More political stuff...
- Thread starter smartcam
- Start date
jim sitton
PRO user
How long do we have?
HOW LONG DOES THE USA HAVE?
We have seen this interesting thing before, and we need to keep reminding ourselves that it is an urgent message to all of us. I have heard about this democracy countdown. It is interesting to see it in print. God help us! (not that we deserve it.) How long do we have?
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage'
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'd say we're somewhere between #6 and 7
Jim
The Idiot's motto:
"What's to be done about ignorance and apathy? I don't know and I don't care."
HOW LONG DOES THE USA HAVE?
We have seen this interesting thing before, and we need to keep reminding ourselves that it is an urgent message to all of us. I have heard about this democracy countdown. It is interesting to see it in print. God help us! (not that we deserve it.) How long do we have?
About the time our original thirteen states adopted their new constitution in 1787, Alexander Tyler, a Scottish history professor at the University of Edinburgh , had this to say about the fall of the Athenian Republic some 2,000 years earlier:
'A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
The average age of the world's greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, those nations always progressed through the following sequence:
1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage'
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'd say we're somewhere between #6 and 7
Jim
The Idiot's motto:
"What's to be done about ignorance and apathy? I don't know and I don't care."
Buck Satan
Well-known member
A democracy is always temporary in nature
Good thing were a Republic then eh?
Good thing were a Republic then eh?
and what would Europe's problems be ???
jim sitton
PRO user
Euro peons
They are being overrun by Extreme Muslim terrorists for one.
Socialism isn't working out too well for them either.
Europe, I believe is on the path to accepting a new wave of Totalitarianism – most likely this time of the Islamist variety.
They are being overrun by Extreme Muslim terrorists for one.
Socialism isn't working out too well for them either.
Europe, I believe is on the path to accepting a new wave of Totalitarianism – most likely this time of the Islamist variety.
jim sitton
PRO user
Yeah and I went to history class too...
Here's just one of thousands of articles...
http://www.cfr.org/publication/8218/
For the entire article.
Europe's Angry Muslims
Author: Robert S. Leiken
Summary: Radical Islam is spreading across Europe among descendants of Muslim immigrants. Disenfranchised and disillusioned by the failure of integration, some European Muslims have taken up jihad against the West. They are dangerous and committed -- and can enter the United States without a visa.
AN AMERICAN CONCERN
Fox News and CNN's Lou Dobbs worry about terrorists stealing across the United States' border with Mexico concealed among illegal immigrants. The Pentagon wages war in the Middle East to stop terrorist attacks on the United States. But the growing nightmare of officials at the Department of Homeland Security is passport-carrying, visa-exempt mujahideen coming from the United States' western European allies.
Jihadist networks span Europe from Poland to Portugal, thanks to the spread of radical Islam among the descendants of guest workers once recruited to shore up Europe's postwar economic miracle. In smoky coffeehouses in Rotterdam and Copenhagen, makeshift prayer halls in Hamburg and Brussels, Islamic bookstalls in Birmingham and "Londonistan," and the prisons of Madrid, Milan, and Marseilles, immigrants or their descendants are volunteering for jihad against the West. It was a Dutch Muslim of Moroccan descent, born and socialized in Europe, who murdered the filmmaker Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam last November. A Nixon Center study of 373 mujahideen in western Europe and North America between 1993 and 2004 found more than twice as many Frenchmen as Saudis and more Britons than Sudanese, Yemenites, Emiratis, Lebanese, or Libyans. Fully a quarter of the jihadists it listed were western European nationals -- eligible to travel visa-free to the United States.
The emergence of homegrown mujahideen in Europe threatens the United States as well as Europe. Yet it was the dog that never barked at last winter's Euro-American rapprochement meeting. Neither President George W. Bush nor Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice drew attention to this mutual peril, even though it should focus minds and could buttress solidarity in the West.
