

If anyone watched the Republican debate last night I was interested in one of the candidates (Tommy Thomson) that said the first thing he would do was ask the Iraqi government to take a vote on whether they want the US to stay and finish what was started, or whether the Iraqi people want us out and were ready to start their own government.  An interesting idea.  If they want us to stay we are obligated to.  If they want us out, we are also obligated to leave.
Yea, he owes me for that one.. big time .

2006-12-19 12:55:40 Kmarion
How about a vote by the Iraqi people. Very simple: Do you want foreign forces out? What do you think the results would be?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-05-04 17:35:02
Marinejuana
local
+415|7033|Seattle
u can find self-congratulation in any political cause. politcal "debate" almost always revolves around the establishment of moral righteousness for different policy options. either that or the economic advantages of policies.

Environmental research is not driven by self-congratulation any more than it is about the belief that detailed knowledge of earth sciences will allow us to best use the planet. That a scientist reflects on the probable helpfulness of his/her work doesn't mean that the work is substanceless outside of that congratulation. but i would agree that most studies contain some kind of initial bias, otherwise the studies wouldnt happen.

What if I made a thread talking about how U.S. military action is rooted in the pursuit of self-congratulation? Wouldn't you point out that my argument takes a blind shortcut on your entire process of reasoning?

but you move on to ask what liberals would have us do to clean up in iraq. Its a shame that our two party system has you asking the only real alternative political body this question because liberals dont necessarily have the answers and as a leftist myself, i wouldnt expect a lot from the next democratic presidency. The US government as a whole is commited to maintaining the status quo in terms of our role in the world economy, so just like in the clinton era, i wouldnt expect some great turn towards social justice, just probably less military action and bad press for the US worldwide. we certainly wouldnt put a significant amount of resources (comparable to the military budget) towards actually rebuilding the middle east.

If you are looking around asking who has the answers for what to do with the middle east, then i should mention that the party to most recently discover it has no fucking clue would have to be the conservatives. as long as u can agree with that (it sounds like you do for GWBush), then do proceed in discussing whatever the liberals come up with to solve this one.
2007-05-05 06:53:42
Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6802

cryptofcolumbus wrote:

ATG wrote:

I was in the book store yesterday thumbing through one of the many environmentalist books, towards the end of one I noticed this line;
even if you can't do all you would like toward living green you can at least congradulate yourself on taking small steps to improve the planet.
This, imo is  what environmentalism  and much else on the political left's agenda is all about, self-congratulation.

As my respected esteemed co-chair of the DST HOF, I select you to dissect to make my point:

CameronPoe wrote:

I've said countless times before - Iranians are by and large a progressive people and Iran is a great nation. The people will see that Ahmedinejad is not re-elected but instead replaced with a moderate like Khatami.
Here we have an example of Cameron A) advocating letting things sort them selves out ( hopefully ) and B) self-congratulating himself by praising the Persian culture.
The reality is, Iran is destabilizing what existing peace there is by being in violation of U.N. mandates in regards to its nuclear program. They are actively engaged in terrorism. You know it, liberals know it.


CameronPoe wrote:

Why should they care about the situation in Iraq? It's not like the US military can do anything about it. It's the Iraqis problem now (always was) - time for them to take charge of their own affairs like proper grown ups. Isn't 'Personal Responsibility' the American way?
Here we have an example of Cameron A) In denial of the reality of the duplicity of the international community stoking the fires of war with toothless resolutions, and B) self-congratulating himself by attempting to " talk down " to America by suggesting we are going against our own ideals in Iraq when the reality is, an Islamic militant governed Middle East will be a disaster for the world. You know it, liberals know it. I'm not faulting Cam for his views, I am simply examining them and asking myself " where is the counter-idea that involves human realities and responsibilities" , when the world surely needs it.

Too often, feel good policies apply bandages to problems while infecting the wound.

One major problem with the left, is that there seems to be a large empty silence when it comes to  " what the fuck now. "

We got it, George Bush is a...bad president, but I need to hear something from the democrats and leftists that doesn't involve a announced withdraw, and the slaughter of large amounts of Iraqis, and other Muslims in the carnage that will surely follow.

