We need to kill Radical Islam totally, completely and without compassion.

[strollingbones]

i think 60 yr old men who post 20 yr old plus topless pics of themselves have a lot of issues..his posts prove me right

 

[Gunny]

pray tell how does one kill radical islam without killing all muslims..personally i find it shameful that he calls for any type of genoicide against anyone...but hey that is just me...

I only agreed with the solution. I don't have a plan. It is a viable solution.

You can call it shameful if you want, but radical Islam equals terrorists to me and I have no problem shooting rabid dogs.

So I guess you would have to provide YOUR definition of radical Islam that you think is worthy of a mercy they don't show.

 

[YWN666]

Why do you keep repeating the same intellectually dishonest question? The thread title says "...kill RADICAL Islam," not your Muslim friends.

But he smeared all Muslims when he said its mass murdering founder's dastardly deeds are bragged about in the Koran. My question asked if his Muslim friends were of the same mentality.

 

[sealybobo]

But he smeared all Muslims when he said its mass murdering founder's dastardly deeds are bragged about in the Koran. My question asked if his Muslim friends were of the same mentality.

They/We gotta stop calling it radical islam. It has nothing to do with islam. The Christians/Politicians here want to call it rad Islam so they can sell it to their radical christian friends.

We need to kill off radical christianity too. And we already have the leaders names. Hagee, Robertson, falwell.

Let's put them on playing cards like we did during the Iraq war. LOL.

But seriously, what we have to do is get in tight with the Pakistan/Afgan governments, and be allowed to covertly wipe out terrorist training camps that we know about. And that's going to happen.

Robert Gates was kept on because he understands the problem. He knows how to deal with terrorists. It isn't militarily. We need to stay in Iraq & Afganistan, but only because Bush took us in. Now we must stay, for awhile anyways. But we need to scale down and bring the troops home. Sure you leave some troops behind. Sure you leave some Blackwater troops behind. But not the numbers we have now.

Putting more troops in Afganistan would be a mistake. It'll be cheaper and more effective to do business with the local tribal leaders. With their support, we win.

Or we can blow up the whole country. That'll just clear the way for other anti American's to move in and set up shop. We need anti terrorist citizens living in those places. Pro American's. If we invest, they'll be pro American.

 

[RodISHI]

i think 60 yr old men who post 20 yr old plus topless pics of themselves have a lot of issues..his posts prove me right

I think you have made a very astute observation there. Scary ain't it.

 

[AllieBaba]

They/We gotta stop calling it radical islam. It has nothing to do with islam. The Christians/Politicians here want to call it rad Islam so they can sell it to their radical christian friends.

We need to kill off radical christianity too. And we already have the leaders names. Hagee, Robertson, falwell.

Let's put them on playing cards like we did during the Iraq war. LOL.

But seriously, what we have to do is get in tight with the Pakistan/Afgan governments, and be allowed to covertly wipe out terrorist training camps that we know about. And that's going to happen.

Robert Gates was kept on because he understands the problem. He knows how to deal with terrorists. It isn't militarily. We need to stay in Iraq & Afganistan, but only because Bush took us in. Now we must stay, for awhile anyways. But we need to scale down and bring the troops home. Sure you leave some troops behind. Sure you leave some Blackwater troops behind. But not the numbers we have now.

Putting more troops in Afganistan would be a mistake. It'll be cheaper and more effective to do business with the local tribal leaders. With their support, we win.

Or we can blow up the whole country. That'll just clear the way for other anti American's to move in and set up shop. We need anti terrorist citizens living in those places. Pro American's. If we invest, they'll be pro American.

THat's just ridiculous. Hagee, Robertson and what's his name have not funded, with millions and billions of dollars, coups and suicide attacks and outright war against those of different religions. If you know something I know, go ahead and share it. Otherwise, you're talking out your ass when you make such ridiculous comparisons.

 

[Paulie]

Do you consider yourself to be a liberal?

Nope. I consider myself a libertarian. We've been through that already, Glock.

Why?

 

[glockmail]

Nope. I consider myself a libertarian. We've been through that already, Glock.

Why?

Libertarians are socially liberal. Liberals usually claim that gays are moral, normal and all that, then use gay as an insult. I find it amusingly hypocritical.

 

[AllieBaba]

Amen.

 

[AllieBaba]

Even better is when they "wish" a homosexual child upon people they claim have no business having children.

 

[Paulie]

Libertarians are socially liberal. Liberals usually claim that gays are moral, normal and all that, then use gay as an insult. I find it amusingly hypocritical.

Don't fucking state what my positions are. You don't fucking know me.

The difference between a libertarian and a liberal regarding social policy is that most liberals want social policy legislated in some way, same as most conservatives. Libertarians don't see it as an issue that pertains to government affairs.

I couldn't fucking care less if you're gay, it's none of my business and it's none of the government's business.

Liberals don't see it that way, and conservatives CERTAINLY don't. You both want the government to involve itself and waste precious time and tax dollars doing so. It's fucking ridiculous.

You're entitled to the pursuit of happiness. If being a fag makes you happy, then more power to you. That's the beauty of America.

 

[glockmail]

Don't fucking state what my positions are. You don't fucking know me.

The difference between a libertarian and a liberal regarding social policy is that most liberals want social policy legislated in some way, same as most conservatives. Libertarians don't see it as an issue that pertains to government affairs.

I couldn't fucking care less if you're gay, it's none of my business and it's none of the government's business.

Liberals don't see it that way, and conservatives CERTAINLY don't. You both want the government to involve itself and waste precious time and tax dollars doing so. It's fucking ridiculous.

You're entitled to the pursuit of happiness. If being a fag makes you happy, then more power to you. That's the beauty of America.

I didn't state your positions, just those of the Libertarian Party. I did notice, however, that you attempted to state mine. How ironic.

 

[Paulie]

I didn't state your positions, just those of the Libertarian Party. I did notice, however, that you attempted to state mine. How ironic.

Well you were WRONG about the LP's positions. The LP does not want the government involving itself in social policy. Let society handle it on its own. That is MUCH different from a typical liberal of today's position. If society determined on its own not to include gays in whatever, then so be it. A liberal does not agree with that, a liberal wants the government to make gay affairs something that is legislated in some kind of way. So do MOST conservatives. MOST liberals, and MOST conservatives, want the government to involve itself and create a law. Libertarians do not want that. HUGE DIFFERENCE.

And I didn't state your positions. I said "most" when referring to liberals and conservatives, and when I said "you" I was referring to both ideologies in general. I have no idea what your specific positions are on social policy, as I've never had a conversation with you about it other than you trying to generalize libertarians in a different thread. Kevin Kennedy was involved, it was a couple weeks ago.

All I know about you is that you're a gun rights advocate. It's what you seem to talk about the most around here. Otherwise, I stay out of social policy threads for the most part so I know very little about your positions on that.

 

[glockmail]

Well you were WRONG about the LP's positions. The LP does not want the government involving itself in social policy. Let society handle it on its own. That is MUCH different from a typical liberal of today's position. If society determined on its own not to include gays in whatever, then so be it. A liberal does not agree with that, a liberal wants the government to make gay affairs something that is legislated in some kind of way. So do MOST conservatives. MOST liberals, and MOST conservatives, want the government to involve itself and create a law. Libertarians do not want that. HUGE DIFFERENCE.

And I didn't state your positions. I said "most" when referring to liberals and conservatives, and when I said "you" I was referring to both ideologies in general. I have no idea what your specific positions are on social policy, as I've never had a conversation with you about it other than you trying to generalize libertarians in a different thread. Kevin Kennedy was involved, it was a couple weeks ago.

All I know about you is that you're a gun rights advocate. It's what you seem to talk about the most around here. Otherwise, I stay out of social policy threads for the most part so I know very little about your positions on that.

Well now that we've got that settled.

I'm big on all rights, not just gun ones. The feds should stick to the enumerated powers and that's that. If two fags want to do their thing, so be it, just don't ask me to pay their health bills, allow them to adopt kids and foul a 5000 year old tradition the we have called marriage.

 

[Paulie]

Well now that we've got that settled.

I'm big on all rights, not just gun ones. The feds should stick to the enumerated powers and that's that. If two fags want to do their thing, so be it, just don't ask me to pay their health bills, allow them to adopt kids and foul a 5000 year old tradition the we have called marriage.

But who are you to say they can't adopt? You'd have to LEGISLATE that. That's where libertarians part ways with libs and cons. That and marriage have no place in law. It's a private matter with religious implications. If you're big on rights, then gays should probably have the RIGHT to marry, no? We all have the right to pursue happiness. No one should be able to deny anyone that right. And this all being said, I personally don't agree with it either. But who am I to say no to them? I'll live my life, and gays can live theirs. We don't OWN so-called traditions. You wanting the government to deny someone that right to pursue happiness is counter-productive to the conservative TRADITION of government staying out of people's personal lives.

 

[AllieBaba]

Except.

You have to be able to keep track of the population. And the way you do that is by keeping track of birth and marriage records.

 

[glockmail]

But who are you to say they can't adopt? You'd have to LEGISLATE that. That's where libertarians part ways with libs and cons. That and marriage have no place in law. It's a private matter with religious implications. If you're big on rights, then gays should probably have the RIGHT to marry, no? We all have the right to pursue happiness. No one should be able to deny anyone that right. And this all being said, I personally don't agree with it either. But who am I to say no to them? I'll live my life, and gays can live theirs. We don't OWN so-called traditions. You wanting the government to deny someone that right to pursue happiness is counter-productive to the conservative TRADITION of government staying out of people's personal lives.

So by your standards we should let masochists adopt, because it makes them happy. Damn the kids.

 

[Paulie]

So by your standards we should let masochists adopt, because it makes them happy. Damn the kids.

I'm not even sure how you conjured that up as an analogy, as stupid as it is. A masochist who is a US citizen has every right to pursue their happiness, though. Should they be caught hurting their child, then they suffer the same fate as anyone else who does it.

You don't deny them a child because you SUSPECT they might hurt them becuase of what they practice in their personal life.

Someone who smokes weed shouldn't have a child either, right? I mean, they MIGHT make the child take a hit from the bong.

When you start legislating mere suspicions, freedom is gone Glock.

 

[editec]

You can't kill an idea with an army.

You kill ideas with superior ideas.

Judging from most of the kneejerking jingo crap I read on this board, radical Islamic though (AKA fascioIslam) is likely to be with us a great long time.

 

[glockmail]

I'm not even sure how you conjured that up as an analogy, as stupid as it is. A masochist who is a US citizen has every right to pursue their happiness, though. Should they be caught hurting their child, then they suffer the same fate as anyone else who does it.

You don't deny them a child because you SUSPECT they might hurt them becuase of what they practice in their personal life.

Someone who smokes weed shouldn't have a child either, right? I mean, they MIGHT make the child take a hit from the bong.

When you start legislating mere suspicions, freedom is gone Glock.

Nice straw man attack of my argument. However I specifically addressed the issue of adoption by masochists. Adoption agencies and government authorities not only have a right, but a duty to review the lifestyle habits of would-be parents. Wouldn't you agree?