It's Over-- We've Lost

[Latter Days Guy]

Google mormon and nutty ideas, or brits and nutty ideas, or white folks and nutty ideas, or europeans and nutty ideas, and I bet you'll get a lot of weird results, too. When you intentionally bias your search, don't be surprised when you find what you're looking for. But that doesn't make you right in your assessment.

 

But then those nutty brits, white folk, europeans etc aren't trying to become the government of one of the most powerful nations in the world, so at the end of the day, their nutty ideas don't count for much.

[The Folk Prophet]

But then those nutty brits, white folk, europeans etc aren't trying to become the government of one of the most powerful nations in the world, so at the end of the day, their nutty ideas don't count for much.

 

This is what we call missing the point.

[Vort]

But then those nutty brits, white folk, europeans etc aren't trying to become the government of one of the most powerful nations in the world, so at the end of the day, their nutty ideas don't count for much.

 

You're missing the point, LDG. You offer as evidence of the Tea Party's "nuttiness" the results of a biased Google search. I strongly suspect that if you were to outline the general beliefs and raison d'être of the Tea Party, right this very minute, without any further consultation of sources, you would fail miserably to get it right. I bet that, like most of Europe and of the American political Left, you don't understand what you are criticizing, and are instead basing your beliefs off of the slanted reporting in the news media.

[Traveler]

You're missing the point, LDG. You offer as evidence of the Tea Party's "nuttiness" the results of a biased Google search. I strongly suspect that if you were to outline the general beliefs and raison d'être of the Tea Party, right this very minute, without any further consultation of sources, you would fail miserably to get it right. I bet that, like most of Europe and of the American political Left, you don't understand what you are criticizing, and are instead basing your beliefs off of the slanted reporting in the news media.

 

I believe your response is very mild and kind.  It is my honest belief that even if the liberal citizens realized what their liberal representatives - that they gladly voted for - were really doing while in office -- that they would drag their representatives into the streets and lynch them.   The Tea Party has been labeled as cookie extremists but I am thinking they are just citizens that are starting to understand just a small portion of what elected officials are doing with ung-dly amounts of money.

 

There is a reason that the establishment is willing to bend every law possible (IRS) to keep them quiet biased entirely on their fear of opinions - and not a even a shred or smidgen of breaking any law.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Traveler

[Guest]

 

 I would, however, argue that it's working in today's economy under Obama. Like it or not, he's turned our economy around.

 

That is debatable on a number of fronts.  But that is for another day.

 

And he did it without eradicating or suppressing his opposition

 

You mean like the IRS scandal?  

You mean how his in-the-pocket media has said SO MANY positive things about the Tea Party?  

You mean his arrest of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (not opposition, but suppression of free speech).

You mean his famous "get in their face" speech?

You mean pushing the "fairness doctrine" on the media?

 

an opposition that threatened to shut down the government on more than one occasion (and even succeeded once). Congress has tied his hands numerous times throughout his time in office, it's a wonder he's been able to accomplish anything at all.

 

So, Congress passed spending bills, Obama vetoed them, but it was Congress that shut down the government.

 

Then Obama spent EXTRA money to close down shipping ports and nat'l parks (something that has NEVER been done in previous government shutdowns--and there have been many) and it's Congress's fault that we continue to rack up debt even during a shut down.

 

The administration spends money on entitlement programs and defunds the military while sending them out into battle but says it's a matter of priorities.

 

yet I'm supposed to believe that he's a fascist dictator?

 

I never said he was a Fascist dictator.  Who said that?  I don't even thing Cowdis said that.

 

In fact (and I'm not necessarily agreeing with this) he said that Obama's having very similar effects while doing the opposite of what Hitler did.

 

Distasteful, yes, but history is full of distasteful facts, like the fact that ISIS probably wouldn't exist if Saddam Hussein hadn't been removed from power. 

 

I actually agree with this assessment.  That doesn't change the fact it is distasteful.  I'd recommend the book "Defending the Indefensible".  It is replete with examples of things we find distasteful or morally reprehensible that turned out to have some very important results that helped develop many of the positives of the world today.

 

What I find hypocritical in this vein is that the left decried it when Bush did it.  But Obama continuing it (and in this case RESTARTING it) is not a problem.  

 

I didn't like it when Bush did it.  I do not like it now that Obama is doing it.

[Guest]

...and as for Bernie Sanders, I've no idea who he is!

 

If you're that uninformed in US politics, I'd kindly invite you to butt out.

Edited October 28, 2015 by Guest

[Latter Days Guy]

You're missing the point, LDG. You offer as evidence of the Tea Party's "nuttiness" the results of a biased Google search. I strongly suspect that if you were to outline the general beliefs and raison d'être of the Tea Party, right this very minute, without any further consultation of sources, you would fail miserably to get it right. I bet that, like most of Europe and of the American political Left, you don't understand what you are criticizing, and are instead basing your beliefs off of the slanted reporting in the news media.

 

So now google is bias?  Really?  And frankly I don't care what their policies are as long as they don't affect me or my loved ones. After two illegal wars, the illegal bombing of sovereign national states, is it any wonder that the USA are quoted as the number one threat to world peace.  

[Latter Days Guy]

If you're that uninformed in US politics, I'd kindly invite you to butt out.

 

Does his grandad own a chain of fried chicken joints?

[Vort]

So now google is bias?  Really?

 

LDG, I can't tell if you're joking or serious. I think quite highly of you, so I would like to think this is just a joke. But it isn't funny, or at least I don't get it.

 

And frankly I don't care what their policies are as long as they don't affect me or my loved ones. 

 

So you neither know nor care to know what the Tea Party stands for, but you feel free to lob untrue criticisms at them. How does that work?

 

After two illegal wars, the illegal bombing of sovereign national states, is it any wonder that the USA are quoted as the number one threat to world peace.  

 

Is this a serious question? If so, the answer is: Yes, it is a wonder. Only a fool would actually believe such a thing.

[Guest]

So now google is bias?  Really?  And frankly I don't care what their policies are as long as they don't affect me or my loved ones. After two illegal wars, the illegal bombing of sovereign national states, is it any wonder that the USA are quoted as the number one threat to world peace.  

 

The articles that come up in Google Search for Tea Party nutty ideas are all biased.  I gave you an example above.

 

If you would rather think that the US is more a threat to peace than ISIS... it's going to be a really difficult thing to take anything you say seriously.

[Latter Days Guy]

The articles that come up in Google Search for Tea Party nutty ideas are all biased.  I gave you an example above.

 

If you would rather think that the US is more a threat to peace than ISIS... it's going to be a really difficult thing to take anything you say seriously.

 

They're bias because they don't paint the tea party in a good light maybe?

 

Its not me who said it but a poll by gallup.

 

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/09/the_top_4_threats_to_global_peace_guess_who_is_number_one_partner/

Edited October 28, 2015 by Latter Days Guy

[Guest]

Oh my gosh.  He just decried bias and then gave a link to Salon.  <<hands up>>  My give up.

[Latter Days Guy]

Oh my gosh.  He just decried bias and then gave a link to Salon.  <<hands up>>  My give up.

 

Oh sorry, here's a direct link to the site if you can't be bothered to look for the link yourself.

 

http://www.wingia.com/en/services/about_the_end_of_year_survey/global_results/7/33/

[Latter Days Guy]

OK, I've just re-read a few of my comments on here and want to apologies if I've offended anyone.  Seems I'm having one of those "got my head stuck up my own butt" days and have made some remarks that are not in the Spirit of Christ.  Please accept my apology as I never intended to cause offence.

 

LDG

[Vort]

OK, I've just re-read a few of my comments on here and want to apologies if I've offended anyone.  Seems I'm having one of those "got my head stuck up my own butt" days and have made some remarks that are not in the Spirit of Christ.  Please accept my apology as I never intended to cause offence.

 

For the record, I am not a Tea Partier, though if I were more active in politics, I might well be.

[Guest]

Ditto to Vort.

[Blackmarch]

also just for kicks sake... "It aint over, till it's over, and as long as someone is trying to change something, it aint over"

[Guest Godless]

 

 

What I find hypocritical in this vein is that the left decried it when Bush did it.  But Obama continuing it (and in this case RESTARTING it) is not a problem.  

 

I didn't like it when Bush did it.  I do not like it now that Obama is doing it.

 

 

I think you're overestimating liberal support of Obama's military actions against ISIS. Personally, I'm a bit torn on the issue. It probably goes without saying that I opposed the 2003 invasion, as well as the air strikes under Clinton. Now that the deed has been done, however, we're in a bit of a conundrum. On the one hand, it makes sense that we should clean up the mess we created. But is that really possible? Or is the only path to stability to allow another dictator to take over? And if we refuse to fight ISIS, a monster that we created, then what right do we have to turn away refugees who are fleeing that very monster? I don't envy the man (Obama) who has the task of answering these questions.

[Guest]

I was referring to Libya.  I think he's actually being wishy-washy on the ISIL thing.

Edited October 29, 2015 by Guest

[Guest Godless]

I was referring to Libya. I think he's actually being wishy-washy on the ISIL thing.

Gotcha. When it comes to Libya, I think we're in agreement.

[Guest]

They're bias because they don't paint the tea party in a good light maybe?

 

Its not me who said it but a poll by gallup.

 

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/09/the_top_4_threats_to_global_peace_guess_who_is_number_one_partner/

 

They're biased because they're biased.  They don't even know what Tea Party is!  Before you can say the Tea Party is nutty, you first have to know what the Tea Party is about.

 

Yes, the WIN/Gallup is an international survey - a lot of Europeans in that survey.  They think like you - get the flavor of American foreign policy through salon.com, et. al.

 

The greatest threat to world peace from the US is Barack Obama - the guy who the world awarded the Nobel Peace Price on his first few weeks in office when he hasn't even made a single move towards peace besides giving a few speeches.  That's your WIN/Gallup results right there.  Awarding the Tea Party as the contributors to the threat to world peace is, frankly, just plain ignorant - they have no idea what Tea Party is about.

Edited October 29, 2015 by anatess

[Ffenix]

1. Would a rational person start a world war?

 

    No.  Hitler did.  Obama didn't.

true, and I doubt that is his goal either.

 

 

3. Would a rational person who made an oath to protect this country wage war upon his country?

 

    No.  But then Obama is not waging war upon his country... so....

It's not normal war per se, I'd say it's more of a shadow war, and whether he intends it or not, (and I think he does) These policies will drive this country to the ground as effectively as if we were in wwIII. The only issue is that people don't notice it for that, since we've grown to used to the idea that America is and always will be the amazing country it is/was. Because we aren't in open conflict, we turn a blind eye to it, noticing only the immediate issues that it brings, not recognizing the underlying possibilities.

[cdowis]

"War"

 

What is the ultimate goal of war?  To invade another country, which means that the border no longer exists for the safety and benefit of the citizens of that country.  The invaders take control of critical functions of the government.

 

This is the WHAT of war.  

 

The HOW many take on many forms, but the result is still the same.  Trying to conquer it with superior armed forces is very expensive and inefficient.  If you work from within, take down the borders, weaken the military and the local law enforcement, allow a wholesale invasion of "immigrants" with absolutely no controls on who is entering the country -- well, folks, that is very inexpensive and highly efficient on how to invade a country.

 

The internal invader uses platitudes to justify what you are doing, but the result is the same.  This is a "peaceful" invasion.  and while this is happening, the majority of the citizens are bought off with free stuff, not realizing the eroding of their freedoms as the price for all this free stuff.  At least, until the well runs dry, but it is then too late.

 

The "free stuff" and "we are in control, so do what we say" leaders are now running the country with the support of the "immigrants" because the election laws are weakened or ignored.  They are given a free pass to vote.

 

I know, sounds impossible, sounds insane, doesn't it.  It just can't happen because.... well..... uhhhh....

...cough....

Edited November 5, 2015 by cdowis

[The Folk Prophet]

"War"

 

What is the ultimate goal of war?  To invade another country

 

I think the Captain Moroni would disagree with you.

[Traveler]

"War"

 

What is the ultimate goal of war?  To invade another country, which means that the border no longer exists for the safety and benefit of the citizens of that country.  The invaders take control of critical functions of the government.

 

This is the WHAT of war.  

 

.....

 

Along with Folk Prophet - I think you have a misunderstanding of war.  It would appear to me that the engine of war is to plunder and take control of the resources controlled by others.  In essence the engine of war is the same as that of a  thief - to plunder the wealth and resources of others.  But for some, the purpose of war is also to preserve wealth and keep control of it. 

 

This definition, I believe allows for the understanding of the war in heaven that started in the pre-existence and is currently taking place.  War can take on many stages as we begin to understand what wealth actually is - at least for me, there is more to wealth and resources than money, property and physical things that can be placed inside of a physical border.