/discuss


* edit    Also, Ignorance is no impediment to strong opinions, I'm proof of that.
I read this and now I am less intelligent for it.
Im not sure it would have helped much if you skiped it. Buck up !
2007-05-05 06:57:12
Hunter/Jumper
Member
+117|6802

Bubbalo wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

Only if the Iraqui people want F&D there is a chance it can prosper.
I'd disagree with that.  No-one would reject the idea of freedom of democracy, the key is firstly that they must be willing to risk their safety and happiness in the now, and secondly that it must be a version of freedom that is developed in the region according to local culture.  The reason that Western values tend to fail in the wider world is because they are Western values, which don't necessarily work everywhere else.
It seems like everything else we gave them works well. Further if they were so sure it would be rejected they wouldn't need to fight would they.
2007-05-05 07:15:44
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6738|Éire
ATG You're criticising liberals (again) for not presenting credible solutions to problems created by Conservatives/Republicans?

Perhaps liberals are rubbing the 'I told you so' attitude in everyone's face because guess what ...they did tell you so. Now you want them to get America out of their hole. They suggest pulling troops out of Iraq because the military struggle is pissing in the wind and you say this is not good enough. Newsflash: hundreds of people are dying everyday in Iraq anyway, with US troops there. Pull out and allow the nation to re-establish a natural order, it's the only way (the US should not have bothered trying to alter that nation in the first place, now they must face the painful reality).

You say liberalism is riddled with self congratulatory ego stroking ...that's funny because I remember one George Bush standing at a podium on a battle ship whooping and cheering about 'victory' in Iraq (a 'victory' that is now in it's third year!). These points are again useless generalisations about liberalism. I'm not going to defend US liberal politicians because many of them are cock-knockers but your OP is full of sound bites (e.g. "Too often, feel good policies apply bandages to problems while infecting the wound") and rhetoric that smacks of an inherent and possibly irrational dislike of liberalism (and Cameronpoe's posts)
2007-05-05 08:08:04
Blehm98
conservative hatemonger
+150|6911|meh-land
democrats voted yes just as much as republicans when the time came to vote for or against the war, they only opposed it after we'd already spent a bit of money on the war

anyone want to know what we should do to get out of Iraq?
1) Iraq should preferably have several of its own divisions of soldiers
2) over time, say 6 months to a year, american battalions/companies should be substituded for the iraqi soldiers, to give them combat experience and prepare them for when the USA leaves - and CLOSE THE BORDERS
3) more and more US divisions leave, replaced by working iraqi divisions, and you have a semi-stable country
2007-05-05 08:14:06
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6977|Global Command

Braddock wrote:

ATG You're criticising liberals (again) for not presenting credible solutions to problems created by Conservatives/Republicans?

Perhaps liberals are rubbing the 'I told you so' attitude in everyone's face because guess what ...they did tell you so. Now you want them to get America out of their hole. They suggest pulling troops out of Iraq because the military struggle is pissing in the wind and you say this is not good enough. Newsflash: hundreds of people are dying everyday in Iraq anyway, with US troops there. Pull out and allow the nation to re-establish a natural order, it's the only way (the US should not have bothered trying to alter that nation in the first place, now they must face the painful reality).

You say liberalism is riddled with self congratulatory ego stroking ...that's funny because I remember one George Bush standing at a podium on a battle ship whooping and cheering about 'victory' in Iraq (a 'victory' that is now in it's third year!). These points are again useless generalisations about liberalism. I'm not going to defend US liberal politicians because many of them are cock-knockers but your OP is full of sound bites (e.g. "Too often, feel good policies apply bandages to problems while infecting the wound") and rhetoric that smacks of an inherent and possibly irrational dislike of liberalism (and Cameronpoe's posts)
Actually, I'm a big fan of Cameron.

I simply decided to make a thread NOT attacking Islam, war or any particular news story, but one attacking the basic tenets of liberalism, which I believe is a seriously flawed way of thinking.

I selected Cameron because he is the co-chair of the DST hall of fame, no other reason, accept maybe I felt like everybody was trying to be too middle of the road lately, and I wanted to start a fight.

I accomplished that not by saying " hey fag, your stupid " but by examining some posts of the forums leading liberal " heavy-weight ".

For all the petty retalitory threads that have been created over the silliest things I was rather surprised Cam didn't create one is response to this. Perhaps he felt like I had taken a cheap shot.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard