PDA

View Full Version : The results of the patteeu primary are in.


patteeu
12-30-2007, 12:29 PM
After soaking up all the political wisdom that the ChiefsPlanet WDCatHL forum has to offer, I've finally concluded my search for a 2008 presidential candidate. Here are the results of my internal poll, in reverse order:

0% - All democrats - The democrats have no shot at my vote this year, but I'm sure you already knew that.

0% - Ron Paul - He's been my favorite Congressman for a really long time and I love his small government philosophy, but his neo-isolationist foreign policy makes him dead to me as a presidential hopeful.

0% - Mike Huckabee - I generally embrace the social conservative message and am even tolerant of the parts of it I don't agree with (e.g. gay marriage), but I'm not looking for a candidate for whom this is his top strength. I'm particularly not interested in a social conservative who seems allergic to small government. The only way he could get me to take a second look would be to promise to run with Dick Cheney as his VP.

5% - John McCain - I've never been a fan of McCain because of his conservative apostasy on a few high profile issues (eg Campaign Finance Reform). He's great on the GWoT with the exception of his public position against effective interrogation of high value jihadists. He'd be as frustrating for conservatives as GWBush has been, I suspect, given his self-indulgence (some might call it leadership) on issues like immigration and global warming. I could vote for McCain or Huckabee or even Paul in the general election, but I'd have to hold my nose to do so.

7% - Duncan Hunter - He'd be in the running to get my vote if I thought he had a chance at the nomination, but he doesn't. Hell, Ron Paul may even beat him. The only major problem I have with him is his stance in favor of trade protectionism. I could easily vote for any of my top 4 in the general election.

13% - Fred Thompson - He says all the right things and even though he supported McCain's CFR, I believe he's corrected that position since then. I particularly like what he says about the GWoT and the fact that he's talking about the entitlement problem. I really like Thompson, but I don't really like the idea of nominating a Senator (or Congressman) who has not augmented that experience with a stint as an executive.

24% - Rudy Giuliani - He'd make a great CiC and he'd be a strong President in the face of what I expect to be an opposition Congress. His social issue positions don't bother me but I'm slightly concerned with what kind of judges he'd appoint. His hardcore law and order background and his anti-gun past do bother me a bit. I do trust that his economic policies would be growth oriented (ie supply side) and I strongly approve.

51% - Mitt Romney - My biggest concern with Romney is whether or not he'll be tough enough, both in foreign policy and in his dealings with a democrat Congress. This concern is somewhat placated by the support Romney is getting from people whose opinions I trust. People say that endorsements don't matter (I think I've even said that), but I'm somewhat influenced by the fact that Romney has been the recipient of more endorsements from heavy hitting conservatives who I respect than any other candidate. I think he can be counted on to nominate good judges and he says the right things about the GWoT. Across the board, with the possible exception of Fred Thompson, he's the most consistently conservative (in the Ronald Reagan sense) of any of the candidates. Oh, and I like Mormons, he's got great hair, he sports a winning smile, and his wife is nice looking. :thumb:

http://www.buttonsonline.com/2008/romney/romneybumpersticker2.gif

irishjayhawk
12-30-2007, 12:31 PM
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb. :)

irishjayhawk
12-30-2007, 12:32 PM
I should note that I have decided to drop Ron Paul as a candidate I can support even though he speaks against things that I'm against and vice versa.

And no, it's not JUST because of the evolution fiasco.

jAZ
12-30-2007, 12:32 PM
Finally!

HolmeZz
12-30-2007, 12:32 PM
<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/a9IJUkYUbvI&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/a9IJUkYUbvI&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Hydrae
12-30-2007, 12:58 PM
0% - Ron Paul - He's been my favorite Congressman for a really long time and I love his small government philosophy, but his neo-isolationist foreign policy makes him dead to me as a presidential hopeful.

I see and hear this a lot. Most everyone will agree we need huge changes in Washington and it HAS to start at the top. But when offered the most viable "change" option in decades, people find a reason to reject that chance and continue with another variation of the status quo. Until and unless the rank and file of this country steps up to the plate and says that enough is enough, "they" will continue to hound us into our graves.

This country was founded by people strong enough and brave enough to step up and change the status quo. Were they all in agreement on how this would or should be accomplished? Hell no, not even close. But they worked through some of those differences and dealt with the bottom line need for major changes. When will we, the people of this great country, break out of our ruts and demand a return to the basics that this country was founded upon and tell our current "leaders" to get out of our lives, pocketbooks and homes? I have never seen a stronger option to do just this and send a clear message to those in charge that we are sick and tired of it and won't take it any more than in the person of Ron Paul.

Do I agree with everything this man says? No. Will he help lead this country in a new way and to a more hopeful future? Yes. Thus he gets my vote, bottom line.

patteeu
12-30-2007, 12:58 PM
Your videos can't shake my undying, Paulista-level devotion to my candidate, HolmeZz. I'm on dial-up right now, which makes me nearly immune to youtube influence. :)

patteeu
12-30-2007, 01:07 PM
I see and hear this a lot. Most everyone will agree we need huge changes in Washington and it HAS to start at the top. But when offered the most viable "change" option in decades, people find a reason to reject that chance and continue with another variation of the status quo. Until and unless the rank and file of this country steps up to the plate and says that enough is enough, "they" will continue to hound us into our graves.

