LGP Political Discussion Thread

[shafnutz05]

We're basically re-enforcing the notion that we're at war with Islam.

Those who attack us should be engaged, I agree. But we're not doing that in Iraq, and we're now nation-building in Afghanistan, too.

While we are not at war with Islam, we ARE at war with Radical Islam. That is the tough, hard-to-swallow truth. We should have NEVER been nation-building over there in the first place. What is ironic is Saddam Hussein was one of our best friends over there, bastard that he was. He served as a great check on Iran's power, and kept the fanatics in his own country under control (read: dead). It reminds me of a Tom Clancy book I am reading right now...basically, Iran sends it someone to assassinate Saddam Hussein, and proceeded to take advantage of the power vacuum that results. The same thing is happening now...by eliminating Hussein, the neocons actually made that region MUCH less secure, and much more prone to Iranian takeover.

I truly do believe that our aggressiveness in attacking the terrorist camps/villages/etc over there HAS had a genuine impact in preventing attacks over here, because they have not been able to get comfortable. However, we should have taken out the Taliban, moved our guys out, and established this policy from the get go. But there is no question that we are in a war (or a ideological battle, whatever you prefer) with radical Islam, and it IS a threat. The reason why this threat is so much scarier than the enemies of old (i.e., the Soviet Union) is that average Americans can be recruited by persuasive imams.

[shafnutz05]

And how are they going to do this? It sounds a lot like you are saying that they hate us because of our freedoms.

I don't believe they will ever be able to do this (hopefully). The United States represents everything that radical Islam detests. Womens' rights, liberty, freedom of speech/expression/etc, decadence, sex, nightlife, booze, Hollywood....the list goes on and on and on. They feel that the more liberal Western culture directly corrupts what they feel should be a strict Islamic world governed by Sha'ria. While they are a LONG way from achieving that goal, they are making decent headway in Europe. Hence the recent backlashes against African/Arab immigration across Europe...I'm sure it doesn't help that some Muslim communities in England were actually calling for the application of Sha'ria law (and the Archbishop of Canterbury, of all people, said it was gonna happen).

While our foreign policy surely is not popular, Islamic radicals have despised the West for many more reasons than that for much longer.

[Guinness]

We're basically re-enforcing the notion that we're at war with Islam.

Those who attack us should be engaged, I agree. But we're not doing that in Iraq, and we're now nation-building in Afghanistan, too.

While we are not at war with Islam, we ARE at war with Radical Islam. That is the tough, hard-to-swallow truth. We should have NEVER been nation-building over there in the first place. What is ironic is Saddam Hussein was one of our best friends over there, bastard that he was.

That's kind of the point - we shouldn't employ that kind of foreign policy. "Commerce with all. Alliance with none."

I truly do believe that our aggressiveness in attacking the terrorist camps/villages/etc over there HAS had a genuine impact in preventing attacks over here

Unfortunately, Maj. Hassan (and the type of attack he represents) disagrees with you.

[shafnutz05]

Well, the whole Maj. Hasan issue opens up a whole 'nother can of worms that we can discuss another day. In my opinion, Hasan was aided and abetted by one extremely dangerous enemy. He (or she) has been living here for quite some time, but started to gain influence back in the late 70s. It's name is "political correctness".

I do believe that attacking targets over there (surgically, not a full blown ground war) will help prevent them over here. Unfortunately, until we as a nation come to terms with the fact that the majority of terrorist atrocities over the last several decades have been committed by Islamic men with Arab-sounding names, we are going to leave ourselves open to all kinds of attacks.

I am not trying to be offensive, but that's the way it is. Apparently the military investigators were afraid to openly bring Hasan before a panel, because they were afraid of being labeled "anti-Muslim". That is an absolute disgrace, especially coming out of a member of the military. The vast majority of Muslims in the United States, obviously, are not terrorists (or extremists for that matter). That's common sense. Unfortunately, the vast majority of terrorists tend to be Muslims at this point of time, and that's a reality we have to deal with.

[doublem]

And how are they going to do this? It sounds a lot like you are saying that they hate us because of our freedoms.

I don't believe they will ever be able to do this (hopefully). The United States represents everything that radical Islam detests. Womens' rights, liberty, freedom of speech/expression/etc, decadence, sex, nightlife, booze, Hollywood....the list goes on and on and on. They feel that the more liberal Western culture directly corrupts what they feel should be a strict Islamic world governed by Sha'ria. While they are a LONG way from achieving that goal, they are making decent headway in Europe. Hence the recent backlashes against African/Arab immigration across Europe...I'm sure it doesn't help that some Muslim communities in England were actually calling for the application of Sha'ria law (and the Archbishop of Canterbury, of all people, said it was gonna happen).

While our foreign policy surely is not popular, Islamic radicals have despised the West for many more reasons than that for much longer.

This is the problem I have. This makes it sounds like it is possible for terrorist to bring down Western civilization or society. It makes it sound like we are battling a war to end all wars, like the crusaders. Islamist pose a serious threat to safety and could even have a huge attack like 9-11, but even if they wanted they couldn't bring down any Western ideals or culture. They don' even have enough support in Middle Eastern countries. The people didn't rise up and join the Isamist, and this is on Muslims nations.If anything they are starting to embrace Americanization of that culture.

It just isn't possible. At the start of this century there were a few competing ideas, fascism, communism, democracy. The world fought two huge wars, lost millions and millions of lives, dropped the bomb, fought the Cold War, and at the end of all that was left democratic ideals and capitalism( in some level) as the last remaining ideology left at the start of the 21st century. The big threats are long gone, the threat now is how to manage the world and international community with one idea. If Hitler, Stalin, the A bomb, couldn't bring down these ideals, what makes anyone thing a bunch of religious zealots could even make a dent?

[shafnutz05]

It just isn't possible. At the start of this century there were a few competing ideas, fascism, communism, democracy. The world fought two huge wars, lost millions and millions of lives, dropped the bomb, fought the Cold War, and at the end of all that was left democratic ideals and capitalism( in some level) as the last remaining ideology left at the start of the 21st century. The big threats are long gone, the threat now is how to manage the world and international community with one idea. If Hitler, Stalin, the A bomb, couldn't bring down these ideals, what makes anyone thing a bunch of religious zealots could even make a dent?

Do I think it is remotely possible any time in the near future? Of course not. If it sounded like I asserted that, I apologize. The bigger threat is radical Islam becoming a part of the underbelly of western nations. As I am sure you can agree with, the more influence this radical ideology has across the globe, the more danger we face from random terrorist attacks? Do I think they can change the face of the world anytime soon? Heck no. But they can raise a TON of havoc.

[doublem]

If it sounded like I asserted that, I apologize. The bigger threat is radical Islam becoming a part of the underbelly of western nations. As I am sure you can agree with, the more influence this radical ideology has across the globe, the more danger we face from random terrorist attacks?

I don't know. I think religion if becoming less and less popular, but fundamentalism is growing, so yea I guess I agree with that. I really don't see American-Muslims, Europeans-Muslims going that way. Why would they? There is a reason why it grows in the the Middle East or not here, it has to do with social-economic conditions. I don't see why now is special, why after all these years, why would they decide to act now? I don't see terrorism as this unique threat as others do.

[Guinness]

This is the problem I have. This makes it sounds like it is possible for terrorist to bring down Western civilization or society. It makes it sound like we are battling a war to end all wars, like the crusaders. Islamist pose a serious threat to safety and could even have a huge attack like 9-11, but even if they wanted they couldn't bring down any Western ideals or culture.

This. In fact, I would add that since 9/11 we've done far more to bring down western ideals than anything al Qaeda could have hoped to do themselves.

[shafnutz05]

I don't know. I think religion if becoming less and less popular, but fundamentalism is growing, so yea I guess I agree with that. I really don't see American-Muslims, Europeans-Muslims going that way. Why would they? There is a reason why it grows in the the Middle East or not here, it has to do with social-economic conditions. I don't see why now is special, why after all these years, why would they decide to act now? I don't see terrorism as this unique threat as others do.

That's a very good point. Socioeconomic conditions does have SOMETHING to do with it...but there are increasing pockets of Islamic fundamentalism in Europe and the United States. You have the riots in France, calls for Sha'ria in England, and in all three of these locations, a slowly growing number of mosques that teach the Wahabbi strand of Islam. An unscientific study was done by the Center for Security Policy that indicated 3 out of 4 U.S. mosques and Islamic schools teach anti-western tenets.