YOUR LAND IS MY LAND
The mass immigration of Muslims to Europe was an unintended consequence of post-World War II guest-worker programs. Successive waves of immigrants formed a sea of descendants. Today, Muslims constitute the majority of immigrants in most western European countries, including Belgium, France, Germany, and the Netherlands, and the largest single component of the immigrant population in the United Kingdom. Exact numbers are hard to come by because Western censuses rarely ask respondents about their faith. But it is estimated that between 15 and 20 million Muslims now call Europe home and make up four to five percent of its total population. (Muslims in the United States probably do not exceed 3 million, accounting for less than two percent of the total population.) France has the largest proportion of Muslims (seven to ten percent of its total population), followed by the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Italy. Given continued immigration and high Muslim fertility rates, the National Intelligence Council projects that Europe's Muslim population will double by 2025.
Unlike their U.S. counterparts, who entered a gigantic country built on immigration, most Muslim newcomers to western Europe started arriving only after World War II, crowding into small, culturally homogenous nations. Muslims gather in bleak enclaves with their compatriots: Algerians in France, Moroccans in Spain, Turks in Germany, and Pakistanis in the United Kingdom.
The footprint of Muslim immigrants in Europe is already more visible than that of the Hispanic population in the United States. Unlike the jumble of nationalities that make up the American Latino community, the Muslims of western Europe are likely to be distinct, cohesive, and bitter. In Europe, host countries that never learned to integrate newcomers collide with immigrants exceptionally retentive of their ways, producing a variant of what the French scholar Olivier Roy calls "globalized Islam": militant Islamic resentment at Western dominance, anti-imperialism exalted by revivalism.
As a consequence of demography, history, ideology, and policy, western Europe now plays host to often disconsolate Muslim offspring, who are its citizens in name but not culturally or socially. In a fit of absentmindedness, during which its academics discoursed on the obsolescence of the nation-state, western Europe acquired not a colonial empire but something of an internal colony, whose numbers are roughly equivalent to the population of Syria. Many of its members are willing to integrate and try to climb Europe's steep social ladder. But many younger Muslims reject the minority status to which their parents acquiesced. A volatile mix of European nativism and immigrant dissidence challenges what the Danish sociologist Ole Waever calls "societal security," or national cohesion.
As these conditions developed in the late 1990s, even liberal segments of the European public began to have second thoughts about immigration. Many were galled by their governments' failure to reduce or even identify the sources of insécurité (a French code word for the combination of vandalism, delinquency, and hate crimes stemming from Muslim immigrant enclaves). The state appeared unable to regulate the entry of immigrants, and society seemed unwilling to integrate them. In some cases, the backlash was xenophobic and racist; in others, it was a reaction against policymakers captivated by a multiculturalist dream of diverse communities living in harmony, offering oppressed nationalities marked compassion and remedial benefits. By 2002, electoral rebellion over the issue of immigration was threatening the party systems of Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, and the Netherlands. The Dutch were so incensed by the 2002 assassination of Pim Fortuyn, a gay anti-immigration politician, that mainstream parties adopted much of the victim's program. In the United Kingdom this spring, the Tories not only joined the ruling Labour Party in embracing sweeping immigration restrictions, such as tightened procedures for asylum and family reunification (both regularly abused throughout Europe) and a computerized exit-entry system like the new U.S. Visitor and Immigration Status Indicator Technology program; they also campaigned for numerical caps on immigrants. With the Muslim headscarf controversy raging in France, talk about the connection between asylum abuse and terrorism rising in the United Kingdom, an immigration dispute threatening to tear Belgium apart, and the Dutch outrage over the van Gogh killing, western Europe may now be reaching a tipping point.
GOING DUTCH
The uncomfortable truth is that disenfranchisement and radicalization are happening even in countries, such as the Netherlands, that have done much to accommodate Muslim immigrants. Proud of a legendary tolerance of minorities, the Netherlands welcomed tens of thousands of Muslim asylum seekers allegedly escaping persecution. Immigrants availed themselves of generous welfare and housing benefits, an affirmative-action hiring policy, and free language courses. Dutch taxpayers funded Muslim religious schools and mosques, and public television broadcast programs in Moroccan Arabic. Mohammed Bouyeri was collecting unemployment benefits when he murdered van Gogh.
It raised the specter of Middle East-style political assassinations as part of the European jihadist arsenal and it disclosed a new source of danger: unknown individuals among Europe's own Muslims. The cell in Hamburg that was connected to the attacks of September 11, 2001, was composed of student visitors, and the Madrid train bombings of March 2004 were committed by Moroccan immigrants. But van Gogh's killer and his associates were born and raised in Europe.
The Dutch reaction to van Gogh's assassination, the British reaction to jihadist abuse of political asylum, and the French reaction to the wearing of the headscarf suggest that Europe's multiculturalism has begun to collide with its liberalism, privacy rights with national security. Multiculturalism was once a hallmark of Europe's cultural liberalism, which the British columnist John O'Sullivan defined as "free[dom] from irksome traditional moral customs and cultural restraints." But when multiculturalism is perceived to coddle terrorism, liberalism parts company. The gap between the two is opening in France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and to some extent even in Germany, where liberalism stretched a form of religious tolerance so much so that it allowed the Hamburg cell to turn prayer rooms into war rooms with cocky immunity from the German police.
Indeed, the fissure between liberalism and multiculturalism is opening just as the continent undergoes its most momentous population shift since Asian tribes pushed westward in the first Christian millennium. Immigration obviously hits a national security nerve, but it also raises economic and demographic questions: how to cope with a demonstrably aging population; how to maintain social cohesion as Christianity declines and both secularism and Islam climb; whether the EU should exercise sovereignty over borders and citizenship; and what the accession of Turkey, with its 70 million Muslims, would mean for the EU. Moreover, European mujahideen do not threaten only the Old World; they also pose an immediate danger to the United States.
Jim
The lesson for today:
"Never be so open minded that your brain falls out!"
Here's just one of thousands of articles...
http://www.cfr.org/publication/8218/
For the entire article.
Europe's Angry Muslims
Author: Robert S. Leiken
Summary: Radical Islam is spreading across Europe among descendants of Muslim immigrants. Disenfranchised and disillusioned by the failure of integration, some European Muslims have taken up jihad against the West. They are dangerous and committed -- and can enter the United States without a visa.
AN AMERICAN CONCERN
Fox News and CNN's Lou Dobbs worry about terrorists stealing across the United States' border with Mexico concealed among illegal immigrants. The Pentagon wages war in the Middle East to stop terrorist attacks on the United States. But the growing nightmare of officials at the Department of Homeland Security is passport-carrying, visa-exempt mujahideen coming from the United States' western European allies.
Jihadist networks span Europe from Poland to Portugal, thanks to the spread of radical Islam among the descendants of guest workers once recruited to shore up Europe's postwar economic miracle. In smoky coffeehouses in Rotterdam and Copenhagen, makeshift prayer halls in Hamburg and Brussels, Islamic bookstalls in Birmingham and "Londonistan," and the prisons of Madrid, Milan, and Marseilles, immigrants or their descendants are volunteering for jihad against the West. It was a Dutch Muslim of Moroccan descent, born and socialized in Europe, who murdered the filmmaker Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam last November. A Nixon Center study of 373 mujahideen in western Europe and North America between 1993 and 2004 found more than twice as many Frenchmen as Saudis and more Britons than Sudanese, Yemenites, Emiratis, Lebanese, or Libyans. Fully a quarter of the jihadists it listed were western European nationals -- eligible to travel visa-free to the United States.
The emergence of homegrown mujahideen in Europe threatens the United States as well as Europe. Yet it was the dog that never barked at last winter's Euro-American rapprochement meeting. Neither President George W. Bush nor Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice drew attention to this mutual peril, even though it should focus minds and could buttress solidarity in the West.
YOUR LAND IS MY LAND
The mass immigration of Muslims to Europe was an unintended consequence of post-World War II guest-worker programs. Successive waves of immigrants formed a sea of descendants. Today, Muslims constitute the majority of immigrants in most western European countries, including Belgium, France, Germany, and the Netherlands, and the largest single component of the immigrant population in the United Kingdom. Exact numbers are hard to come by because Western censuses rarely ask respondents about their faith. But it is estimated that between 15 and 20 million Muslims now call Europe home and make up four to five percent of its total population. (Muslims in the United States probably do not exceed 3 million, accounting for less than two percent of the total population.) France has the largest proportion of Muslims (seven to ten percent of its total population), followed by the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Italy. Given continued immigration and high Muslim fertility rates, the National Intelligence Council projects that Europe's Muslim population will double by 2025.
Unlike their U.S. counterparts, who entered a gigantic country built on immigration, most Muslim newcomers to western Europe started arriving only after World War II, crowding into small, culturally homogenous nations. Muslims gather in bleak enclaves with their compatriots: Algerians in France, Moroccans in Spain, Turks in Germany, and Pakistanis in the United Kingdom.
The footprint of Muslim immigrants in Europe is already more visible than that of the Hispanic population in the United States. Unlike the jumble of nationalities that make up the American Latino community, the Muslims of western Europe are likely to be distinct, cohesive, and bitter. In Europe, host countries that never learned to integrate newcomers collide with immigrants exceptionally retentive of their ways, producing a variant of what the French scholar Olivier Roy calls "globalized Islam": militant Islamic resentment at Western dominance, anti-imperialism exalted by revivalism.
As a consequence of demography, history, ideology, and policy, western Europe now plays host to often disconsolate Muslim offspring, who are its citizens in name but not culturally or socially. In a fit of absentmindedness, during which its academics discoursed on the obsolescence of the nation-state, western Europe acquired not a colonial empire but something of an internal colony, whose numbers are roughly equivalent to the population of Syria. Many of its members are willing to integrate and try to climb Europe's steep social ladder. But many younger Muslims reject the minority status to which their parents acquiesced. A volatile mix of European nativism and immigrant dissidence challenges what the Danish sociologist Ole Waever calls "societal security," or national cohesion.
As these conditions developed in the late 1990s, even liberal segments of the European public began to have second thoughts about immigration. Many were galled by their governments' failure to reduce or even identify the sources of insécurité (a French code word for the combination of vandalism, delinquency, and hate crimes stemming from Muslim immigrant enclaves). The state appeared unable to regulate the entry of immigrants, and society seemed unwilling to integrate them. In some cases, the backlash was xenophobic and racist; in others, it was a reaction against policymakers captivated by a multiculturalist dream of diverse communities living in harmony, offering oppressed nationalities marked compassion and remedial benefits. By 2002, electoral rebellion over the issue of immigration was threatening the party systems of Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, and the Netherlands. The Dutch were so incensed by the 2002 assassination of Pim Fortuyn, a gay anti-immigration politician, that mainstream parties adopted much of the victim's program. In the United Kingdom this spring, the Tories not only joined the ruling Labour Party in embracing sweeping immigration restrictions, such as tightened procedures for asylum and family reunification (both regularly abused throughout Europe) and a computerized exit-entry system like the new U.S. Visitor and Immigration Status Indicator Technology program; they also campaigned for numerical caps on immigrants. With the Muslim headscarf controversy raging in France, talk about the connection between asylum abuse and terrorism rising in the United Kingdom, an immigration dispute threatening to tear Belgium apart, and the Dutch outrage over the van Gogh killing, western Europe may now be reaching a tipping point.
GOING DUTCH
The uncomfortable truth is that disenfranchisement and radicalization are happening even in countries, such as the Netherlands, that have done much to accommodate Muslim immigrants. Proud of a legendary tolerance of minorities, the Netherlands welcomed tens of thousands of Muslim asylum seekers allegedly escaping persecution. Immigrants availed themselves of generous welfare and housing benefits, an affirmative-action hiring policy, and free language courses. Dutch taxpayers funded Muslim religious schools and mosques, and public television broadcast programs in Moroccan Arabic. Mohammed Bouyeri was collecting unemployment benefits when he murdered van Gogh.
It raised the specter of Middle East-style political assassinations as part of the European jihadist arsenal and it disclosed a new source of danger: unknown individuals among Europe's own Muslims. The cell in Hamburg that was connected to the attacks of September 11, 2001, was composed of student visitors, and the Madrid train bombings of March 2004 were committed by Moroccan immigrants. But van Gogh's killer and his associates were born and raised in Europe.
The Dutch reaction to van Gogh's assassination, the British reaction to jihadist abuse of political asylum, and the French reaction to the wearing of the headscarf suggest that Europe's multiculturalism has begun to collide with its liberalism, privacy rights with national security. Multiculturalism was once a hallmark of Europe's cultural liberalism, which the British columnist John O'Sullivan defined as "free[dom] from irksome traditional moral customs and cultural restraints." But when multiculturalism is perceived to coddle terrorism, liberalism parts company. The gap between the two is opening in France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and to some extent even in Germany, where liberalism stretched a form of religious tolerance so much so that it allowed the Hamburg cell to turn prayer rooms into war rooms with cocky immunity from the German police.
Indeed, the fissure between liberalism and multiculturalism is opening just as the continent undergoes its most momentous population shift since Asian tribes pushed westward in the first Christian millennium. Immigration obviously hits a national security nerve, but it also raises economic and demographic questions: how to cope with a demonstrably aging population; how to maintain social cohesion as Christianity declines and both secularism and Islam climb; whether the EU should exercise sovereignty over borders and citizenship; and what the accession of Turkey, with its 70 million Muslims, would mean for the EU. Moreover, European mujahideen do not threaten only the Old World; they also pose an immediate danger to the United States.
Jim
The lesson for today:
"Never be so open minded that your brain falls out!"
You might want to look up Barack's Senatorial acomplishments. He's got 120 bills to his name to Hillary's 160 and she's got two years on him.
But name one piece of meaningful legislation that a junior senator has put together in their first two years in office. Just one. When you're done doing that, name a meaningful piece of legislation that Hilldog has put together.
They're both junior senators. Barack said it best, and I'm paraphrasing, they're both basically the same on policy issues. They both want a form of universal health care. They both want to get out of Iraq. They both have quality plans for the economy. Where they differ is personality and leadership.
I personally think Barack would be a better leader. He has experience and that's where his change comes in. He knows how Washington works yet he isn't married to it. His life experience makes him the most unique and interesting candidate we've seen in my lifetime.
Yet it's foolish to go from one extreme to another by saying you'll vote for McCain if Hillary doesn't win. Have you enjoyed the last eight years? Do you approve with the direction the country is headed? Then vote for McCain because a vote for McCain is a vote to continue the Bush policies.
If you don't like the direction our country has taken, then vote for the dem, no matter who it is.
Buck Satan
Well-known member
If you don't like the direction our country has taken, then vote for the dem, no matter who it is.
And this is why we get the government we deserve. You need to differentiate between your country and your government Jax. Sure, the majority of people are disappointed with how the government is run. That applies across all political spectrums and into all branches of government. But you need to realize that the government is not the country. The country is that body of citizens of every thought and color who for the most part believe in those rights expressed in our constitution. And no nation on the face of this earth will equal this country in the freedoms it gives. Now if you don’t like the government and its encroachments, then change it either within the system or without. But if you don’t like the country and believe that the rights we are born with are not worth fighting for, then why not try to be a subject elsewhere rather than a citizen here. But don’t let your hate paint us all with the same brush.
And this is why we get the government we deserve. You need to differentiate between your country and your government Jax. Sure, the majority of people are disappointed with how the government is run. That applies across all political spectrums and into all branches of government. But you need to realize that the government is not the country. The country is that body of citizens of every thought and color who for the most part believe in those rights expressed in our constitution. And no nation on the face of this earth will equal this country in the freedoms it gives. Now if you don’t like the government and its encroachments, then change it either within the system or without. But if you don’t like the country and believe that the rights we are born with are not worth fighting for, then why not try to be a subject elsewhere rather than a citizen here. But don’t let your hate paint us all with the same brush.
What does this have to do with Obama's experience?
The old "Love It or Leave It" argument. Good job Buck!
I have every right to be hear as you do and I love this country. My problem is with our current leaders.
The problem with your shortsighted and pathetic response is your failure to see that the leaders of the government set the tone for the country. For instance, it's now suddenly okay for the government to listen in on my international phone calls without a warrant. People on your side of the fence think, "I have nothing to hide, what do I care?" while 10 years ago it would have been outrageous (you know, if Clinton did it...)
Like I said, if you like the way the country is going, vote for McCain, but don't let your hate paint us all with the same brush.
Buck Satan
Well-known member
The great thing about people like Jax is the almost pavlovian response mechanism developed to certain stimuli. Use of key words like "socialist" brings out the immediate knee-jerk reaction of "you're a big dummy". The next best thing is the myopic tunnel vision. Did you even read my post? Perhaps when your grasp of govenment develops beyond "Mongo say Democrats good" we can continue a civil discourse. In the meantime I will stoop to your level: "Jax is a big Doodyhead! Nener nener neeener!!!"
The great thing about people like Buck is the almost pavlovian response mechanism developed when he doesn't have an intelligent arguement to make. Use of key phrases like "If you don't like the direction our country has taken, then vote for the dem" brings out the immediate knee-jerk reaction of "your arguement is myopic and dem's are socialists." Did you even read my post? Perhaps when your grasp of govenment develops beyond "Hannity say Dems Bad" we can continue a civil discourse. In the meantime I will stoop to your level: "Buck can't argue a point! Nener nener neeener!!!"
Oh, and in repsonse to your earlier post... It now appears that the country also believes the U.S. is on the wrong track.
Oh, and in repsonse to your earlier post... It now appears that the country also believes the U.S. is on the wrong track.
Last edited:
Buck Satan
Well-known member
Do you ever have an original thought? All I see is my words echoed back. Let me clarify an error on your part: I am not a conservative. I'm pointing out to you that your assumption that a change in DC from one centrist plutocrat to another centrist plutocrat of a different party will not bring about this sea change you are fervently wishing for. You're playing a rigged game and you are the sucker being taken in. Democrat? Republican? what's the difference? Who's the nicer rapist? Who will take less of your money away and give you more of someone else’s? But I'm sure you will only see what you wish. You have the demeanor of someone what has adopted politics as his new religion. I post to make people think about some of their assumptions: call me Devil's Advocate if you will. But I don’t have the time to waste arguing against dogma. Respond how you may...I'm a firm believer of giving a man enough rope to hang himself with...
Do you ever have an original thought? All I see is my words echoed back. Let me clarify an error on your part: I am not a conservative. I'm pointing out to you that your assumption that a change in DC from one centrist plutocrat to another centrist plutocrat of a different party will not bring about this sea change you are fervently wishing for. You're playing a rigged game and you are the sucker being taken in. Democrat? Republican? what's the difference? Who's the nicer rapist? Who will take less of your money away and give you more of someone else’s? But I'm sure you will only see what you wish. You have the demeanor of someone what has adopted politics as his new religion. I post to make people think about some of their assumptions: call me Devil's Advocate if you will. But I don’t have the time to waste arguing against dogma. Respond how you may...I'm a firm believer of giving a man enough rope to hang himself with...
Typical rules of debate: You make a point, I respond, you respond to my points, I respond to yours.
Your way of debate: You make a point, I respond, you go off on a totally different direction not answering my point, I respond, repeat.
You say you post to make people think about their assumptions, but your posts are so poor that you're not changing any minds -- you're not making anyone deeply explore their beliefs. I've posted three times (now four) in this thread yet you haven't made one response to a point. An excuse of "playing Devil's Advocate" is weak.
Buck Satan
Well-known member
Have you made a point of fact yet in any of your posts? You post your beliefs with the convictions of a religious zealot or a small child believing in Easter Bunny, but little in the way of fact. Anyone without your view, you attack personally. That is not debate.
The reason I post is to piss people off and perhaps in doing so make them think a little on their positions. I obviously succeeded in the first and you failed in the second.
Nevertheless, I will concede defeat: Jax is right. When the Democrats come into power life will be better. Our enemies will beat their swords into plowshares. Everybody’s taxes will be reduced and jobs will be created in the ruins of Wal-marts nationwide. Countries worldwide will see our new direction and put aside centuries of animosity ushering in a new era of world peace. The Earth will cool and our cars will run on granola.
So you want to keep this up? Everybody likes a good purse-fight, although the board is probably getting annoyed at the wasted bandwidth...
The reason I post is to piss people off and perhaps in doing so make them think a little on their positions. I obviously succeeded in the first and you failed in the second.
Nevertheless, I will concede defeat: Jax is right. When the Democrats come into power life will be better. Our enemies will beat their swords into plowshares. Everybody’s taxes will be reduced and jobs will be created in the ruins of Wal-marts nationwide. Countries worldwide will see our new direction and put aside centuries of animosity ushering in a new era of world peace. The Earth will cool and our cars will run on granola.
So you want to keep this up? Everybody likes a good purse-fight, although the board is probably getting annoyed at the wasted bandwidth...
Latin Lens
Well-known member
I guess we know who's voting Democratic this election.
Latin Lens
Well-known member
Is Buck Satan an alias for Karl Rove?