This country was founded by people strong enough and brave enough to step up and change the status quo. Were they all in agreement on how this would or should be accomplished? Hell no, not even close. But they worked through some of those differences and dealt with the bottom line need for major changes. When will we, the people of this great country, break out of our ruts and demand a return to the basics that this country was founded upon and tell our current "leaders" to get out of our lives, pocketbooks and homes? I have never seen a stronger option to do just this and send a clear message to those in charge that we are sick and tired of it and won't take it any more than in the person of Ron Paul.

Do I agree with everything this man says? No. Will he help lead this country in a new way and to a more hopeful future? Yes. Thus he gets my vote, bottom line.

We're not talking here about one or even several differences on individual issues. We're talking about a fundamental difference on what I consider to be the primary job of the POTUS, ie directing foreign policy.

Hydrae
12-30-2007, 01:12 PM
We're not talking here about one or even several differences on individual issues. We're talking about a fundamental difference on what I consider to be the primary job of the POTUS, ie directing foreign policy.


I know that and I know that you and I are on opposite sides of this issue. I was just using this opportunity to vent my frustrations. But then again, those frustrations include my total lack of understanding how the American people could have given GW another term in office. :shrug: There is no accounting for the voting public, IMO.

Bowser
12-30-2007, 01:15 PM
Mitt is a nutjob. I wouldn't vote for him on a dare.

Flustrated
12-30-2007, 01:32 PM
Way to go! Support the guy that tries to buy Democracy....

Why would anyone spend millions of dollars to win a thankless job that doesn't pay as well as what you're used to earning? Obviously this schmuck has no love for this country and his message is so bad that he has to pay people and bus them to vote for him.

patteeu
12-30-2007, 01:35 PM
Mitt is a nutjob. I wouldn't vote for him on a dare.

What makes him a nutjob in your view? I'm genuinely concerned with your thoughts and would love to figuratively sit down with you and help you work out your differences with our next President. I'm not like a Paultard who's going to tell you that you hate freedom if you don't support my guy. ;)

patteeu
12-30-2007, 01:36 PM
Way to go! Support the guy that tries to buy Democracy....

Why would anyone spend millions of dollars to win a thankless job that doesn't pay as well as what you're used to earning? Obviously this schmuck has no love for this country and his message is so bad that he has to pay people and bus them to vote for him.

Did it ever occur to you that maybe he sent a slice of that dollar bill pie my way to get my ChiefsPlanet endorsement?

Flustrated
12-30-2007, 01:44 PM
Did it ever occur to you that maybe he sent a slice of that dollar bill pie my way to get my ChiefsPlanet endorsement?


Did he bus you to The Planet or were you able to find your own way?

mlyonsd
12-30-2007, 01:55 PM
Since I'm 47 and fighting a receding hair line there's no way Mitt gets my top vote. I don't trust guys older than me with hair like that.

I would vote for him over the skank in a heart beat though.

Bowser
12-30-2007, 01:59 PM
What makes him a nutjob in your view? I'm genuinely concerned with your thoughts and would love to figuratively sit down with you and help you work out your differences with our next President. I'm not like a Paultard who's going to tell you that you hate freedom if you don't support my guy. ;)

Keep your brainwashing machine away from me, Dr. Evil!

:D

mlyonsd
12-30-2007, 02:01 PM
Keep your brainwashing machine away from me, Dr. Evil!

:D

If you're not a Paul supporter by now I'd venture to say you can't be brainwashed.

Flustrated
12-30-2007, 02:02 PM
Since I'm 47 and fighting a receding hair line there's no way Mitt gets my top vote. I don't trust guys older than me with hair like that.

I would vote for him over the skank in a heart beat though.

He's Fake
He reminds me of an evil Ken doll
Buying votes is sickening
Obviously a power monger
About the only thing he would be good at as President would be cutting spending, but he has yet to say which programs stay and which go. He speaks in general terms and is always too afraid to step out on a limb for what he believes in. The guy has no chance.

Bowser
12-30-2007, 02:03 PM
For the serious response of questioning Romney's nutjobedness...



GOV. MITT ROMNEY: Well, I’m not an expert in nation-building, and I don’t think our military is either. I do recognize that we have a responsibility for this nation, and for the world for that matter, to be successful in Iraq, and what that means to me is permanently assuring that Iraq will never be a state sponsor of terror. It will never be an Afghanistan-style, safe-haven for al-Qaeda, Hezbollah or the like. And that means defeating al-Qaeda, and their allies there. It also means that the strategy that is being pursued by General Petraeus is being pursued effectively and superbly well, and that we’re successful, and having Sunnis join with us to help us reject al Qaeda. And that for me is success in Iraq, and that’s the work that we should be carrying out in that country.

At the same time, I do believe in something which I described as a “special partnership force.” Let me describe what I have in mind. In nations like the Philippines, where Abu Sayyaf was increasingly successful in established a beachhead there, we put in place army special forces personnel, which worked together at the invitation of the Philippine government and military to help rid the country of Abu Sayyaf. And we not only advised on military matters, but we put in place water projects, we built bridges and so forth. We strengthened the local community such that they rejected the extreme, and ultimately Abu Sayyaf is down to a couple hundred members today.

So I have proposed that we would, in fact, create an entity, which I would call a “special partnership force,” which comprises both the expertise of our CIA operatives, as well as our special forces personnel, which could be called upon by a nation to help them reject the extreme and the violent within their midst. Now, I don’t consider that nation-building, but I do consider that smart military tactics to help a nation rid itself of al Qaeda or the like.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23541

Bowser
12-30-2007, 02:03 PM
If you're not a Paul supporter by now I'd venture to say you can't be brainwashed.

Heh. I like his ideas, but he's way too radical to make a serious push at the WH.

mlyonsd
12-30-2007, 02:07 PM
Heh. I like his ideas, but he's way too radical to make a serious push at the WH.

I like some of his ideas too. In some ways I think he's a little ahead of his time.

Maybe somebody like him will come along in another eight years and have a shot. After eight more years of the two big parties ripping each other apart.

mlyonsd
12-30-2007, 02:08 PM
He's Fake
He reminds me of an evil Ken doll
Buying votes is sickening
Obviously a power monger
About the only thing he would be good at as President would be cutting spending, but he has yet to say which programs stay and which go. He speaks in general terms and is always too afraid to step out on a limb for what he believes in. The guy has no chance.

I think to be fair just about every candidate running is fake to some degree.

MGRS13
12-30-2007, 02:12 PM
Way to back a sure loser. The only repub who could make a race out of it is McCain but I'm sure most of you GOP'ers aren't smart enough to see that.

patteeu
12-30-2007, 02:16 PM
For the serious response of questioning Romney's nutjobedness...



GOV. MITT ROMNEY: Well, I’m not an expert in nation-building, and I don’t think our military is either. I do recognize that we have a responsibility for this nation, and for the world for that matter, to be successful in Iraq, and what that means to me is permanently assuring that Iraq will never be a state sponsor of terror. It will never be an Afghanistan-style, safe-haven for al-Qaeda, Hezbollah or the like. And that means defeating al-Qaeda, and their allies there. It also means that the strategy that is being pursued by General Petraeus is being pursued effectively and superbly well, and that we’re successful, and having Sunnis join with us to help us reject al Qaeda. And that for me is success in Iraq, and that’s the work that we should be carrying out in that country.

At the same time, I do believe in something which I described as a “special partnership force.” Let me describe what I have in mind. In nations like the Philippines, where Abu Sayyaf was increasingly successful in established a beachhead there, we put in place army special forces personnel, which worked together at the invitation of the Philippine government and military to help rid the country of Abu Sayyaf. And we not only advised on military matters, but we put in place water projects, we built bridges and so forth. We strengthened the local community such that they rejected the extreme, and ultimately Abu Sayyaf is down to a couple hundred members today.

So I have proposed that we would, in fact, create an entity, which I would call a “special partnership force,” which comprises both the expertise of our CIA operatives, as well as our special forces personnel, which could be called upon by a nation to help them reject the extreme and the violent within their midst. Now, I don’t consider that nation-building, but I do consider that smart military tactics to help a nation rid itself of al Qaeda or the like.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23541

I find that statement to be very attractive. He's talking about learning lessons from our experiences in counter-insurgency and strengthening support for what's worked. It's like a best-practices approach to countering the islamist insurgency against civilization. What bothers you about it?

mlyonsd
12-30-2007, 02:16 PM
Way to back a sure loser. The only repub who could make a race out of it is McCain but I'm sure most of you GOP'ers aren't smart enough to see that.

Pssst...http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=177097 :)

Pitt Gorilla
12-30-2007, 02:24 PM
Pssst...http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=177097 :)And I agreed with you.

mlyonsd
12-30-2007, 02:27 PM
And I agreed with you.

I always figured you as intelligent.

Cochise
12-30-2007, 02:33 PM
Another vote lost for Ron Paul... all for want of $200.

Don't worry Paulites, I'm not above changing my vote either. Just let me know when the cash is on the way.

patteeu
12-30-2007, 02:37 PM
Another vote lost for Ron Paul... all for want of $200.

Don't worry Paulites, I'm not above changing my vote either. Just let me know when the cash is on the way.

LMAO That's right. Geez, with all the fund raising prowess of the Paulettes, you'd think they could have hit my price point.

SNR
12-30-2007, 03:32 PM
You and recxjake will be best friends in the next couple months.

chagrin
12-30-2007, 03:49 PM
Way to back a sure loser. The only repub who could make a race out of it is McCain but I'm sure most of you GOP'ers aren't smart enough to see that.


Uh huh, your solution is that Republicans back a witherer, you must be a liberal, at the very least you're a dumb ass.

Ultra Peanut
12-30-2007, 04:51 PM
You are gross.

recxjake
12-30-2007, 05:51 PM
Ron Paul > Mitt Romney

patteeu
12-30-2007, 06:55 PM
Ron Paul > Mitt Romney

Whatever floats your boat. :shrug:

Nothing you say can surprise me since you've so completely disguised the principles upon which you base your candidate preferences. What do Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul all have in common? Not much beyond the (R) beside their name and your support.

recxjake
12-30-2007, 07:24 PM
Whatever floats your boat. :shrug:

Nothing you say can surprise me since you've so completely disguised the principles upon which you base your candidate preferences. What do Newt Gingrich, Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, and Ron Paul all have in common? Not much beyond the (R) beside their name and your support.

I only like Mike Huckabee because he is the one person that can stop Mitt Romney.

I refuse to back Mitt Romney. He is fraud.

I don't agree with Ron Paul on everything, but atleast I know what we will get. With Romney, it will depend on how the wind is blowing that day.

patteeu
12-30-2007, 07:46 PM
I only like Mike Huckabee because he is the one person that can stop Mitt Romney.

That doesn't say much for your confidence in your main guy. Sounds to me like you're hoping to back into a victory.

I refuse to back Mitt Romney. He is fraud.

I don't agree with Ron Paul on everything, but atleast I know what we will get. With Romney, it will depend on how the wind is blowing that day.

I think you overstate the amount of bending to the wind that Romney has done. It's true that a few of his positions have changed over the past decade or so, but he's been fairly consistent since beginning his campaign for President. If he wanted to be all things to all people, he probably could have benefited himself by downplaying his Mormonism, but instead he insisted that he's proud of his faith in a high profile speech. I'm not sure why you think Romney's shifting is more profound than your own candidate's shift on issues like gun-control. I think you're too driven by emotion on this subject, but if that's how you feel, I can't do anything about it.

irishjayhawk
12-30-2007, 08:38 PM
I find that statement to be very attractive. He's talking about learning lessons from our experiences in counter-insurgency and strengthening support for what's worked. It's like a best-practices approach to countering the islamist insurgency against civilization. What bothers you about it?

So it IS islam?

patteeu
12-30-2007, 09:23 PM
So it IS islam?

No. I really don't understand why you find this so difficult to understand.

Silock
12-30-2007, 09:47 PM
Romney? Are you serious? Ugh.

SNR
12-30-2007, 09:50 PM
Uh huh, your solution is that Republicans back a witherer, you must be a liberal, at the very least you're a dumb ass.What the flying **** are you talking about? They're ALL the same candidate

irishjayhawk
12-30-2007, 10:09 PM
No. I really don't understand why you find this so difficult to understand.

Islamist insurgency. Obviously someone is insurgent, so in your sentence it is Islam. Not extremists.

You never clarify.

BucEyedPea
12-31-2007, 12:19 AM
51% - Mitt Romney - My biggest concern with Romney is whether or not he'll be tough enough, both in foreign policy and in his dealings with a democrat Congress. This concern is somewhat placated by the support Romney is getting from people whose opinions I trust. People say that endorsements don't matter (I think I've even said that), but I'm somewhat influenced by the fact that Romney has been the recipient of more endorsements from heavy hitting conservatives who I respect than any other candidate. I think he can be counted on to nominate good judges and he says the right things about the GWoT. Across the board, with the possible exception of Fred Thompson, he's the most consistently conservative (in the Ronald Reagan sense) of any of the candidates. Oh, and I like Mormons, he's got great hair, he sports a winning smile, and his wife is nice looking. :thumb:

http://www.buttonsonline.com/2008/romney/romneybumpersticker2.gif
So I was right. You voted for him in a poll here early on...then later said otherwise. I knew you'd go for a tax and spend liberal, that will bring socialized medicine to America that's also a hawk. Very consistent.

I doubt any of the top tier will nominated good judges, particularly Mitt.

banyon
12-31-2007, 01:03 AM
yeah patteeu you libral!

patteeu
12-31-2007, 07:46 AM
Islamist insurgency. Obviously someone is insurgent, so in your sentence it is Islam. Not extremists.

You never clarify.

First of all, "islamists" are a subset of the entire group of islamic people in the sense the term is being used.

Is·lam·ism (ĭs-lä'mĭz'əm, ĭz-, ĭs'lə-, ĭz'-) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. An Islamic revivalist movement, often characterized by moral conservatism, literalism, and the attempt to implement Islamic values in all spheres of life.

Second, the phrase "insurgency against civilization" further narrows the focus to the extremists who we are fighting. I've clarified this on several occasions before but you don't seem to be capable(?)/inclined(?) to understand it.

patteeu
12-31-2007, 07:54 AM
So I was right. You voted for him in a poll here early on...then later said otherwise. I knew you'd go for a tax and spend liberal, that will bring socialized medicine to America that's also a hawk. Very consistent.

I doubt any of the top tier will nominated good judges, particularly Mitt.

No, you were wrong. Very consistent.

I voted for him in a poll that, iirc, asked who we thought would win, not who we wanted to win. I didn't decide to support Romney until recently. In fact, I think I indicated not that long ago that I was leaning toward Giuliani based on the confidence I had that he'd prosecute the GWoT the way I think it should be prosecuted. Since then, I've grown a little more comfortable with Romney in this regard.

And you've got absolutely no room to talk about supporting tax and spenders since you've admitted that you may well vote democrat after your Ron Paul pipe dream goes up in smoke. Not that I think Mitt Romney is the liberal that you think he is, of course.

irishjayhawk
12-31-2007, 11:48 AM
First of all, "islamists" are a subset of the entire group of islamic people in the sense the term is being used.

No. Islamists. That is the same as saying Muslims. And your definition is why I hate dictionaries. They can be altered to whatever they want. Islamism is no where close to that. If it is, do they have the equivolent for Christianity? They're at the same phase - and if it's not the SAME phase they were at the SAME phase hundreds of years ago. That definition is clearly slanted.



Second, the phrase "insurgency against civilization" further narrows the focus to the extremists who we are fighting. I've clarified this on several occasions before but you don't seem to be capable(?)/inclined(?) to understand it.

Insurgency against civilization is so broad that it cannot possibly further narrow anything. And you never mention extremists. Christians think atheists are an "insurgency against civilization" but that doesn't narrow the broad specturm of atheists to "atheist extremists". (Of course, there is no such thing, so I guess it's a bad example.)

