I don't feel safe with democrats in office

[Merc14]

Except that the ''terror states list'' you provided has expired. The U.S removed Iran and the Hezbollah from this list in 2015.

Iran, Hezbollah Left Off US Terror Threat Listing:

''Iran and Hezbollah were left out of an annual terrorism threat assessment report offered in late February to the US Senate by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper. Iran and Hezbollah had been fixtures on the annual report before 2015.''

Source: https://www.rt.com/u...rrorism-threat/

Hence the reason ella is afraid when democrats are in charge. Thanks! I had left that unsaid as I expected it was common knowledge but good on ya for the highlight. Any regime that would be stupid enough to take Iran off the state sponsored terrorist list is a regime that should not be trusted, obviously.

[EEHC]

Hence the reason ella is afraid when democrats are in charge. Thanks! I had left that unsaid as I expected it was common knowledge but good on ya for the highlight. Any regime that would be stupid enough to take Iran off the state sponsored terrorist list is a regime that should not be trusted, obviously.

I am not aware that any Republican president has put SA or any of the Gulf states on that list either, despite the fact that we all know where the roots and spreading of Wahhabism come from. It doesn't matter if it's dems or repubs, obviously this is a list of ''non-compliant states'' more than anything else.

Edited January 22, 2016 by EEHC

[Merc14]

I am not aware that any Republican president has put SA or any of the Gulf states on that list either, despite the fact that we all know where the roots and spreading of Wahhabism come from. It doesn't matter if it's dems or repubs, obviously this is a list of ''non-compliant states'' more than anything else.

I'm sorry but your argument is so ignorant that it isn't worth quibbling about. Besides, you make my point for me just by posting your point of view. The last word is yours and thanks for the help.

[EEHC]

I'm sorry but your argument is so ignorant that it isn't worth quibbling about. Besides, you make my point for me just by posting your point of view. The last word is yours and thanks for the help.

Yeah right. Have a good day too.

Source

Edited January 22, 2016 by EEHC

[Sundew]

I was having a real life talk with a real life coolaid drinking, far left liberal and he got so angry that spit was actually flying from his mouth as he pronounced the things he hates about people like me.

A friend of my who is a die hard Democrat bleeding heart liberal put something on Facebook comparing Obama's executive orders with Lincoln's executive order on Emancipation with some smarmy caption like "if you don't like Presidential Executive Orders then how about this one." (He also had to point out Track Palin's spousal abuse because he absolutely hates Sarah Palin, but that to me is just petty nonsense.)

Now I did not respond to the first comment, because I rarely openly discuss politics with him because we do not see eye to eye at all. But I wanted to and I thought logically and calmly and then asked my grown son if this would be a good reply: "You like Obama's executive orders because he is a good liberal and is advancing a liberal agenda. Fine, Now how will you feel in another year when possibly a Trump or Cruz takes his place and, oh I don't know gives an executive order banning all abortions, or stopping all immigration, or completely repealing the ACA (Obamacare) with the stroke of a pin?" I wonder how that would float his boat?

You see he has a lot of vitriol against the right wing, but is too short sighted to see that abuse of the law leave the door open for further abuse of the law later on because of precedence, and maybe by someone whose policies are, shall we say, less in tune with your pet belief system.

But I'm not going to get in a shoving match with him. "Do not throw your pearls before swine, least they trample them and then turn on you." Jesus

[Paranormal Panther]

Learn the difference between state funded terrorists and scumbags sending money to terrorists. Stop making excuses for mistakes made by the people we put in charge. Bush screwed up when he attacked Iraq but Obama has dome generational damage.

I couldn't care less what qmark thinks. he spent pages defending Hillary's email crimes and when proved wrong ran away without a word, how can you respect someone who isn't man enough to admit making a mistake. Niinja ne star pent pages defending Obamacare and when proved wrong, gone, not a word. What dos that say about he character of your average progressive male?

Learn how to not put words into people's mouths. Learn how to reply and respond to what they post. I don't make excuses for Obama. I just mention the fact that Saudi Arabia is a bastion of terrorism. The state may or may not sponsor terrorism. Of course, it's not an *official* government position. That does *not* mean that government officials don't fund terrorists. Learn the difference. While you're at it, please answer my question that I ask in my first reply to you. Do Shia Muslims or Sunni Muslims commit the lion's share of attacks on Americans and Europeans? The answer, to the question, will show who presents more of a threat. I'm not talking about theories; I'm talking about actions.

My reference to Questionmark is a joke, as the two of you make strange bedfellows. I won't comment on other posters unless they mention me or my posts. Gossip isn't my thing. I'll let the people, that you mention, speak for themselves.

[Paranormal Panther]

I am not aware that any Republican president has put SA or any of the Gulf states on that list either, despite the fact that we all know where the roots and spreading of Wahhabism come from. It doesn't matter if it's dems or repubs, obviously this is a list of ''non-compliant states'' more than anything else.

It goes beyond that. You and I know about the cancer of Wahhabism. That aside, look at the deplorable manner in which Saudi leaders treat their own people, especially women. What a great ally in the war on terrorism (sigh).

[Paranormal Panther]

I'm sorry but your argument is so ignorant that it isn't worth quibbling about. Besides, you make my point for me just by posting your point of view. The last word is yours and thanks for the help.

I'm likely to the right of you on some issues, but I see no reason for the insults. As far as I know, all of his replies are civil.

[Gromdor]

You know, democrat and republican are just labels in the end anyways. Hillary used to be a republican and Trump used to be a democrat. Tomorrow, everyone who is a democrat could just up and join the republican party if they wanted. Iowa caucus is just a few weeks away and I was thinking of showing up, registering republican and participating. Usually it is just a single issue that makes a person hardline in one party or another. I know socialist leaning republicans, who are only republican because of their stance on abortion for instance. What is worse, is that I also know some local politicians who were either D or R solely because that was the label they had to wear to win in the district that they ran in. (Yay, gerrymandering)

[+and-then]

Who pose no realistic threat to Israel (to its "existential survival", to quote Bibi) at all, and could never possibly hope to do so. Let us have a sense of proportion here.

Hizballah have (conservatively estimate)about 150,000 rockets of various sizes and accuracy rating poised to use against Israel from southern Lebanon. If the number were even HALF that amount then thousands of Israelis could be killed or maimed and commerce in the country devastated along with significant portions of it's infrastructure. Eventually the Hezzies will probably be tasked to do just that by their Iranian masters. Hopefully they have bled enough in Syria to make them somewhat more circumspect in their approach. Time will tell but while they probably could not literally destroy Israel, since when does that make them not a threat? Should the UK accept a couple hundred thousand dead and injured because some entity that disagrees with their politics or their EXISTENCE decides to attack but couldn't destroy the nation? I agree, let's have a sense of proportion.

[Michelle]

You know, democrat and republican are just labels in the end anyways.

Except these hardliners can't see anything else but us and them. I've voted equally between the two parties since my first vote about thirty years ago. I can tell you for a fact which party I've found to be the more open and accepting and it is not by any stretch of the imagination Democrats.

[Space Commander Travis]

No, of course I didn't make a mistake. Iran sponsors terrorism on a state level at a greater rate than any other nation on earth. Here is Hilary's list of terrorist states, enjoy (please note Cuba is on there as well, another reason ellapanella)http://www.state.gov...2014/239410.htm

So you accept an official State Department list as the honest and dependable truth? The State Department? Come on, surely you can't be that naive. Edited January 22, 2016 by Otto von Pickelhaube

[Space Commander Travis]

Hence the reason ella is afraid when democrats are in charge. Thanks! I had left that unsaid as I expected it was common knowledge but good on ya for the highlight. Any regime that would be stupid enough to take Iran off the state sponsored terrorist list is a regime that should not be trusted, obviously.

So now, when the list is updated, all of a sudden it can't be trusted and is obviously lies by the Dems!! This is quite hilarious.

[Space Commander Travis]

I'm sorry but your argument is so ignorant that it isn't worth quibbling about. Besides, you make my point for me just by posting your point of view. The last word is yours and thanks for the help.

So you really believe that Iran was behind 9/11? You believe that Iran is responsible for propagating Wahhabism? You do know about Wahhabism, I'm sure. You know that it's the ultra-hardline branch of Sunni Islam promoted by our friends at ISIS, and is the state religion of S. Arabia? You really think that Iran's support of the Hezzies is more of a danger than Saudi Arabia's promotion of hardline Wahhabism? You really believe that? Edited January 22, 2016 by Otto von Pickelhaube

[+DieChecker]

A friend of my who is a die hard Democrat bleeding heart liberal put something on Facebook comparing Obama's executive orders with Lincoln's executive order on Emancipation with some smarmy caption like "if you don't like Presidential Executive Orders then how about this one." (He also had to point out Track Palin's spousal abuse because he absolutely hates Sarah Palin, but that to me is just petty nonsense.)

Now I did not respond to the first comment, because I rarely openly discuss politics with him because we do not see eye to eye at all. But I wanted to and I thought logically and calmly and then asked my grown son if this would be a good reply: "You like Obama's executive orders because he is a good liberal and is advancing a liberal agenda. Fine, Now how will you feel in another year when possibly a Trump or Cruz takes his place and, oh I don't know gives an executive order banning all abortions, or stopping all immigration, or completely repealing the ACA (Obamacare) with the stroke of a pin?" I wonder how that would float his boat?

You see he has a lot of vitriol against the right wing, but is too short sighted to see that abuse of the law leave the door open for further abuse of the law later on because of precedence, and maybe by someone whose policies are, shall we say, less in tune with your pet belief system.

But I'm not going to get in a shoving match with him. "Do not throw your pearls before swine, least they trample them and then turn on you." Jesus

I've mentioned the whole "Executive Order" thing to Democrats before, and usually what they tell me is that it doesn't matter because no Republican will ever be president again. But these same people also didn't think the Republicans would take the House or the Senate in previous election cycles. So..... it is almost religious fervor at that point. Complete and blind denial of possibilities.

[Merc14]

snip

Edited January 22, 2016 by Merc14

[Sundew]

I've mentioned the whole "Executive Order" thing to Democrats before, and usually what they tell me is that it doesn't matter because no Republican will ever be president again. But these same people also didn't think the Republicans would take the House or the Senate in previous election cycles. So..... it is almost religious fervor at that point. Complete and blind denial of possibilities.

“It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.” Ronald Reagan

[Merc14]

So you really believe that Iran was behind 9/11? You believe that Iran is responsible for propagating Wahhabism? You do know about Wahhabism, I'm sure. You know that it's the ultra-hardline branch of Sunni Islam promoted by our friends at ISIS, and is the state religion of S. Arabia? You really think that Iran's support of the Hezzies is more of a danger than Saudi Arabia's promotion of hardline Wahhabism? You really believe that?

What does anything you have said have to do with the terrible treaty with Iran? You argue that more states should be listed as terrorist states but that has nothing to do with letting the worst of the worst off the hook. Two wrongs have never made a right and with Mr. Obama the only defense you leftists ever offer is this other situation is screwed up as well. Making a bad situation worse is NOT what the government should be doing and it is not a valid defense of the abhorrent policies this administration has followed. I'm all for Saudi being listed as a state sponsor of terrorism but I am NOT in the WH, Obama is so WTF is wrong with the guy I am sure you voted for twice. Ridiculous defense of a failed president by people not mature enough to admit they made a mistake. Disgusting.

Edited January 22, 2016 by Merc14

[regeneratia]

That is certainly a belief. You are welcome to it and I wish you the best with your journey.

All journey's are tasking. But thank you for the well-wishes. Always I wish you to same.

About credibility: I am not in control of what people think are credible. Just by the mere encoding/decoding noise that happens in all communications, just by the mere difference in individual connotations and denotations of specific words and concepts, there is no way whatsoever I will fall into the inevitable massive trap of seeking credibility. I am just uninterested in someone else thinking I am or am not "credible". Surely you understand that so-called credibility is a massive trap, one which I avoid most times.

[regeneratia]

way behind in relation to what a that time 2000 years ago? certainly it would be behind the times when compared to nowadays.

I don't make that assumption. I think we are just now coming out of the Dark Ages. I belive that this earth has held far more advanced civilizations than the one in which we are, world-wide, currently involved.

I believe in the rise and falls of many advanced civilizations. I don't make the leap of faith that progress/regress is moving only in one direction. Politics in general keeps us blind to what really is. Someone else sets what they think we will believe. Yet some people allow that, too tired and strung-out on Rx, other drugs and toxic tap-water, BPA, corn syrup and greatly depleted gut microbiomes.

But I do allow the ancients to think for me. I trust Marcus Aurelius' thinking more than I trust that of Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton.

Edited January 27, 2016 by regeneratia