United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Are the Interventionists Now Leaderless?
Source:
Pat Bucanan.org
URL Source: http://buchanan.org/blog/are-the-in ... tionists-now-leaderless-129973
Published: Sep 1, 2018
Author: Patrick J. Buchanan
Post Date: 2018-09-01 07:27:55 by buckeroo
Keywords: None
Views: 3888
Comments: 40
“The death of John McCain will leave Congress without perhaps its loudest voice in support of the robust internationalism that has defined the country’s security relations since World War II.” Certainly, the passing of the senator whose life story will dominate the news until he is buried at his alma mater, the Naval Academy, on Sunday, leaves America’s interventionists without their greatest champion. No one around has the prestige or media following of McCain. And the cause he championed, compulsive intervention in foreign quarrels to face down dictators and bring democrats to power, appears to be a cause whose time has passed. When 9/11 occurred, America was united in crushing the al-Qaida terrorists who perpetrated the atrocities. John McCain then backed President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003, which had no role in the attacks. During Barack Obama’s presidency, he slipped into northern Syria to cheer rebels who had arisen to overthrow President Bashar Assad, an insurgency that led to a seven-year civil war and one of the great humanitarian disasters of our time. McCain supported the expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe and the Baltic, right up to Russia’s border. When Georgia invaded South Ossetia in 2008, and was expelled by the Russian army, McCain roared, “We are all Georgians now!” He urged intervention. But Bush, his approval rating scraping bottom, had had enough of the neocon crusades for democracy. McCain’s contempt for Vladimir Putin was unconstrained. When crowds gathered in Maidan Square in Kiev to overthrow an elected pro-Russian president, McCain was there, cheering them on. He supported sending arms to the Ukrainian army to fight pro-Russian rebels in the Donbass. He backed U.S. support for Saudi intervention in Yemen. And this war, too, proved to be a humanitarian disaster. John McCain was a war hawk, and proud of it. But by 2006, the wars he had championed had cost the Republican Party both houses of Congress. “McCain’s Death Leaves Void” ran The Wall Street Journal headline over a front-page story that began:
McCain was instrumental in bringing Trump to the forefront of American politics.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: buckeroo (#0)
After watching and listening to McCain my conclusion is that he is batshit crazy warmonger who thrived off fighting to prove his manhood. His up bringing by a navy admiral must have distorted his conscientious and ability to realize hurting people has consequences. He was molded to in the old Roman way of conquering and turning the conquering into citizens of the greater state without realizing they would never ever be apart of the collective. Just an evil man and the world is so much better off that he is gone.
Remember, he served Arizona from 1983 to the present. Basically, he had the continuous trust of Arizona's voters for a quarter of a century; and the warhawks loved the man.
He should have never been reelected after the Keating five issue. I think more than what was let out happen and that it was used against McCain to control him. To me he is a corrupt man.
It is amazing to me, whom the American voters place in political power. They do it year after year.
I think it comes down to MSM is corrupt and are used to push those that have money that can pay them to print stories. I believe the news media has been corrupted and thank God for internet news. Im not a big fan of Alex Jones but at least he is more honest and correct than the MSM. I remember my father talking politics with other men and how they use to get mad when they were being played by the msm. Not no more.
With some luck, you might remember my top of the thread comment: We are in total agreement.
I think that list is long. Must start with Obama at the top. Fights(wars) are always a failure of communications and leadership. People like McCain just like to fight because it makes them feel like a "real man". Real men do not have to fight or hurt others to feel whole.
The piece of barack is still dead and in Hell, right? That's all that matters.
I largely agreed with McCain on foreign policy and war. Where we parted ways is over post-Cold War Russia and Vladimir Putin. McCain could never see that Russia was not the USSR, and that Putin was not a Stalin-like figure. His hatred was too deeply entrenched. That caused a serious divide between me and him on a central aspect of foreign policy. As far as playing the Islamists off against each other, and bombing the hell out of Islamist shitholes, he and I were on the same page. After 9/11 I thought we should have invaded, conquered and forcibly converted (to secularism) all of the terror-supporting states of the Middle East: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran - whatever it took. McCain had a tin ear on Russia. I agreed with him elsewhere.
Yet, the good ol' USA helped to create the current strife in and about the Islamist terrorists that still exist in the ME. Ever hear of "Freedom Fighters" by Ronald Reagan? Ever look into the legacy of this bullshit?
It defeated the USSR, bringing it to a speedy end, so ultimately the price was worth paying. You have to break some eggs to make an omelette.
I have a term for you and your lame perspective: FUCK YOU and the HORSE YOU RODE.
Shame on you!
You're certainly entitled to that opinion. It's a free country. Likewise, I'm entitled to mine.
I believe that the best way to defeat Islam is through a Crusade. But my view is the minority view, so it did not, and will not, come to pass.
It is not relevant. Shame on you! Since when Iraq and Syria were invaded by Islamists?
You bore me with your "shame on you". Syria and Iraq have, and had, respectively, governments that funded and protected certain international terrorist organizations. Those terrorists were primarily focused on Israel - their Islamism was of an Arabist anti-Israel focus, primarily, as opposed to the "America is Satan" Al Qaeda jihadi style, but it makes no difference to me. People who think that, say, Israel belongs to them because their religion claims certain territory as inviolable are problematic. And when they outright attack my people and the people of my allies, they are enemies. On 9/11 one set of Islamist terrorists struck at the very heart of the United States. This enragd the American people, rightly so, and gave us the opportunity to have the political unity, in that moment, to launch a Crusade against Islamic countries in general, to breakl ALL of the governments that will not make peace with us OR with our ally, Israel. To sweep the table by either destroying outright every government that supports terrorism against us ("us" meaning the US, the West, Israel and also, in my mind, Russia - because of course the Chechens and the nutjobs who blow up theaters and attack schools are Islamic, and consider themselves the "other", deserving of getting out of Russia BECAUSE they are "different", because of their Islam. And they're willing to kill Russian kids and civilians to advance that cause. The cause of Islamic particularism is itself illegitimate. It expresses itself EVERYWHERE in the same way: violence and contempt for all other human life. But Muslim societies are pretty stupid, intellectually, backwards. They are only able to advance their killing agendas because of oil money, which is all controlled by governments over there. it's the governments that protect and fund the radical movements composed of Muslims everywhere in the world. So, to stop the Islamic violence, you have to either destroy those governments outright and replace them with governments you control, who will control those flows of money under your supervision, OR you have to intimidate the governments that have done it in the past sufficiently that they stop. The lesson of dealing with Islamic governments is that they are true believers who think God is on their side. They won't BE intimidated. Even Syria's government, beset by civil war and facing American forces, still stubbornly refuses to make a permanent peace with Israel to take off Western pressure. Given the utter intransigence of Muslims, you have to conquer them and strip away their ability to route oil money into terrorism far and wide. That's what we SHOULD have done after 9.11. It would have been very easy, with the American public in an agitated and angry state, to declare war on a laundry list of Islamist movements (which we get to define) and on every country that supports them. You don't have to name the countries. If a country supports an organization on that list, you are authorized to attack it. Congress would have given that war authorization, and the US President would have had carte blanche to take out any government that supported Islamists at will. There would have been a more generatl mobilization, and the dominos in the Middle East would have toppled quickly, no lingering war. That's what SHOULD have happened. It didn't, because the US national leaders don't see Islam as the threat it is. That same brain trust also did not see China as the threat that it was rising to be. But they focused on Russia as THE threat, even though the USSR was long gone. Our leaders are stupid, so we lost our chance to crush Islam, lost our chance to nip China's rise to fascism in the bud, and created the trauma we have with Russia. Done right, the whole MIddle East would be American-dominated neo-colonies right now, Russia and the US would be at peace, and there would be no fake Chinese islands. You never let a crisis go to waste. 9/11 gave us one bright shining moment in which the American people would have authorized a declared general war with full mobilization, for us to conquer and neo-colonize the Middle East, thereby crushing out the Islamists while taking control of the world's oil supply and, thereby, the Chinese, Indian and other Asian economies. We had the strength. All that was required was the will. And with 9/11, the PEOPLE had the will to war. But the leaders were feckless assholes with no vision. So instead we went to war in limited fits and starts, did not send enough forces, lost our opportunity to mobilize a united country for a true war of conquest, and ended up spending two trillion dollars and ten thousand lives to go an make an Iranian ally out of Iraq, and break a bunch of countries leaving chaos in our wake. Our grand strategy was visionless, our campaigns were poorly thought out, and we ended up doing to ourselves what the Soviets did to themselves in Afghanistan. Dumb. I am ashamed at how badly we mishandled the war. I would have been proud to have conquered.
What is a difference between you and for example Hitler?
Several differences. First, he chose his enemies because of religious bigotry. Hatred of Jews, taught for 1600 years by the Christian churches, coupled with envy of their perceived wealth and the sorely bruised egos of the defeated German people, who lied to themselves and told themselves they were too great to really be defeated, so they must've been betrayed from within. Yeah, that's the ticket! The Jews provided a ready-made scapegoat, served up by the Church, by their particularism, and by the rigid nature of the German character. The Jews were not actually guilty of ANY of the charges that Hitler laid against them. They were not ACTUALLY the enemies of Germany, they were not REALLY in control of German finance, they never REALLY betrayed the German state - Germany lost World War I because the Germans were militarily inferior to the allies and were, in fact, defeated on the battlefield. They were too arrogant to admit it, because the war had been fought on foreign soil, but that was objectively the truth. They BLAMED the Jews as the source of Germany's weakness, but Germany's ERAL weakness was real weakness: the Germans were not as strong militarily as they deceived themselves to be, and they were not the supermen their cartoonish propaganda said they were. The Jews were the victim of a national delusion, which Hitler was able to harness up. The Muslims have objectively been at war with Christianity for 1400 years. They attacked the World Trade Center. They strop bombs on themselves and blow up busses. They seize schools, in Beslan for instance, and kill children in service to their religion and their beliefs. Radical Islam is, in fact, a real, open, violent declared enemy that has killed thousands of our own people in recent years. So, the first huge difference is that Hitler made up an enemy, the Jews, and attacked them. Islam is a real enemy that has attacked us and our civilization for one thousand four hundred years, pretty relentlessly. The last time the Jews attacked the Christians was in the Third Century, and they never attacked the Christians in Europe or in Germany at all. That's the biggest difference. 9/11 was a Muslim Pearl Harbor on America, followed by comparable events in the London and Madrid subways, followed later by slaughter in a theater in Paris, and Moscow, and Beslan. The Jews never attacked Germany. So, we have the RIGHT to view Islam as the enemy, because it IS. The Germans had no right to consider the Jews as an enemy or as a threat - they were neither. Hitler used Christian cultural hatred for Jews, taught by the Church for a millennium and more, as the basis to mobilize a political party. The Germans hated the jews and chose Hitler because they were delusional bigots. I hate Islamicism because it has tried to kill me more than once, and has succeeded in killing my friends. Hitler declared war on the Jews and attacked them - they had done nothing. Islam declared war on me and mine fourteen hundred years ago, and has never stopped. Are you really so dense that you cannot distinguish the difference? A second difference is motive. Hitler wanted to conquer Slavs to enslave them and kill them and take their land. I want to conquer the Islamic states to give them governments that will stop attacking ,me. Two entirely different things. Are you really this dense? Other differences: he was Austrian. I am American. He hd a mustache. I don't. He was a vegetarian. I'm an omnivore. He was a teetotaler; I drink. He had one ball, I have two. He was intolerant of everybody and everything and filled with hatred. I tolerate almost everything. He was eager to take up the sword and conquer. I am defensive - the only reason I recognize that we need to conquer Dar es Islaam and remake it is because they keep attacking me. I am not at all like Hitler. DeGaulle or Churchill or FDR? Sure.
Several differences. First, he chose his enemies because of religious bigotry. Hatred of Jews, taught for 1600 years Religious bigotry. Hatred of Muslims, taught for 1400 years, hmm. He was also thinking that his people (Austrian/German) were exceptional. I see no difference. "For Raskolnikov, all men are divided into two categories: ordinary and extraordinary. The ordinary man has to live in submission and has no right to transgress the law because he is ordinary. On the contrary, the extraordinary men have the right to commit any crime and to transgress the law in any way."
So, you don't know Mediterranean history. Ok. Go learn it. We're done.
Shame on you
No, shame on you. If you choose to lie to yourself about Islam, there is nothing I can do about it, but I don't have to waste my time trying to teach you history. You bleed out the eyeballs for every little imagined slight affecting your tribe, but you choose to call the reasonable apprehension of Islam that people, and civilizations, that have spent their lives, and centuries, fighting, as racism. It's not even stupid. Nobody is that stupid. You're not that stupid. It's you willfully lying. I have no patience for it, so I'm just going to leave you to lie to yourself.
Syria was not a Islamic state, neither was Iraq. You promote genocide of Christians.
Their thoughts on financial enslavement seem to be the same.
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
No, I don’t promote the genocide of Christians, I want the destruction of enemies. France got chewed up pretty badly driving out the Nazis. So did Poland. Collateral damage is regrettable but inevitable in war.
Social Security is not financial enslavement.
Why are you forgetting about all of the other silly social programs you support that costs trillions, making the responsible financial slaves to the irresponsible? Why do we have to keep the dregs of society alive (to vote obviously) instead of letting more babies be born that could turn out to be much better citizens (with the correct education system of course)? Is that big long list a bit embarrassing??
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
Very simple. Social programs are a dividend for being a member of an affluent society, same way as the rich can live off the wealth that the rest of the society protects and maintains. Take dividends from the poor and they lose interest in siding with the system. Like Roman poor who welcomed the barbarian invaders.
Is what embarrassing? Social Security? No. Public Schools? No. State Universities? No. Public roads, rails, runways and seaports? No. Public sewers? I e the e No. Medicare and Medicaid? No. Unemployment and disability benefits? No. Food stamps? No. School and school lunches? No.
Why you going down a rabbit hole again?? BTW I'm curious as to why you think newborn babies are going to grow up to be criminals?
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
I'm not. You asked if I found social programs embarrassing. I listed the ones I care about. That's not a rabbit hole at all. That is what I defend when I say the social welfare state. You may be thinking of something else. Why do I think babies will grow up to be criminals? Statistics. 50% of ghetto black men go to prison for crimes. A large number of aborted babies are black, conceived by unwed mothers in the ghetto. Outlaw Roe, and there will be about a million more poor ghetto babies each year, and half of them will grow up to be criminal predators. We know from the crime statistics that crime in America began to drop sharply in the mid-to- late 80s, starting about 16 years after Roe v Wade. Crime declined continuously as cohort after cohort of the criminal unborn were nipped in the bud. Now, politicians like Rudolph Giuliani claimed that this drop off in crime was due to his tough policing. While there may be some truth to that, it should be noted that the crime rate in Detroit plunged also during the same time period, and this was not due to police reform - nothing changed there, except for abortion legalization.
We know from the crime statistics that crime in America began to drop sharply in the mid-to- late 80s, starting about 16 years after Roe v Wade. Crime declined continuously as cohort after cohort of the criminal unborn were nipped in the bud. Now, politicians like Rudolph Giuliani claimed that this drop off in crime was due to his tough policing. While there may be some truth to that, it should be noted that the crime rate in Detroit plunged also during the same time period, and this was not due to police reform - nothing changed there, except for abortion legalization. Your way means we pay to keep those people alive that would parent those babies that according to you would need to be killed/aborted to keep the crime rate down. Then we have to turn right around and pay for the abortions and whatever other silliness that goes along with it. My way means we make those potential parents either become useful/responsible members of society or they would basically kill themselves off cause the handouts keeping them alive would be cut off. My way is 3 times cheaper than your way and my way isn't as mean because they would have done it to themselves thru their own inactions/actions, not being torn apart with tongs and pliers cause you/them have no sense.
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
I'm not talking about getting rid of all of those programs just determining who can use them and who can't, something I explained to you before. Inferring I mean getting rid of all of them is a rabbit hole, disingenuous to say the least.
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
No. First, abortion is not “My Way”. I OPPOSE abortion. I am merely objective about what abortion does: keep down the crime rate and the poverty rate. MY WAY is to outlaw abortion and expand poverty relief programs to take care all of the additional babies, and to improve the schools and re- education system in prisons to keep down the crime rate, also to legalize drugs so as to largely eliminate organized crime’s economic support base. Because I am a realist, I don’t pretend we can just abolish abortion and not have an utter disaster unless we substantially improve our social welfare network. MY WAY is not cruel to anybody - it’s just expensive. The way I would pay for things is not to raise taxes, but to eliminate the various tax exemptions for the ways that rich people hold and accumulate wealth, subjecting them to the SAME taxes that you and I already pay. We pay property taxes on our houses, and payrolll and income taxes on their wages. Those are our primary ways of holding and accumulating wealth. But they primarily hold wealth in the form of securities, and pay no property taxes on them, nor sales taxes to purchase and sell them, nor taxes on the increase in value of their wealth. In this way their wealth multiplies without taxation, giving them a huge unfair advantage over you and me. I would simply strip away the exemptions that allow THOSE forms of wealth and increase to escape taxation, and tax THOSE things at the same rate we tax all OTHER sales, and real tangible property, and gains. There is nothing more fair than MY WAY of taxation. The rich would HATE IT precisely BECAUSE it is so completely fair, and they would have to pay the SAME percentages that you and I pay. They have an inherent advantage right now because they don’t.
Ok. So you don’t want to eliminate the various pieces of the safety net. Good. You and I are on the reservation of reasonableness. Now if you’ll admit that eliminating abortion rights would increase the number of poor and demand on the system, we’ll be further on the same page. Remember, that is not an ARGUMENT , to me, for having abortion. It’s an observation about the logistical reality of what happens if abortion is abolished - a logistical reality that has to be faced and addressed by those of us who oppose abortion, because if we refuse to talk about it, and admit that the alternative is more expensive, then there will be no meeting of the minds on abortion and it will stay legal.