You continue to play semantics and weasel out of poor word choice. And consistently tell me I'm the one misunderstanding.

patteeu
12-31-2007, 12:31 PM
No. Islamists. That is the same as saying Muslims. And your definition is why I hate dictionaries. They can be altered to whatever they want. Islamism is no where close to that. If it is, do they have the equivolent for Christianity? They're at the same phase - and if it's not the SAME phase they were at the SAME phase hundreds of years ago. That definition is clearly slanted.

You work real hard at remaining ignorant on this topic. I can certainly understand why you hate dictionaries. :rolleyes:

FWIW, "Islamist" *can* be used in a more benign context than that in which I use it, just as many words can have various meanings (although it never means the same thing as "saying muslims"), but that doesn't change the clear (to everyone but you) meaning of what I wrote. The islamists that I'm talking about are militant extremists who want to wage jihad in an effort to replace man-made law/government with islamic law/government.

Insurgency against civilization is so broad that it cannot possibly further narrow anything. And you never mention extremists. Christians think atheists are an "insurgency against civilization" but that doesn't narrow the broad specturm of atheists to "atheist extremists". (Of course, there is no such thing, so I guess it's a bad example.)

You continue to play semantics and weasel out of poor word choice. And consistently tell me I'm the one misunderstanding.

Do you require a list of names? You can't possibly expect a treatise on the subject everytime our GWoT enemies are discussed. If you are still having trouble understanding the ideological common denominator of our enemies, then I'd suggest that you do a little bit of reading. You can start with this wikipedia page on islamism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism). It includes a ton of references for your advanced research. I'd also recomment Lawrence Wright's book "The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 (http://www.amazon.com/Looming-Tower-Qaeda-Road-Vintage/dp/1400030846/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199125673&sr=8-1)" which I found both easy to read and interesting context for bin Laden's attacks on the US.

irishjayhawk
12-31-2007, 01:07 PM
You work real hard at remaining ignorant on this topic. I can certainly understand why you hate dictionaries. :rolleyes:

No, I don't like dictionaries because they are often outdated OR they subscribe to a definition that is utterly stupid. In this case, Islamism. Is there a Christian equivalent, for the definition? Christianism? Christianity? Where's the Christian version of Islamism?


FWIW, "Islamist" *can* be used in a more benign context than that in which I use it, just as many words can have various meanings (although it never means the same thing as "saying muslims"), but that doesn't change the clear (to everyone but you) meaning of what I wrote.

It's not the same as saying Muslim? HE's an Islamist? It's just we have a better word for that - in Muslim. Seems the same to mine.

And then you go and pull the popularity argument. Everyone else sees what I'm saying so I must be right. It's simple. You just have to use EXTREMISTS. In fact, you don't even have to say Islamic Extremists. Extremists is enough. Because, really, we're at war with all extremists - of all kinds.



The islamists that I'm talking about are militant extremists who want to wage jihad in an effort to replace man-made law/government with islamic law/government.

So islamists - as broad as it is - is now narrowed to militant extremists. Thank you.

And your definition of the goals of militant extremists found in Islam is pretty stupid. I'd say it's the same thing - but in a different country - that's happening hear. Difference is, it's Christianity.

So naturally, you're against ALL extremists? Right?



Do you require a list of names? You can't possibly expect a treatise on the subject everytime our GWoT enemies are discussed.

No, but when you use overly broad statements like "insurgency against civilization" you aren't narrowing it down. Hell, anything can be an insurgency against civilization. And since you didn't specify but for Islamist - which is broad in it's own right - it makes it hard to follow. Sorry if I require you to clarify your silly semantics.



If you are still having trouble understanding the ideological common denominator of our enemies, then I'd suggest that you do a little bit of reading.

I'm not the one having trouble here. The common denominator is clearly Islam. That's why you have to always have to mention Islam[insert your silly isms, ists, etc] when you refer to them. They can't just be extremists, whether political or religious, or both.



You can start with this wikipedia page on islamism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamism). It includes a ton of references for your advanced research. I'd also recomment Lawrence Wright's book "The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 (http://www.amazon.com/Looming-Tower-Qaeda-Road-Vintage/dp/1400030846/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1199125673&sr=8-1)" which I found both easy to read and interesting context for bin Laden's attacks on the US.

I'd have to dig it up again and was going to post it when I found it but got sidetracked. There's some British documentary about how "Al-Qaeda" is a fictional faction. It quotes top CIA insiders and stuff. Of course, I didn't watch the documentary so I don't know how credible it is. But, the Bin Laden chase seems to indicate there is at least some truth to this. As to how much, if any, I don't know.

patteeu
12-31-2007, 01:22 PM
No, I don't like dictionaries because they are often outdated OR they subscribe to a definition that is utterly stupid. In this case, Islamism. Is there a Christian equivalent, for the definition? Christianism? Christianity? Where's the Christian version of Islamism?



It's not the same as saying Muslim? HE's an Islamist? It's just we have a better word for that - in Muslim. Seems the same to mine.

And then you go and pull the popularity argument. Everyone else sees what I'm saying so I must be right. It's simple. You just have to use EXTREMISTS. In fact, you don't even have to say Islamic Extremists. Extremists is enough. Because, really, we're at war with all extremists - of all kinds.




So islamists - as broad as it is - is now narrowed to militant extremists. Thank you.

And your definition of the goals of militant extremists found in Islam is pretty stupid. I'd say it's the same thing - but in a different country - that's happening hear. Difference is, it's Christianity.

So naturally, you're against ALL extremists? Right?




No, but when you use overly broad statements like "insurgency against civilization" you aren't narrowing it down. Hell, anything can be an insurgency against civilization. And since you didn't specify but for Islamist - which is broad in it's own right - it makes it hard to follow. Sorry if I require you to clarify your silly semantics.




I'm not the one having trouble here. The common denominator is clearly Islam. That's why you have to always have to mention Islam[insert your silly isms, ists, etc] when you refer to them. They can't just be extremists, whether political or religious, or both.





I'd have to dig it up again and was going to post it when I found it but got sidetracked. There's some British documentary about how "Al-Qaeda" is a fictional faction. It quotes top CIA insiders and stuff. Of course, I didn't watch the documentary so I don't know how credible it is. But, the Bin Laden chase seems to indicate there is at least some truth to this. As to how much, if any, I don't know.

Nothing you say here makes a bit of sense. Not one bit. When it comes to words and effectively communicating your thoughts to others, popular opinion as to the meanings of those words is of paramount importance. Your personal definitions mean nothing.

I'm not talking about all extremists. For example, I don't think Ron Paul supporters who take extreme neo-isolationist positions in foreign policy should be targets in our GWoT. The extremists who should be targeted are those involved in the "islamist insurgency against civilization" as I said before. Did you read through that wikipedia page yet? If not, get cracking or stop wasting my time.

go bowe
12-31-2007, 01:32 PM
I find that statement to be very attractive...attractive?

sounds kinky... :p :p :p

go bowe
12-31-2007, 01:49 PM
btw, i know that my posts are often quite long, but you guys have taken it to a new level...

dictionary definitions are slanted?

did i see that somewhere in those mini-novels?

if so, LMAO LMAO LMAO

BucEyedPea
12-31-2007, 02:52 PM
No, you were wrong. Very consistent.

I voted for him in a poll that, iirc, asked who we thought would win, not who we wanted to win. I didn't decide to support Romney until recently.
No it was NOT that kind of a poll. It was a "who you wanted." That was back then anyway. You were leaning toward him then. Much later you leaned toward Guiliani.

In fact, I think I indicated not that long ago that I was leaning toward Giuliani based on the confidence I had that he'd prosecute the GWoT the way I think it should be prosecuted. Since then, I've grown a little more comfortable with Romney in this regard.
Ya' know what of all the Republicans that I could vote for in a primary if there was no Ron Paul, I would likely vote for Mitt. For one reason: I think he may be the least hawkish on the GWoT. Yup! Since war is my first and top issue.
He talks about fighting global jihad but I think some of that is more rhetoric with him. I'm not saying he'd be a Paul but more Bush-lite. I just don't fool myself regarding SC justices, welfare and tax and spend with him especially being so connected to the state of Mass.

And you've got absolutely no room to talk about supporting tax and spenders since you've admitted that you may well vote democrat after your Ron Paul pipe dream goes up in smoke. Not that I think Mitt Romney is the liberal that you think he is, of course.
Lol! You crack me up. I've said all along that war/FP were my top issues over all others. Then immigration/amnesty. See what I just said about Mitt above. You have no room to talk when you urge practical conservatism which isn't conservatism as if I don't know when to compromise and deal with the hand I've got.

See here, you must have missed it.
The Liberal Tax and Spend ways of Romney in Massachusetts; Champion of Big Govt.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=164723&highlight=Spend+Romney

I would rely less on what a politicians says and look at their actual records more. Romney is a liberal. I'm from Mass, still have lots of family and friends there. He's a liberal. My mother a liberal Dem loved him.

jAZ
12-31-2007, 02:58 PM
No, I don't like dictionaries because they are often outdated OR they subscribe to a definition that is utterly stupid. In this case, Islamism. Is there a Christian equivalent, for the definition? Christianism? Christianity? Where's the Christian version of Islamism?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0520/p18s04-hfes.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1191826,00.html

jAZ
12-31-2007, 03:00 PM
Ya' know what of all the Republicans that I could vote for in a primary if there was no Ron Paul, I would likely vote for Mitt. For one reason: I think he may be the least hawkish on the GWoT. Yup! Since war is my first and top issue.
He talks about fighting global jihad but I think some of that is more rhetoric with him. I'm not saying he'd be a Paul but more Bush-lite.
Romney is the worst of GWB + John Kerry.

Fishpicker
12-31-2007, 03:14 PM
Romney is the worst of GWB + John Kerry.

you nailed it. Romney has always struck me as a (less) hairy Kerry with a modicum of reasonability. AKA he will play ball with the most hawkish of neo-cons.

patteeu
12-31-2007, 03:28 PM
No it was NOT that kind of a poll. It was a "who you wanted." That was back then anyway. You were leaning toward him then. Much later you leaned toward Guiliani.

Whatever. The fact remains that I didn't choose a candidate to support until very recently. I wasn't a Romney guy until then.

patteeu
12-31-2007, 03:29 PM
Ya' know what of all the Republicans that I could vote for in a primary if there was no Ron Paul, I would likely vote for Mitt. For one reason: I think he may be the least hawkish on the GWoT. Yup! Since war is my first and top issue.
He talks about fighting global jihad but I think some of that is more rhetoric with him. I'm not saying he'd be a Paul but more Bush-lite. I just don't fool myself regarding SC justices, welfare and tax and spend with him especially being so connected to the state of Mass.

I'm more concerned that you could be right on the GWoT point than I am about the SCOTUS justices he'd appoint, but he's done enough to convince me that he'll be OK in this regard. Of course, the people he chooses to surround himself with could make all the difference in the world. These are my two top priorities in our next president.

BucEyedPea
12-31-2007, 03:33 PM
Romney is the worst of GWB + John Kerry.
I think he's safer ( as far as an all out war goes) than Rudy, McCain and Huckabee. I say this on gut feel more than anything because of an interview he did on Fox with Shammity when asked about Iran. He seemed like he was towing the NeoCon line on what not to say being the salesman he is. But then he said, and it seemed very sincere including his eyes: "Well ya' know Sean you really hate to use that ( talking about force as well as nukes). " (paraphrased).

I actually believed him on that. Romney's more a businessman than anything. That has it's pros and cons. No matter how you slice it all the top candidates have NeoCons for foreign policy advisors.

BucEyedPea
12-31-2007, 03:37 PM
Whatever. The fact remains that I didn't choose a candidate to support until very recently. I wasn't a Romney guy until then.
I took it as for that time. I saw your later posts and it seemed you were in flux. NTTAWWT. I even voted for Rude-y at one early point until Paul came along and I found out more about Benito.

patteeu
12-31-2007, 03:39 PM
Lol! You crack me up. I've said all along that war/FP were my top issues over all others. Then immigration/amnesty. See what I just said about Mitt above. You have no room to talk when you urge practical conservatism which isn't conservatism as if I don't know when to compromise and deal with the hand I've got.

See here, you must have missed it.
The Liberal Tax and Spend ways of Romney in Massachusetts; Champion of Big Govt.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=164723&highlight=Spend+Romney

And by the same token, I've always said that the GWoT and SCOTUS justices are my primary considerations which is why I think it's so ridiculous that you'd cast stones at someone who might be willing to tolerate something less than perfection on other issues. I'm willing to compromise my ideology with a practical conservative (which *is* the conservatism that I'm interested in regardless of your warped LewRockwellian view to the contrary), but you'll compromise yours with a full blown liberal or, best case, with the same guy I'm compromising with. :shrug:

BucEyedPea
12-31-2007, 03:46 PM
And by the same token, I've always said that the GWoT and SCOTUS justices are my primary considerations which is why I think it's so ridiculous that you'd cast stones at someone who might be willing to tolerate something less than perfection on other issues.
I was pulling a patty.

I'm willing to compromise my ideology with a practical conservative (which *is* the conservatism that I'm interested in regardless of your warped LewRockwellian view to the contrary), but you'll compromise yours with a full blown liberal or, best case, with the same guy I'm compromising with. :shrug:
Have I done so yet? ( excluding the congressional elections). Like I said I wanna live first. Ya' know the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as written in that EXACT order. Once I know I have that locked up then I'll fight about sharing my money. With Paul I get all three rights.

Anyhow, I'm not in the mood for a knock-down drag out with you. The evening is young and it's a holiday.

Happy Neo Year!

patteeu
12-31-2007, 03:48 PM
I would rely less on what a politicians says and look at their actual records more. Romney is a liberal. I'm from Mass, still have lots of family and friends there. He's a liberal. My mother a liberal Dem loved him.

I don't believe Romney is a liberal despite your conviction on this point. Neither do conservatives like Robert Bork, David Keene, Paul Weyrich, or conservative publications like the National Review.

Mitt Romney may not be a perfect conservative, and there are surely some points on which some of the other Republican candidates are better, but he's the best overall conservative in the race (with the possible exception of the unelectable Duncan Hunter), IMO, and he has a business/executive background that is unrivaled by any of his competitors.

patteeu
12-31-2007, 03:51 PM
Romney is the worst of GWB + John Kerry.

I take it that, from your perspective, this means that he's rich like Kerry and willing to piss in the democrats' cheerios like Bush. Sounds like a winner to me! :thumb:

BucEyedPea
12-31-2007, 03:51 PM
I take it you didn't read the link which was by a limited govt conservative group not a bunch of nc's. Sorry I can't help myself.

I also wouldn't put any stock in what the NeoCon review says. And Bork has joined AEI. These guys aren't even close to traditional conservative let alone be perfect. Go ahead get someone who will fiddle with the code and make bureaucrats like entrepeneurs. Govt can't do it because it's the problem which is why have a GWoT.

They've gone bonkers if they can't see the fascist-style MittCare they got in Massachusetts that doesn't kick in until 2009.

Now go drink some champagne and calm down. You sound like your gettin' ornery.

patteeu
12-31-2007, 03:54 PM
I take it you didn't read the link which was by a limited govt conservative group not a bunch of nc's. Sorry I can't help myself.

I also wouldn't put any stock in what the NeoCon review says. And Bork has joined AEI. These guys aren't even close to traditional conservative let alone be perfect.

They've gone bonkers if they can't see the fascist MittCare they go in Massachusetts that doesn't kick in until 2009.

Now go drink some champagne and calm down. You sound like your gettin' ornery.

The kids are at friends' houses tonight so my wife and I are going to go out for Thai food and then come home and watch a movie (or plan our strategy for getting Mitt Romney into office) or something.