While it is obviously a bigger problem "over there" right now, we need to be very careful not to accept the idea that "if they were living comfortably and not in poverty, they wouldn't subscribe to that thought process". Osama Bin Laden is a millionaire....and many of the other hate-preaching imams tend to be pretty well-off as well.

[doublem]

Osama Bin Laden is a millionaire....and many of the other hate-preaching imams tend to be pretty well-off as well.

Yea, and that is kind of my point. Bin Laden is rich but he didn't do any of the attacks. He got other people to do it. You think rich people are going to blow other people up or fly planes into buildings? No.

[shafnutz05]

Yea, and that is kind of my point. Bin Laden is rich but he didn't do any of the attacks. He got other people to do it. You think rich people are going to blow other people up or fly planes into buildings? No.

Oh they absolutely brainwash these people....no doubt about it. They are cowards that use uneducated Muslims as puppets. Unfortunately, that doesn't take away from the fact that THEY still believe in it with every fiber of their being. And Nadal Hasan was hardly impoverished........

[Geezer]

It just isn't possible. At the start of this century there were a few competing ideas, fascism, communism, democracy. The world fought two huge wars, lost millions and millions of lives, dropped the bomb, fought the Cold War, and at the end of all that was left democratic ideals and capitalism( in some level) as the last remaining ideology left at the start of the 21st century. The big threats are long gone, the threat now is how to manage the world and international community with one idea. If Hitler, Stalin, the A bomb, couldn't bring down these ideals, what makes anyone thing a bunch of religious zealots could even make a dent?

Do I think it is remotely possible any time in the near future? Of course not. If it sounded like I asserted that, I apologize. The bigger threat is radical Islam becoming a part of the underbelly of western nations. As I am sure you can agree with, the more influence this radical ideology has across the globe, the more danger we face from random terrorist attacks? Do I think they can change the face of the world anytime soon? Heck no. But they can raise a TON of havoc.

Once Iran gets nukes a whole new era starts. And if the jihadists ever get control of Pakistan's nukes there's a real chance they'll use them. These people don't care if millions die; they'd like to send the mideast up in flames to get muslims worldwide in full anarchist mode.

[Geezer]

Well, the whole Maj. Hasan issue opens up a whole 'nother can of worms that we can discuss another day. In my opinion, Hasan was aided and abetted by one extremely dangerous enemy. He (or she) has been living here for quite some time, but started to gain influence back in the late 70s. It's name is "political correctness".

I do believe that attacking targets over there (surgically, not a full blown ground war) will help prevent them over here. Unfortunately, until we as a nation come to terms with the fact that the majority of terrorist atrocities over the last several decades have been committed by Islamic men with Arab-sounding names, we are going to leave ourselves open to all kinds of attacks.

I am not trying to be offensive, but that's the way it is. Apparently the military investigators were afraid to openly bring Hasan before a panel, because they were afraid of being labeled "anti-Muslim". That is an absolute disgrace, especially coming out of a member of the military. The vast majority of Muslims in the United States, obviously, are not terrorists (or extremists for that matter). That's common sense. Unfortunately, the vast majority of terrorists tend to be Muslims at this point of time, and that's a reality we have to deal with.

Hasan was aided and abeded by the PC insanity that's infested our country. Janet Napolitano won't use the word terrorism; such acts are man-made disasters. There are an increasing number of stories of how the FBI and Army intelligence could and should have stopped this guy. Sec of the Army Casey's main concern is worrying about diversity and ill will toward Muslims. This admin has been desperately trying to pass this off as a "crime" resulting from mental health issues instead of the jihad terror attack that it was. The fact that a single traitor may have done this doesnt eliminate terrorism. The anti-abortion radical who was carrying out bombings9including the Atlata Olympic's bomb) was more than just a criminal; he was a domestic terrorist.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11 ... component/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Gaucho]

History is indeed written by the victors. I really am sick of hearing time and time again how the fall of the Berlin wall was some sort of achievement by Western democracy. The heck it was. It was the achievement of the people in the GDR, who simply had enough of their defunct system and brought the government down. They took matters in their own hands. Unification was the last thing they had in mind at the time. But that's when Western democracy in the person of Helmut Kohl stepped in, smelling his chance to make his way straight into the history books.

[Geezer]

History is indeed written by the victors. I really am sick of hearing time and time again how the fall of the Berlin wall was some sort of achievement by Western democracy. The heck it was. It was the achievement of the people in the GDR, who simply had enough of their defunct system and brought the government down. They took matters in their own hands. Unification was the last thing they had in mind at the time. But that's when Western democracy in the person of Helmut Kohl stepped in, smelling his chance to make his way straight into the history books.

You should know since it's your country. But hadn't the reunification been prceded by the Soviet collapse and similar regime toplings in other Iron Curtain countries? I thought Poland was the first eastern bloc country to actively throw off the Russian yoke. Czecheslovakia and the Yugoslavia break up happened after East Germany if I rember right. I'm not sure when the Rumanian and Albanian dictatorships were toppled; only that Hoxha and the Romanian whose name began with a C were two of the most repressive leaders in the world, even by comunist standards. It just seemed like all these events were like dominos toppling and that they happened in a short time frame for such historic events.
I was a young kid when the 1956 Hungarian revolt happened but I can rember watching TV news about it. I was pretty naive in 1968 and thought Dubcek and the Czechs had a real chance for independence. I never thought the Berlin wall would come down in my lifetime. It was vert intersting to me ; I had just started 7th grade when Kennedy was elected, whwn the wakk was built and Kenndy's Berlin speech. There were many publicized incidents that impacted me. There was wide coverage of a German teenager that was shot trying to get through the barbwire and was left hanging in the wire for several hours until he died. I also rember a magazine photo of an Eastern German soldier who defected through a wired area and someone had taken pictures of the event. My other recollection was that the pictures I saw of East Berlin made it look like such a bleak,desolute, forboding place to live.

[Gaucho]

My other recollection was that the pictures I saw of East Berlin made it look like such a bleak,desolute, forboding place to live.

Oh yes it was. I was there in spring 1989, a few months before the wall came down. I was extremely glad to be able to get out again.

[bh]

bh, do you read LRC? Check out this book review there - I think it addresses some of the questions you brought up about private property and freedom. I'm thinking about picking up the book - it sounds like it will do a good job of fleshing out the reasons why personal liberty and economic liberty are one in the same and indivisible.

And, of course - END THE FED.

I'm listening to End the Fed now to and from work on audio book. I tell you, I get to work all PO'ed and then when I get home I'm all PO'ed again. LRC is probably one of the sites I visit more frequently than others. There are some crazies that hang out there but a lot of the economic stuff is great. Boundries of order has been on my amazon wishlist for about a year now and someday I'll get to it. Thanks for reminding me of it though. I'm sure it would help answer many of my questions.

[shafnutz05]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125799009185344567.html

Sometimes I cannot BELIEVE how utterly stupid and incompetent this administration is when it comes to basic economics. Essentially, Obama wants to take the unspent TARP money and use it to reduce the budget deficit. How stupid does he think we are?

Basically, this would be like taking out a $15,000 loan to pay off your credit card bill, and then thinking you are "out of debt". Honest to God...anyone that thinks this recession is over needs to look at how utterly insane their thinking is.

[eddysnake]

Wow, this is getting bad when John Stewart has to start pointing out the "mistakes" that other cable news media is trying to pass off. What has happened to

Jon Stewart notices that Sean Hannity, in "reporting" on Michele Bachmann's teabagger anti-health-care rally last week, showed his audience footage from Glenn Beck's "912 Project" project of the month before, in order to make it look like there were big crowds out for it.

My question: Why aren't any journalists actually discussing the complete and utter travesty of "journalistic standards" as practiced by Fox News?

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert ... sean-hanni

I'm not trying to slam Fox News, because they are all bad IMO, but what's happened to our news today?

[doublem]

I'm not trying to slam Fox News, because they are all bad IMO, but what's happened to our news today?

Why? You mean competition for ratings doesn't make better or honest news coverage?

[shafnutz05]

I'll be honest, I did not see this, but I don't know why Hannity would have had to have done that...Bachmann's rally was pretty large. I think it's hilarious how bent out of shape people get about FOX News (not saying you are eddy)

For crying out loud.................CNN actually did an official "fact check" on the SNL skit that made fun of Obama. That's right...they did a CNN fact check on a satirical humor show because it poked fun at Obama. The rest of the media bends over backwards to paint everything this administration does with a rose-colored brush. Do you think CNN ever did a single "fact check" on the countless SNL episodes that lampooned Bush? No...and rightfully not.

