I don't know if any of you are familiar with a recently published book [U]America Alone. The basics of the book are about the liberals throughout the world trying to make all equal and cater to everyones needs. The book continues to say for this reason, Europe and most of the world have succomb to this liberal way of life. A perfect example would be the Muslims, who feel their relgion is law and liberals just allow it. THe book continues to say that America is the last country with a chance to avoid the fate of the other contries as the book's title implies. I agree with all of it. Don't get me wrong, i don't mind LEGAL immigration, but when liberals say we have to cater to their needs to preserve their culture, they have gone too far. ALthough some (liberals) don't agree, America has its OWN culture. People should come here to be Americans, not anything else. Furthermore, such things as affirmative action and welfare/reparations only further divide the country by race. Slavery ended in America over 100 years ago, this generation doesn't need to appologize for it! The population is divided because liberals keep making race and issue. WE ARE ALL AMERICANS! IF this continues America's political and social structure will crumble. What happened to the patriots, the Reaganites, and the American way? That is what keeps us the last real super power in the world today and we cannot falter now. If something isn't changed, America will befall the same fate as Europe and the MIddle East has.

Well, I agree to a point - many liberal talking points are silly. However, you also have to be careful with those political books. I was really into them all throughout high school, and looking back on it I realize that no matter which side they're written for, they exaggerate and use lots of over-the-top rhetoric.

Actually Patriot I am currently reading that book. And I agree, many Liberal points are silly. I have come to realize that Democrats (not all, but most) and liberals tend to be "the party of Europe." Such as, they want us to be a sort of Netherlands, where anything including pot, prostitution, etc. is legal. I don't agree with that. Liberals aren't necessarily evil, they just want us to be like Europe, which, also as the book explains, because of these liberal policies have succumb to the massive sweep of muslim immigration. Currently, the UK is debating replacing the cross on their flag because it offends Muslims. And who says Muslims do not influence European politics? Also, Spain was our major ally on mainland Europe in Iraq. After the bombing, 3 days prior to their election, they voted out the stay-the-course populist party in favor of the "pull-out" Socialist Party. Like many European nations, years of conflict has sort of drawn them away from any new conflict. They try to appease the Muslims instead of staying with the populists (who had 86% of the vote before the bombing in polls!!) who would have taken a hard-line stance.

As one Netherlands official put it after a dutch citizen was brutally beaten to death in a subway there by a gang of Muslim youth after he tried to keep them away from his wife: "If he had just kept his mouth shut, he would still be alive today." That is the European mentality. Just keep your mouth shut, turn the other cheek. That will definately stop Muslim extremists, Europe. But Europe is a lost cause. Any signs of possible preserving their culture has faded. America and Possiby Australia can avoid Europe's fate...all we must do is preserve our AMERICAN culture, and stop non-sensical concessions like changing our flags or making our women teachers wear head pieces (which they are debating currently in austria!). I doubt Americans (well, conservative americans anyway) will allow this to happen. But only time will tell. WE are the new world, not Europe, so let us hope our fate lies not with that of the old world.

True. I disapprove of appeasement by kowtowing to what the radical Islamofascists want. The last time the Western world gave in to win peace at any cost was with the rise of Hitler in the 30s - if we'd pushed back and stood up to him before he'd had time to get as far along with rearmament as he did, then World War II would have looked a lot different.

You're all quite right. In fact, with the world headed in the direction that it is, it's a wonder that the US has lasted even this long, and unfortunately it looks like the next time we have a leftist-controlled Congress and Presidency, it could be the downfall of our country.
So, I've decided that we should all move to either Vermont (where the Libertarians are) or Upper Michigan (where no one is) and secede, and then run our own country the way it ought to be.
Who's with me?

Entertaining as all this right wing paranoia is, it is still ridiculous. Reading political books can be an amazing way to warp your political worldview; have you ever taken a look at Ann Coulter or Michael Moore?

Any one who attempts to blame the problems of this country on "the liberals" is, in my mind, already hopelessly confused. It certainly isn't black and white, and it most certainly ignores the contributions the other side of the political divide has made (have you looked at the national debt lately?). Favoring idiotic polemics over policy is destroying this country far faster than a couple of foreign policy missteps by "the liberals" ever could.

I agree, which is why I pointed out that political books aren't the best source of information. :rolleyes:

Certainly you can at least agree that caving to radical Muslim demands is silly, yes?

It depends :)

If a radical Muslim demanded that you breathe, would you stop?

You are correct that appeasement is not a way to peace; however, radical Muslims don't have the support they do just because they're radical. They enjoy wide support because a lot of the Muslim world feels disenfranchised and under attack, and I think that the US (and most of the Western world) could do better in foreign policy here. Still, caving to extremism only causes more extremism, so that isn't the right path to take.

These are hard problems. It's easy to point fingers and say "zomg j00 are teh dummest plyr!!!!", but coming up with a better answer is much harder.

And blaming "the liberals" for everything when Republicans have pretty much run the federal government for ~6 years is pretty nonsensical.

(More like 12, but I get your point.)

Speaking of providing solutions, what would you suggest for reforming Western foreign policy towards Muslims? As far as I can tell, as long as they don't act like smacktards, then we get along fairly well (see: Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and to a certain extent Egypt as well). It's the ones like Iraq and Iran who are the belligerent tinpot dictators and end up screwing everyone over, themselves included. I don't see how our policy toward them needs to change at all as long as we can get our intelligence straight next time.

"If a radical Muslim demanded that you breathe, would you stop?"

No, this is what people say who are hopelessly confused and this is a an extreme exageration. The muslim uprisings in France, terrorist attacks in Spain, and subway bombings in England. It is because of liberals we are appeasing this sort of thing. A perfect example: 5 years, 1 month, and 16 days ago, America was attacked by radical muslims and that is what united the country. All were patriotic and ready to defend the country. A few years later, the liberals forgot what we were fighting for and that is what further divided the country. With the recent threat of North Korea, America is being much, MUCH more hesitant. This is because the liberal mentality of appeasement and "love not war" has swept the country and the world. If this same situation happened about 20 years ago, North Korea would be a landfill and the world would be rallying around us! That is an America that has long disappeared. But I do have faith we can be that sort of America again. Respected, Powerful, and Patriotic. Am I the only one?

I suppose this is a copout, but I wish I knew. If I had some brilliant strategy worthy of implementation, I wouldn't be wasting time posting here.

Patriot76: Er...again, what do "the liberals" have to do with all this? Republicans have a majority in both houses of Congress and control the White House. Are they still too "liberal" for you? It isn't "the liberals" that are causing problems. Foreign policy is fiendishly complicated to start with, and there often aren't any right answers.

I think you might have a point about the world in general (not just the US) not having the stomach to deal with threats properly. But I'm not sure what you're proposing to do about it. Convincing enough countries to actually stump up some military to do something is very, very hard. The US can't pull it off by itself, either; Iraq is already stretching our ability to project power overseas near to breaking. I think that's part of why we haven't attack NK yet. Another would be that, if they do have nuclear weapons, sending "our boys" over to possibly get vaporized would be a great PR disaster.

As I said, foreign policy is wildly complicated: will China put up with having a sizable American force right next door?

Heck, why should the US even bother with NK? They have nukes; so what? So do we, and so did the Russians! NK barely has the expertise to make a bomb at all, much less the ability to stick it on a missile capable of hitting anything of import; they don't even have Mutually Assured Destruction in their favor! Nuclear weapons these days are more sabre-rattling than anything else.

I could ramble on for a long time about this, but, in short:
It's complicated. Easy solutions simply don't exist, and wild nationalistic rambling is not going to help things. And blaming "the liberals" for everything only wastes effort that could be devoted to actually proposing solutions.

The reason why I blame Liberals is simple: They have too big of a heart. While some may say that is a good trait, and it is, when going up against an islamofascist enemy, it is not one that is needed.

Liberals are too well educated and well off for their own good at times. In times of peace we need liberals and their ideas. In times of war, they should sit back an let people with the gall to get things done do it. Like I said, Europe is done for. They sit on their hands and watch feebly as their strength slips right through the cracks of what was once their civilization. America is not too late to be saved. We are the last full remnant of wester civilization and will be as long as we remain a world power. We CAN combat islamofascism in this country...all we need is the right mentality and the will. Where do liberals come in? Taking away this mentality and this will. They fill people's heads with these ideas that, while are lush in facts, are simply non-realistic. They want almost a utopia, you will never get one. It is like a scientist trying to figure out that last peice in the evolution...he'll never find it because it was God. Liberals try and explain everything scientifically, intelligently, and numerically. They simply tend to forget the human elements: emotion and will. Muslims have both...we are losing them.

What you said is true and I agree with most of it, but not all. Although the Republicans do control the House and Congress there is a little thing you forgot about called fillabustering(is that how you spell it?). This goes back to the first topic I posted about the do nothing Congress. Yes Republicans control it, but they can't get anything done because the liberals put their political parties first and the country second. This causes NOTHING to get done.

You are also right the NK situation. They probrably aren't the biggest problem just yet but if we alllow it to continue, the little tyrant is probably the least stable person to have a nuke, even if their technolgy and science is outdated.

Even more threatening is the selling of the nukes. Although Nk can't launch one for their lives, they can build them. If they give only five to an unstable terrorist group for some money, you can say goodbye to five major world cities(i.e. London, Paris, even D.C.)

It is foolish to blaim all the problems on the liberals, but their cowardess and "love not war" policy would destroy this country.

Thankyou!

This is exactly what I have been trying to say!

THERE LIBERAL UTOPIA WILL NEVER FLOURISH!

Let me add, "even communism looked good on paper."

Um...do you have ANYTHING to back this up? Both parties are quite happy to filibuster if they think they'd lose a vote outright; where are you getting this stuff about "the liberals" blocking Congress? Are there any bills you can point to that "the liberals" blocked?
Let's see:
USA PATRIOT Act? Passed by an overwhelming majority.
Military Commissions Act? Passed with a pretty healthy majority.
(I don't have time to dig up more at the moment.)

To pull a comment up from waaaay back:

Well, you don't have me in your boat. I don't exist to serve my nation; my nation exists to make sure that I (and a lot of other people) have the opportunity to lead happy, prosperous lives. My interest in nationalism for the sake of nationalism is thus pretty close to zero; however, if you can make a case related to my livelihood, I might listen. So it is with most people.

Let me stop you before you go any further.

1. I never said anything about living to serve America and devoting ones life to the country. It's not like I asked anybdy to join the armed forces.

2. That whole what can the government do for me mentality is what I'm talking about. Yes, the government is supposed to be "for the people", but it is supposed to also be made "by the people". This is why people don't get jobs and expect the government to pay them welfare because the government is supposed to "serve" them. That is the mentallity I'm talking about. OBVIOUSLY it is about everyones self interest first. The point I'm trying to make, you've made for me.

3. Can I point out a specific filibustered bill... no. But here are some facts for you to mull over. The current Congress has passed the least amount of bills in the time they've had session. One bill, of not even that large a signifigance, was postponed for a week by a liberal, because they knew they would lose it, he read a book to the Congress! Is that a good enough example of filibustering for you? A perfect example tis the mexico immigration dispute. Liberals say "let them stay, they have rights." WRONG AGAIN LIBERALS! They are illegal aliens, they have no rights, no protection under they law, and no protection from being physically thrown out of the country. But in the the eye of the idiotic liberal, in their utopia, everyone is equal and should be cattered to.

4. And back to your last statement about the government ensuring that you and others all live happy and prosperous lives. America is set up so that we have a CHOICE of what we want to be and do with our lives. How many countries can you say that about. It is our right to free choice, speech and religion that allows us to have a happy life. We have all the pieces and all the opportunites, but some just don't tke them. You can't force a kid to stay in school and study hard if they want to cut class to buy drugs and neither can the government. This country is great because of the opportunities it gives. Do you not realize that we can do anything we want with our lives in America. Jobs, spouses, where you live...everything.

The government is not supposed to hold your hand. It is supposed to keep order and look at the big picture. How you live your life is up to you. Some take it for granted and all I'm saying is to take time and face these facts. What I have just said can be said about no other country in the world. NO OTHER COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!

I don't expect the government to coddle me. Did I suggest that I did? Lest you begin another tirade about how "the liberals" are making the country a welfare state, allow me to point out to you one of George Bush's crowning achievements, estimated to cost over 500 BILLION dollars over the next 10 years. Those darned Republican majoritiesliberals, passing all them dadburned welfare state bills!

Who? What bill? Where are you getting these "facts"?

Most reasonable people don't advocate giving "illegal aliens" rights (except for a certain someone, apparently); instead, I'd advocate allowing more immigrants in legally because:
1. It helps the economy.
2. We can tax them.
People have been railing about how "immigrants will destroy our nation" since the dawn of time; they forget that the United States simply wouldn't be what it is today without immigrants.

But that's getting off topic.

I don't think Australia has quite so many rabid nationalists, and I hear it's warmer there, too. :)

I hope that certain some one your refering to isn't me because I never said that illegal immigrants have any rights and I don't support it.
I also never said I was against immigration, LEGAL immigration that is, for your exact reasons. Look at that, we agree on something.

Now, as for your insaciable apetite for facts , here they are:
I am sure you are familiar with the semi recent appointment of several judges to the Supreme Court by President Bush. I am also sure you know of the long screening process that they must undergo. But did you know that it took twice as long, on average, to appoint the last two judges than any other in the past. This is because the liberals were filibustering the judges themselves and not allowing for a smooth screening process. (this is from both the CBS and fox new channel websites, in case your still skeptic).

I am not a person who is against legal immigration, I am not a radical extremist anything (as you seem to portray me), but I am a realist. I don't pretend to view the world through rose colored glasses or live in a fantasy world or screw up the country.
I leave that up to the liberals.

:D

Orbode, why did you never reply to my post? Too well written for you? While my less-well-written and more reactionist conservative counterpart in patriot76 is easy to counter simply because he readily disses liberals on a whim, my post gives a concise, calm reason as to why I believe liberals are WRONG. Note my wording: Wrong not Bad. There is a difference. For you reference here is the post again:

I don't just "diss" liberals on a whim. It's just when people say that they would rather have the government serve them and give nothing back and wanting facts and numbers to back everything up...it is the exact mentallity I have been arguing against all along. As a said before, and for hopefully a final time, I agree heartily with almost everything that the facistfalangistfool has to say. Liberals turn a blind eye to the effects of any of the farfetched rambling that they incoherently babble about. Perfect example: John Kerry's recent "response" about education and the war in Iraq (If you don't know what I'm talking about, read the newspaper). I actually had more respect for the guy after he refused to apologize. Was he finally going to stand up for somethin? NO WAY. Continuing on his saga of flip-flopping on every issue coming his way, he apologized. No, he's not wrong for saying sorry, but the guy should have seen it coming. If he runs again, he'll be another Henry Clay ,minus doing anything valuable for society (please tell me some one knows who he is). And one last thing...less-well-written counterpart, come on now!

Heh.

He hasn't run for office that many times yet, thank God - I'm afraid he might actually get elected one of these days. *shiver*


Regardless, I think the one thing that both you and FascistFalangistFool might be missing is that you're being excessively generalizing about "the liberals." I do agree that many stereotypical liberal positions are misguided, but it doesn't do much good to go on Coulter-esque rants about how "the liberals" are destroying the country and just isn't very productive, that's all.

Oh, and that "certain someone" Orborde was referring to in an earlier post was George Bush, not you.

Yeah...I'm not a big Kerry fan, either. His campaign seemed to consist of "Elect me. Because I'm John Kerry." (Actually, if that had been his campaign slogan, I'd be happy to vote for him; it's that cool.)

This is the best response to that I've seen (courtesy of Drudge Report).

FacistFalangistFool: I find it disturbing that you don't regard actually looking at the real world effects of things as important. Human emotion and will are real things that should factor into any analysis; perhaps "the liberals" don't take that into account, but properly accounting for such things doesn't go against explaining everything "scientifically, intelligently, and numerically", as you put it. In fact, there's a well-known book that refers to a government that ignores reality completely in favor of manipulating the emotions of people.

Are you suggesting that reality is irrelevant? That sounds awfully familiar...

You still haven't provided a single real citation for your claims. "I saw it on CNN this one time" doesn't count; how about a link?

To repeat what I said earlier:

Where are "the liberals" doing all this damage? How are they doing it? Who are "the liberals", anyways? Do you have any citations to back any of this up, or are you just parroting Ann Coulter because she gets a lot of press? Why is what they're doing a bad thing, and can you explain it without constantly referring to "those evil liberals" as if your points don't stand on their own?

Note: It seems to have caused some confusion previously, so let me clear this up: often, I link to things right in the middle of my sentences. Hence, when something's underlined like that, I'm usually linking to something related to what I'm saying, not just adding bizarre formatting.

The fact is, Orbode, that the real world effects of things, as you put it, INCLUDES human emotion. Trying to get rid of emotion in policy is trying to make a utopia, which is impossible. Incorporating it too much leads to Nazism. I'm just saying it is there and always will be, so don't ignore it.

I never said liberals are bad, just not needed at this time. We need people who are willing to fight the enemy, not people who want them to have fair trials. They wouldn't do that for us.

FacistFalangistFool: So I think I understand what your point is now. You're saying that "the liberals" do not take the psychological effects of what they advocate into account, at least not in foreign policy, where they seem to be focused on coddling terrorists instead of capturing them? You define "liberals" in this case as those people who keep annoyingly nattering on about things like the "Geneva Convention" and "human rights", and you don't think that concerning ourselves with such things is necessary at this time.

I actually agree with your premises, but not with your conclusions. The current "war on terror" is as much a propaganda victory as a military one. The United States simply cannot win (in any meaningful sense of the word) by sheer muscle; it must have the cooperation of the world and of the people it is trying to get to reject extremism. Part of this is making sure that the image of the US abroad is that of a fair arbiter, not that of a warmongering empire. The ongoing issues involving torture and human rights of prisoners do nothing to help the United States in this regard.

If you look at Allied treatment of prisoners of war in WWII, you'll notice that POWs were treated in strict accordance with the Geneva Conventions; they were fed well, paid (minimally) for work they were forced to do, and not tortured or subject to much harsh punishment (except for the Soviets; they were pretty nasty to their prisoners). This is in stark contrast to the Germans and Japanese, whose abuse of their prisoners (and everyone else) was and is well-known. This high-mindedness on the part of the Allies helped them to win a propaganda victory; it established the Allies very clearly as having the moral upper hand, and thus the world rallied with the Allies to defeat the Axis.

Compare this to the current handling of the "war on terror". Instead of a no-questions-asked support of human rights and the Geneva Convention, we got constant weaselry about how "it's not really torture" and recent legislation that explicitly disallows invocation of the Geneva Convention for prisoners. We get revelations of secret CIA prisons where torture happens and demands by the administration that the "interrogation techniques" used there not be revealed.

As you said, we must take human emotion into account. As long as the United States continues to apparently weasel around the Geneva Convention and human rights, the rest of the world (especially the Muslims we're trying to win over) will increasingly see our actions as those of a greedy empire, not a fair-minded champion of liberty. No amount of rhetoric about "but we're defending freedom" will hide our actions that seem to show the contrary.

I think you are beginning to understand. Look at affirmative action for my case:

Affirmative action looks great on paper. Give minorities a better chance to succeed. Why is it bound to fail? Human emotion. The white majority of this country (or at least everyone I come in to contact with) is against it for one simple reason. Jealousy. Johnson didn't take this into account when he instated it. Hate groups have actually increased in numbers since then. Their argument is simple..."you want us to stop basing opprotunities on color, so now you do it?" Of course, while some may say that is proposterous, it is an emotion. I think that at times too and I am latin american. It should be whoever is more qualified should be picked, not any other factor. Affirmative Action works if the government can supress anyone and everyone's feelings that spring from it. Our government can't. White's feeling intimidated by this is normal, human behavior. You can't stop it. You never will. The harder you try to press anti-discrimination with reverse discrimination will lead to...you guessed it...more discrimination. We are educated in multi-culturalism enough in school nowadays, and my school is one of the most culturally diverse in the nation, and very few emit discriminatory actions. If they do, it's because they hear of affirmative action and stuff.

So is something like that working its cause? No. Why? The human factor. I'm telling you, its very important.

Being white myself, I'll be the first to tell you that it is not Jealousy that makes me against affirmative action. It is, as i believe you briefly touched on, the fact that it brings up the racial inequality issue that it was meant to avoid. If two people, black and white, are up for the same job or even college admission, it is just plain idiotic to choose the black person just for that reason. Their will always be racism in this world but continualy making laws to try and stop it only re-ignites the issue that they had been trying to quell.

No, but like FacistFalangistFool said, the human element is much more important and that is the true reality behind all situations.

Secondly, what do you mean by who are the liberals and saying that I constantly refer to evil liberals because my points can't stand on their own?
If your looking for me to put a face on the Liberals, who are a group and political party, I cannot. It is not so much the who I am worried about but the what that they stand for.
Also, i have not once reffered to them as "evil liberals" and how can I make a point without refering to the group that I am criticizing? I don't refer to them to change subjects or even back up my arguements. I refer to them only to make my points clear.

And if you think I am radical conservative, as I am guessing you do, here are some cold hard facts for you to mull over about why I don't like radical (or regular) liberals.

We are liberal: red white and socialist