Conservatives don’t believe in Global warming, Liberals don’t believe in fighting jihadists

a reply to: Sremmos80

I gave my opinion.

If you think we're doing a great job then good for you. Anything I say won't change your stance.

Anything further is just a waste of my time.

a reply to: Willtell

Well, Terrorism is clearly real where Global Warming isn't as obvious.

The real agenda with Terrorism and Global Warming is about establishing control and taking away our rights. If you want to fight terrorism then you need the Government to have more powers over you for your safety. If you want to fight Global Warming then you need the Government to have more powers over you for your safety. IT is essentially the same issue framed differently for a particular political dogma.

Either way the Establishment wins when we cede them our rights and give up our power for a little bit of security.

IT is sad really.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: DBCowboy

So just generic statements of fighting to win.

Last I checked we bombed and shot the bad guys last time, what do we need to do differently?

More bombs and shooting?

No we needed a REAL coalition, in the mold of the first Iraq war.

And call out the Saudis and their Wahhabi brothers ISIS; and the Turks, since ISIS fighters have been coming through Turkey( a NATO country) like water through a sieve.

Of course I believe this is a LONG false flag going back to 911 (though I cant prove it).

But my premise of the op is sound.

Liberals generally don't want to soundly confront a sure evil in jihadis.

Of course there are exceptions and I admit I am one of the exceptions.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Willtell

Well, Terrorism is clearly real where Global Warming isn't as obvious.

The real agenda with Terrorism and Global Warming is about establishing control and taking away our rights. If you want to fight terrorism then you need the Government to have more powers over you for your safety. If you want to fight Global Warming then you need the Government to have more powers over you for your safety. IT is essentially the same issue framed differently for a particular political dogma.

Either way the Establishment wins when we cede them our rights and give up our power for a little bit of security.

IT is sad really.

I think that we don’t really have to give up our rights to fight these pigs.

Just have a president, unlike Obama, who isn’t a dogmatic liberal down the line.

Of course on a conspiratorial level, this is all bogus. They want to initiate laws that take away our rights.

There’s surely a degree of uncertainty here.

a reply to: Willtell

I also have concerns that a lot of the 'terrorism' is manufactured by our Government. We are being manipulated and have been since at least 9/11. I think both issues you brought up rely a great deal on manufactured statistics and propaganda for the exact purpose you suggest...to take away our rights.

a reply to: Metallicus

If i can i want to add to your list of rights our governments want to take away from us, i always thought 911 was also brought on to us to slow down the travel of people, the more we travel the less our fears of other cultures stay strong.

Information so that they can control what we hear,'so they can easily manipulate whole countries to keep the war machines going.

Im glad that i can find common ground with you.

Cheers

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

Common ground is good!

a reply to: Willtell

Liberals generally don't want to soundly confront a sure evil in jihadis.

At best you could say they generally don't want a repeat of Iraq. But I have yet to see anyone say they are not a threat.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Willtell

Liberals generally don't want to soundly confront a sure evil in jihadis.

At best you could say they generally don't want a repeat of Iraq. But I have yet to see anyone say they are not a threat.

Yeah but they don’t take the threat seriously enough because they don’t like war.

Fine, neither do I or practically anyone with sense.

You just have to know the utter depravity and evil of these religious beasts.

Their worst than NAZIS.

It doesn’t have to be another Iraq. There is always a middle course and a right course and a wrong course which was the Bush Iraq war.

In any case, it seems to me, now that we’ve created this beast out of Hell It’s our responsibility to destroy it wisely.


True, people like McCain and Hillary want to make the same mistake in Syria. That’s why you have to be comprehensive and fight for the right course.


But ISIS and ALL their followers must be destroyed or defanged

a reply to: DBCowboy

Ya your opinion is just saying we need to do better, whatever I know how to respond to you anytime you ask me of anything.

originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: Willtell

Sorry to burst your little stereotyping pigeon-hole mold but...

I'm a liberal who doesn't buy into the anthropogenic global warming theory and who believes strongly that we need to wipe the planet clean of jihadists.
No soup for you.

That's pretty much how I am, I would be of the Liberal/Labour camp, (although in saying that, being from the UK that has different connotations that is construed in the US) and since the OP did not choose to differentiate on the subject of religion, or a religion other than use the word radical, I can also say I or we if you like, don't want or need radical extremists of any sort, nor would I want a Wahhabi running my life, nor a rabid Christian pastor talking about an 'Eye for an eye' when they mean it's alright to execute in a summary way, running my life.
And you are right as regards any anthropogenic global warming theory, because it is just that, a theory rebranded so many times with the anthropogenic bit edited out, even though those guys are still talking in the same vein as AGW.
However those same guys refuse to discuss the theory any more with anyone who even remotely has different ideas.
That's a big heads up.

Changing the words from statements conservative have made to fit a very different narrative is on the verge of outright slander, most certainly is fraud. Conservative have always said they doubt the science on anthropogenic climate change. By intentionally deleting the one word anthropogenic from the discussion you cause a fraudulent misquote to make one side of the debate hopelessly ignorant and low in intelligence.

Please stop doing this as this act only makes your position appear incapable of a debate on real and actual science. The emperor has no clothes and you only appear hateful, weak and without a defense.

a reply to: Willtell

Sure it’s a generalization. But it’s reasonable and correct.

Just as you can say most liberals are for Obamacare and practically all conservatives are against it.

That’s a legitimate generalization that is backed up by reality and statistics

Certainly there are exceptions

No, it's not even close to being reasonable or correct.


Surely you must be aware that there is an entire planet of liberals and conservatives from all over the world ?

Surely you must be aware that there are more people on the planet who don't live in the USA than there are that do live in the USA, and therefore do not view Obamacare in any particular way (or even give a damn about it).

So with that said, surely you must be aware that your generalized painting of "liberals" and "conservatives" is based on nothing but your own anecdotally myopic US-influenced viewpoint ?

Like I said, your stereotyping of what you think the "majority" thinks, isn't even close to reality... Why ? Because the "majority" don't even live in your country.




This is one of the major benefits of being on a site like ATS.

You get to talk to people from all over the world which helps to expand your horizons, which in turn helps to rid yourself of silly myopic viewpoints... aka broad sweeping generalizations of the overall populace of the world around you.


Your welcome.

a reply to: CranialSponge

I truly am referring to Americans.

No offense to non Americans.

a reply to: Willtell

Well then, perhaps you need to be a little more specific with your word usage when talking about something.

Just tossing out the word "liberals" or "conservatives" is quite misleading just simply for the fact that there's an entire planet out there that expands beyond your own backyard.

What you see as a "liberal" or "conservative" isn't anywhere even close to what those people actually are everywhere else.


Tossing around labels nonchalantly and stating them as fact is not only illogical... it's polarizing, divisive, argumentative, and downright insulting to everyone else around you.

Another words, it's prone to starting a fight... a needless pointless baseless fight.


ATS has people from all over the world surfing and reading this site, and I really wish members could try to keep that in mind when making a thread/post.

Most members don't even specify where they live on their stats, so more times than not, most of us have no idea who it is we're arguing back and forth with and where they might reside in the world... Even you yourself don't have your location specified, so for all I know, you might be living in Tasmania.

Please stop assuming that everyone lives in the US and therefore totally gets what you mean when you toss around your own version of US-specific definitions of labels like "liberals" or "conservatives".



More thought put into our posts before we hit that button, if for no other reason than for the simple sake of sanity and respect for our fellow active members and our fellow non-active lurkers... to avoid needless arguments.


Bleh.... It angers me that I even have to point out something so basic and obvious.

a reply to: CranialSponge


Chill out

No harm meant…No harm done.


But in the US this is a reality....the conservative/liberal duality

In other countries sure its different....understood.

I'm glad for ATS they have people from all over the world coming on their site

It would be difficult, though, for all of us to cater to ALL cultures nuances, don't you think.

Didn't you think of that?

a reply to: Willtell

It would be a lot Easier for the U.S. to Deal with Islamic Radical Jihadism which is Killing Many People around the World as we speak , then to try and Solve a so called Global Warming Problem that to Date , has No Solutions . How about the U.S. takes on something we Can Confront and Eliminate instead .

a reply to: Willtell

It would be difficult, though, for all of us to cater to ALL cultures nuances, don't you think.

It's not catering to anything.

It's being more clear and precise with your communication skills, so as to not confuse your listeners/readers.

Good communication skills is the key to well-rounded discussions.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

What is the clear solution to the extremist? We already tried killing them, that was what iraq and Afghanistan was about.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

" What is the clear solution to the extremist? We already tried killing them, that was what iraq and Afghanistan was about. "

The Solution would be an Administration that will " Take Off the Gloves " of the Greatest Military Power in the World , and let them do their Job with Overwhelming Force to eradicate the Vermin which are called Radical Islamist . It's Obvious by now that our Muslim In Chief aka President Obama does not have the Intestinal Fortitude to do Exactly that .