They can talk about the "loss of journalistic standards" at FOX News all they want, but most of the mainstream media has become a blatant pawn of the Obama White House. It's almost nauseating how much they go out of their way to praise their leader. I am not denying that FOX News is conservatively biased...but for God's sake, the left has the rest of the mainstream media, newspapers, journalists, Hollywood, academia, etc. Let us keep our FOX News....please

[eddysnake]

I'm not trying to slam Fox News, because they are all bad IMO, but what's happened to our news today?

Why? You mean competition for ratings doesn't make better or honest news coverage?

It's pretty sad that the Daily Show and Colbert Report seem to have better researchers than CNN and Fox. I'm not really complaining becaue I'd rather watch either one of those than Olberman or Hannity.

[shafnutz05]

The reason why FOX News is so popular is not because Americans are being "dumbed down" or conservatives are stupid. If we wanted to hear about how rosy everything is and how wonderful the president is doing, I could turn to any one of hundreds of other media outlets. FOX is popular because it reports on the REST of the story that you don't hear in other places.

So many liberals like to dismiss FOX's popularity as a bunch of right-wing racist rednecks that love watching trash TV. Not only is this condescending, it's sorely mistaken. The writing is on the wall for MSNBC and CNN....CNN in particular has enjoyed a long run without any competition, but the ratings show how few people take that channel seriously anymore.

Fox News has pulled off another dominant quarter, claiming the top 10 cable news programs in 3Q 2009 and growing against 3Q 2008, while CNN and MSNBC lost substantial portions of their election-boom audience.

Fox News averaged 2.25 million total viewers in prime time for the third quarter, up 2% over the previous year. That's more than CNN (946,000, down 30%) and MSNBC (788,000, down 10%) combined.

"The O'Reilly Factor" led all cable news programs with an average of 3.295 million total viewers for the quarter, up 12% over the previous year. "Hannity" (2.603 million, up 9%), "Glenn Beck" (2.403 million, up 89%), "On the Record with Greta van Susteren" (2.150 million, up 16%), and "Special Report with Bret Baier" (1.997 million, up 20%) rounded out the top five.

Meanwhile, flagship programs at MSNBC and CNN did not sustain their growth from 3Q 2008: At MSNBC, "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" averaged 1.087 million total viewers, down 12% from the previous year and "The Rachel Maddow Show" averaged 996,000 total viewers (Maddow began the program in September 2008, so a comparison for the quarter would be inaccurate; compared to September 2008, though, Maddow's September 2009 total viewer average is down 40%). At CNN's "Anderson Cooper 360" averaged 1.005 million viewers, down 17% from the previous year and "Lou Dobbs" averaged 658,000 total viewers, down 24%. Larry King and Campbell Brown were both down just slightly in total viewers.

[shafnutz05]

And I hate to say it, but the Daily Show and Colbert Report aren't exactly infalliable either. The thought that our nation's teenagers are receiving their current events from these two shows is a little loopy.

[eddysnake]

I'll be honest, I did not see this, but I don't know why Hannity would have had to have done that...Bachmann's rally was pretty large. I think it's hilarious how bent out of shape people get about FOX News (not saying you are eddy)

For crying out loud.................CNN actually did an official "fact check" on the SNL skit that made fun of Obama. That's right...they did a CNN fact check on a satirical humor show because it poked fun at Obama. The rest of the media bends over backwards to paint everything this administration does with a rose-colored brush. Do you think CNN ever did a single "fact check" on the countless SNL episodes that lampooned Bush? No...and rightfully not.

They can talk about the "loss of journalistic standards" at FOX News all they want, but most of the mainstream media has become a blatant pawn of the Obama White House. It's almost nauseating how much they go out of their way to praise their leader. I am not denying that FOX News is conservatively biased...but for God's sake, the left has the rest of the mainstream media, newspapers, journalists, Hollywood, academia, etc. Let us keep our FOX News....please

If anything I probably flip to Fox News more so than CNN, but they both upset my stomach. I'm really not surprised to see how so many people actually get their news from The Daily Show (at least he slams both sides). I haven't heard much about this, but they said something on the radio about Obama not making an Afghan decision until he has all the "facts" ready. This, I'm actually glad to see. At first I supported the Afghan war over Iraq, now I just don't want to be over there at all. I seriously hope he wants to get out as well and if not sending more troops will speed that up, I'm for it, but the problem is, I'm not sure what that says about the troops there now. Tough situation.