And no, it is not more cruel to tear apart unborn, unthinking (though feeling) babies apart in the womb over the course of a few minutes, than to allow thinking, feeling adults to slowly die of starvation and disease. The second thing is far, far more cruel than the first. Both are bad. To avoid the second, we have to have a social safety net, and we do - and you yourself have agreed that we need it. To avoid the first - by outlawing it - that safety net will have to be a lot more expensive, because there will be a lot more people using it, as they won't be aborted. THAT is "my way". The way things ACTUALLY ARE is that we have the social safety net, and it's kind of threadbare but functional, and we abort the babies and thus keep the costs and crime low. That is how the people, through our system have come out. Neither you nor I agree with it, but it will never change by you beating me over the head with the fact that social welfare is expensive. Yes, it is. And the people are not going to get rid of that cost, because the alternative is starvation and massive human suffering. Therefore, there WILL be social welfare, and that means that taxes WILL certainly be higher than you want them to be. This is inevitable, and the numbers that will continue to support that are invincible. So bitching about it is a stupid waste of time. You can never win that war, and should not waste time trying to fight it. Maybe 10% of the population will ever go along with cutting the social safety net to the point that we don't have to have very substantial taxes. So, both social welfare and relatively high taxes are a GIVEN that simply have to be accepted. It's the cost of modern civilization, and fighting it is a fool's errand - one I'm not going to go on. If beating up on me, who accepts the social safety net like 90% of the rest of the people (and like you too, apparently) makes the kooks and yahoos on the lunatic fringe who post here feel better, go ahead. They make fun, but my ideas rule them, so I win that in the real world. The issue, from MY perspective, is to not let the fact that we need quite a bit of social welfare run amok and become an argument for full-blown socialism, to pay for everything. THAT actually makes people poorer. We cannot live without heavy social welfare. But we will live a LOT WORSE if we go all the way to full socialism, which a lot of people want. It is very hard to take the necessary, rational position that SOME of something is good, but that LESS of that thing AND MORE of that thing, are both bad. Our bodies are like this with wine. A glass or two a day is healthier than none. Three glasses is less healthy than none or some. The golden mean of a glass for a woman and two glasses for a man is much healthier than drinking no alcohol, or drinking an extra glass of it. This notion of doing SOME of something, then stopping, seems to drive rigid-minded people and fanatics INSANE. They cannot seem to handle self-restraint. Yes, we need all of that social welfare. No, we don't need to take over everything to do that. What the socialists and the libertarians advocate is either drinking a whole bottle every day, or being a teetotaler, and BOTH of those things are suboptimal. The Golden Mean is simply better, but it's hard to argue for it, because socialists and libertarians are fanatics, and fanatics are outspoken assholes. "Golden Meaners" are common sense moderates, like me, and common sense moderates don't really want to fight. But we also know we're right, and we don't really compromise on anything either, any more than the socialists or the libertarians. So you end up having a three way rigid uncompromising fight - and there are a lot more sensible common sense moderates like me than either socialists or libertarians. So the laws and the government and social welfare look a lot more like what I like, and the other two groups bleed out the eyes, scream and go mental about it. And because I stick up my head on a site like this and argue, essentially, for normality and the Golden Mean, the fanatics on both sides scream at me. You were screaming at me, but then you acknowledged that we DO need social welfare. Which means that you're not off in the crazy swamps. Yes, we DO. And that means we need taxes, a LOT of them. BUT we can't let the need for social welfare run away into the socialists' crazy desire to command and control anything, because they're kind of stupid and that always crashes and burns. Nor can we throw up our hands and give up and "go libertarian" and just let people starve, because we're not animals and we're not going to go nuts like that. Sensible people should never be arguing about whether or not we're going to let people starve. We should be talking about the best way to pay for what we have to do, what the fairest tax codes are. What standard of living we want retirees, the poor, etc. to have, and what standard of education, and what standard of medical care. I would say that the standard of living should be the same as the lower working class. The standard of education should be that of the suburban middle class, and the standard of health care should be universal Medicare.
So is every baby not aborted going to automatically be poor? (who Jesus said we would always have with us) If it is not 100 percent that will be what you call poor. What percentage is it and how do you know that? Or are you just making your liberal talking points again and pretending they are true? You know so much that isn't true.
No it just means some of the people on the programs need to be kicked off and/or sent back to the country they came from. And BTW Trump agrees with me they're going to start enforcing the laws governing immigrants, like the one which says "If you can't support yourself and your families while here (no handouts allowed) you will go home to the schitthole you came from". You still like Trump now?
Vegetarians eat vegetables. Beware of humanitarians!
Of course I still like Trump. Why wouldn't I? Look at the economy. Look at the deregulation. Look at the tariffs he's slapping on unfair traders! What's not to love?
#2. To: Justified (#1)
#3. To: buckeroo (#2)
#4. To: Justified (#3)
#5. To: buckeroo (#4)
#6. To: Justified (#5)
McCain was instrumental in bringing Trump to the forefront of American politics.
#7. To: buckeroo (#6)
McCain was instrumental in bringing Trump to the forefront of American politics
#8. To: buckeroo (#0)
#9. To: buckeroo (#0)
#10. To: Vicomte13 (#9)
As far as playing the Islamists off against each other, and bombing the hell out of Islamist shitholes, he and I were on the same page.
#11. To: buckeroo (#10)
Ever hear of "Freedom Fighters" by Ronald Reagan? Ever look into the legacy of this bullshit?
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#11)
It defeated the USSR, bringing it to a speedy end, so ultimately the price was worth paying. You have to break some eggs to make an omelette.
#13. To: Vicomte13 (#11)
(Edited)
we should have invaded, conquered and forcibly converted (to secularism) all of the terror-supporting states of the Middle East: Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran ... ultimately the price was worth paying
#14. To: buckeroo (#12)
I have a term for you and your lame perspective: FUCK YOU and the HORSE YOU RODE.
#15. To: A Pole (#13)
Shame on you!
#16. To: Vicomte13 (#15)
(Edited)
But my view is the minority view
forcibly converted (to secularism) ... states of the Middle East: Iraq, ... Syria ...
#17. To: A Pole (#16)
#18. To: Vicomte13 (#17)
I am ashamed at how badly we mishandled the war. I would have been proud to have conquered.
#19. To: A Pole (#18)
(Edited)
What is a difference between you and for example Hitler?
#20. To: Vicomte13 (#19)
(Edited)
"What is a difference between you and for example Hitler?"
He was Austrian. I am American.
#21. To: A Pole (#20)
Hatred of Muslims, taught for 1400 years, hmm.
#22. To: Vicomte13 (#21)
We're done.
#23. To: A Pole (#22)
(Edited)
Shame on you
#24. To: Vicomte13 (#23)
(Edited)
If you choose to lie to yourself about Islam
#25. To: A Pole (#18)
What is a difference between you and for example Hitler?
#26. To: A Pole (#24)
#27. To: CZ82 (#25)
#28. To: Vicomte13 (#27)
Social Security is not financial enslavement.
#29. To: CZ82 (#28)
silly social programs you support that costs trillions, making the responsible financial slaves to the irresponsible? Why do we have to keep the dregs of society alive
#30. To: CZ82 (#28)
#31. To: Vicomte13 (#30)
Social Security? No. Public Schools? No. State Universities? No. Public roads, rails, runways and seaports? No. Public sewers? I e the e No. Medicare and Medicaid? No. Unemployment and disability benefits? No. Food stamps? No. School and school lunches? No.
#32. To: CZ82 (#31)
#33. To: Vicomte13 (#32)
Why do I think babies will grow up to be criminals? Statistics. 50% of ghetto black men go to prison for crimes. A large number of aborted babies are black, conceived by unwed mothers in the ghetto. Outlaw Roe, and there will be about a million more poor ghetto babies each year, and half of them will grow up to be criminal predators.
#34. To: Vicomte13 (#32)
I'm not. You asked if I found social programs embarrassing. I listed the ones I care about. That's not a rabbit hole at all. That is what I defend when I say the social welfare state. You may be thinking of something else.
#35. To: CZ82 (#33)
#36. To: CZ82 (#34)
#37. To: CZ82 (#33)
(Edited)
My way is 3 times cheaper than your way and my way isn't as mean because they would have done it to themselves thru their own inactions/actions, not being torn apart with tongs and pliers cause you/them have no sense.
#38. To: Vicomte13 (#36)
Now if you’ll admit that eliminating abortion rights would increase the number of poor and demand on the system, we’ll be further on the same page.
#39. To: Vicomte13 (#37)
(Edited)
And that means we need taxes, a LOT of them.
#40. To: CZ82 (#39)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]