Have fun tonight and stay safe. :)

BucEyedPea
12-31-2007, 04:07 PM
Likewise. I heading out to eat myself and then to a bonfire...that is if I don't fall asleep before midnight.

Fishpicker
12-31-2007, 04:10 PM
The kids are at friends' houses tonight so my wife and I are going to go out for Thai food and then come home and watch a movie (or plan our strategy for getting Mitt Romney into office) or something.

Have fun tonight and stay safe. :)

Coconut milk is nature's diarhettic, stay safe, I hope you have a great holiday.

penchief
12-31-2007, 05:37 PM
Hmmm. If you were as smart as I thought you were, you'd have chosen Joe Biden.

go bowe
12-31-2007, 05:47 PM
First of all, "islamists" are a subset of the entire group of islamic people in the sense the term is being used.



Second, the phrase "insurgency against civilization" further narrows the focus to the extremists who we are fighting. I've clarified this on several occasions before but you don't seem to be capable(?)/inclined(?) to understand it.well, i wouldn't be able to understand it either without my glasses... :Poke:

Rain Man
12-31-2007, 06:06 PM
I need some more information. How good looking is Mitt Romney's wife?

mlyonsd
12-31-2007, 06:09 PM
I need some more information. How good looking is Mitt Romney's wife?

She's like an older Farrah Fawcett with a mustache.

jAZ
12-31-2007, 07:11 PM
I take it that, from your perspective, this means that he's rich like Kerry and willing to piss in the democrats' cheerios like Bush. Sounds like a winner to me! :thumb:
He's a wholesale "flip-flopper" on almost all of the key issues "conservatives" care about... with his position at any moment aligned with whatever with give him the greatest political control. And as such he's likely to say one thing while fully intending to do something else once in power.

So maybe he's just the worst part of GWB and that's it.

Iowanian
12-31-2007, 08:44 PM
My vote is in the air, going into the caucus.

I have decided that I'm going to temporarily register as a Repub(back to IND soon after) and attend the local caucus.

I've been leaning towards Huckabee, but I'm liking more of Fred Thompson's message each day.

recxjake
12-31-2007, 08:46 PM
My vote is in the air, going into the caucus.

I have decided that I'm going to temporarily register as a Repub(back to IND soon after) and attend the local caucus.

I've been leaning towards Huckabee, but I'm liking more of Fred Thompson's message each day.

ROFL

Thompson: "I'm Not Particularly Interested in Running for President"

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2007/12/29/politics/fromtheroad/entry3656323.shtml

Iowanian
12-31-2007, 10:22 PM
I'd vote for Obama over the douchebag you're pimping Rexjoke. Rudy is teh suck.

irishjayhawk
12-31-2007, 11:25 PM
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0520/p18s04-hfes.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1191826,00.html


Thanks but look up Christianism on dictionary.com. Tell me the Islamism definition isn't slanted. Sheesh.

recxjake
01-01-2008, 08:16 AM
I'd vote for Obama over the douchebag you're pimping Rexjoke. Rudy is teh suck.

LOL...

What do Thompson,Huckabee and Obama have in common?

patteeu
01-01-2008, 08:29 AM
I need some more information. How good looking is Mitt Romney's wife?

For being nearly 60, she looks pretty good, IMO.

http://www.mittromney.com/img/Ann/Ann_Romney_Bio_Photo_Sized.jpg

Here she was, back in the day:

http://www.peteykins.com/sparklepics3/MittRomneyYouth05.jpg

patteeu
01-01-2008, 08:34 AM
He's a wholesale "flip-flopper" on almost all of the key issues "conservatives" care about... with his position at any moment aligned with whatever with give him the greatest political control. And as such he's likely to say one thing while fully intending to do something else once in power.

Has he flip flopped on anything in the past few years or is this about the changes in his position from his days of Massachusetts governor to now? In a race that doesn't have a perfect candidate for me, I'll take my chances with Mitt Romney. I'd be nearly as willing to take my chances with Rudy or Fred Thompson too.

Iowanian
01-01-2008, 08:45 AM
LOL...

What do Thompson,Huckabee and Obama have in common?

They're not tax payer scamming, thrice divorced, 9-11 coattail riding, public safety penthouse scamming, lisping douchebags from NYC?

penchief
01-01-2008, 03:03 PM
Has he flip flopped on anything in the past few years or is this about the changes in his position from his days of Massachusetts governor to now? In a race that doesn't have a perfect candidate for me, I'll take my chances with Mitt Romney. I'd be nearly as willing to take my chances with Rudy or Fred Thompson too.

You're taking your chances with all the people that are perfect for continuing our country down it's current catastrophic path. These are all people who will continue to screw America in favor of corporate greed and who will also continue the neocon's imperialistic foreign policy.

I get the feeling that the only thing better for you would be if Cheneyburton decided to run.

patteeu
01-01-2008, 03:43 PM
You're taking your chances with all the people that are perfect for continuing our country down it's current catastrophic path. These are all people who will continue to screw America in favor of corporate greed and who will also continue the neocon's imperialistic foreign policy.

I get the feeling that the only thing better for you would be if Cheneyburton decided to run.

You know me like a brother. :)

Kind of like a gay, younger brother who can't avoid screwing up his own life in every imaginable way and always needs mom and dad to bail him out, but a brother none the less. :p

BucEyedPea
01-01-2008, 06:17 PM
Gee! Mitt looks better at age 60 than he did then. :drool: