Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-10-2015, 01:43 PM
 
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,327 posts, read 54,358,694 times
Reputation: 40731

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez View Post
Who sent them there? I know a few names:

Joe Biden
Hillary Clinton
John Kerry
John Edwards
Diane Feinstein
Chuck Schumer
Harry Reid


Any of those names, people who voted to sent them there, sound familiar? If not, I can look up their party for you.
ONE man made the decision to send them but YOU choose to close your eyes to that FACT, eh?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-10-2015, 01:48 PM
 
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,327 posts, read 54,358,694 times
Reputation: 40731
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet View Post
Sorry, but Democrats voted for and continued to fund those wars, using the same rhetoric as Republicans.
Sorry but a Democrat DID NOT make the decision to go to war, contrary to your lame attempt at excuse.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet View Post
And they don't rush out after each terrorist attack to insist that Islam is not the problem. It's liberals who do that.
Yet the very same man who made the decision to go to war told us Islam IS NOT the problem, I guess your blindness is quite selective, eh?

"Islam is Peace" Says President
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2015, 09:16 PM
 
Location: Michigan
12,711 posts, read 13,474,594 times
Reputation: 4185
Quote:
Originally Posted by fat lou View Post
Yeah, I noticed that when apartheid was going on in South Africa. The truth is that liberals only care about what western "white" people do. Everyone else can do as they please, as far as they're concerned.
South Africa was a close economic and strategic ally, so our opposition to its apartheid policy, which rarely went beyond the talking stage anyway, was a reasonable deduction from the principle of cleaning our own house.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2015, 09:23 PM
 
Location: Houston
26,979 posts, read 15,882,036 times
Reputation: 11259
Quote:
Originally Posted by djacques View Post
This is an interesting reversal of the historical situation. Before the Cold War, conservatives used to favor neutrality, while liberals always hollered that it was our duty to save the world from the crisis du jour. I won't get into the reasons for the polar shift, I will just say that conservatives had it right to begin with. We cannot solve other countries' problems, and above all we cannot solve them by armed force.
Exactly, these conservatives are labeled paleoconservatives. Pat Buchanan is an excellent example of one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2015, 10:00 PM
 
10,829 posts, read 5,432,323 times
Reputation: 4710
It's interesting watching the liberals twist in the wind over this.

They have an excess of scruples regarding the United States, making perfection the enemy of the good.

For them, it is a horrible crime that we don't have gay marriage everywhere yet and that an ever smaller proportion of Americans disapprove of homosexuality. It is also a horrible crime that women don't have greater latitude in getting abortions and that women have not yet achieved absolute parity with men as CEOs of major corporations, U.S. senators, etc. Until these hideous crimes against humanity committed shamelessly by the U.S. (with conservatives bearing most of the blame) come to an end, we should not concern ourselves with what goes on in other countries.

Now let's look at Islam. Certainly countries in the Islamic world differ from each other, but if you look at both intolerance and mistreatment of people that can be found in the Islamic world as a whole -- with the justification for that intolerance and mistreatment being Islamic sharia law -- you will find the following:

1) Christian churches and the Bible outlawed in Saudi Arabia

2) The death penalty for apostasy (meaning leaving the Muslim relgion)

3) Punishments that include chopping off hands and feet, whippings (up to thousands of lashes), hangings, stonings and beheadings

4) Honor killings of women who have "brought shame" on the family

5) Girls forbidden to go to school

6) Women needing four male eyewitnesses to prove rape

7) Genital mutiliation of girls

8) Men free to beat their wives with impunity

9) Slavery in some regions

10) Women not allowed to go out in public without a male escort

11) Women not allowed to drive

12) Homosexual acts outlawed

13) Women forced to wear the burqa

In addition to the above, self-avowed Muslims are responsible for most terrorist attacks targeting unarmed men, women and children. Both Al Qaeda and Islamic State have beheaded American hostages. Islamic State is crucifying and beheading Christians, including children. Christians and Jews are given a choice: Pay a tax, leave, convert or die. This is in keeping with traditional Muslim practice in dealing with other groups. An honest Muslim will tell you that Islam has always -- as the one true religion -- sought to convert the entire world to Islam, which means "submission," not peace.

It might be of interest to the liberals here that conservatives have been criticizing Muslim atrocities for as long as I can remember. It's the liberals who -- when faced with those atrocities -- rush out and wring their hands over the horrific possibility that Westerners might counter Muslim intolerance with a little intolerance of their own.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2015, 10:04 PM
 
1,185 posts, read 2,219,501 times
Reputation: 1009
Why should anyone be advocating for gay rights? What rights do gay people have? In this day and age, people want to introduce gay marriage in order to further the left's agenda of destroying seperation of church and state and destroying the value of marriage. Then the left will introduce pedo acceptance and polygamy acceptance, until they give rights of marriage to further and further minorities. Its not a good thing when marriage is just a union between 2 pronouns. Furthermore, its not our job to go tell people what to do. The constitution is for americans and americans only. It should only affect what happens here
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2015, 10:13 PM
 
10,829 posts, read 5,432,323 times
Reputation: 4710
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
How should we, as a country, stop the treatment of gays and women in other countries?
We can't stop the mistreatment in other countries. But we can stop Muslims from immigrating to this country. Sure, not all of them are bad, maybe not even most, but there is no reason why we should bother making such distinctions. There are plenty of other people who would like to come here whose motives we have no reason to doubt.

We can also work to develop our energy resources so that we no longer enrich Muslims in other countries.

And we can stop acting as though Muslims are the victims and we are the REAL oppressors. We can stop presuming that Islam itself is innocent when it might not be, and probably isn't.

You know, the typical liberal "blame America first and always" nonsense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-10-2015, 10:17 PM
 
10,829 posts, read 5,432,323 times
Reputation: 4710
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanlife78 View Post
Congress doesn't vote to send troops anywhere, that is the president's job. All Congress can do is to agree or disagree in funding troops.
Not true.

Congress gave Bush the authorization to use military force at his own discretion.

Presidents, as a rule, cannot make the decision by themselves over the long term.

They get about three months of discretion because of emergencies, but a long term military commitment requires congressional approval, which can range from the authorization Bush received (and which Obama is still relying on) to an actual declaration of war.

Whether you like it or not, Democrats beat the war drums against Afghanistan and Iraq in numerous speeches, voted to authorize military action, and voted to keep funding the war. The Left's attempt to convince people that it was "all Bush's fault" is beyond ridiculous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2015, 01:23 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 35,165,951 times
Reputation: 7875
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet View Post
We can't stop the mistreatment in other countries. But we can stop Muslims from immigrating to this country. Sure, not all of them are bad, maybe not even most, but there is no reason why we should bother making such distinctions. There are plenty of other people who would like to come here whose motives we have no reason to doubt.

We can also work to develop our energy resources so that we no longer enrich Muslims in other countries.

And we can stop acting as though Muslims are the victims and we are the REAL oppressors. We can stop presuming that Islam itself is innocent when it might not be, and probably isn't.

You know, the typical liberal "blame America first and always" nonsense.
So you admit that most aren't bad, but then try to justify treating all Muslims like they are terrorists....makes no sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2015, 01:26 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
46,001 posts, read 35,165,951 times
Reputation: 7875
Quote:
Originally Posted by dechatelet View Post
Not true.

Congress gave Bush the authorization to use military force at his own discretion.

Presidents, as a rule, cannot make the decision by themselves over the long term.

They get about three months of discretion because of emergencies, but a long term military commitment requires congressional approval, which can range from the authorization Bush received (and which Obama is still relying on) to an actual declaration of war.

Whether you like it or not, Democrats beat the war drums against Afghanistan and Iraq in numerous speeches, voted to authorize military action, and voted to keep funding the war. The Left's attempt to convince people that it was "all Bush's fault" is beyond ridiculous.
That Congressional approval is in the form of funding. If Congress says no to funding, then the president can't keep the troops in a war. Though technically there is a way around it by not sending troops to war, they just happen to be in a danger zone.

Congress was handed lots of false information to convince them that going to war was the right thing to do. The Bush administration lied to Congress for war. You know, a war crime.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:43 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top