Liberals Have Lost Touch With Reality (What Else Is New?)

PittsburghAfterDark

CAGiversary!
Liberals have lost touch with reality

02/09/2005 13:07


General George S. Patton once said, "Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack."
 
Those on the left seem to be cynical about everything to do with the war on terrorism.  I think if Patton were alive today he would say liberals lack the courage to fight the enemy and would slap a few of them around.  
 
Liberals are also cynical about the way the military handles terrorist prisoners.  I am sure Patton would tell liberals they lack the basic understanding of warfare and prisoner handling and challenge them to spend a few days on the front line to see how things are really done.  Then he would slap a few of them around once again.  
 
A soldier's job is to kill the enemy, or as Patton also said, "The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his."  The sooner liberals understand the true meaning of war, the sooner we can make the "other bastard" die for his country.
 
To prove how out of touch liberals are with reality these days look at the uproar that occurred because of comments made by Lt. General James Mattis.  General Mattis, who has commanded troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, was recently speaking at a forum in San Diego about strategies for the war on terror.
 
Mattis said, "Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot. ... It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right upfront with you, I like brawling."  General Mattis is the kind of General I want leading our troops into battle.  Marines are there to kill the enemy, not coddle them.  They need a leader like General Mattis.
 
But, of course there was an uproar by liberals. Jeff McCausland, director of the Leadership in Conflict Initiative at Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pa claimed that, "Clearly for an officer from any service to say that publicly is unprofessional and inappropriate and sends a terrible message to subordinates."  I disagree; I think the General's troops loved the message sent and probably feel the same way.
 
What do liberals think Marines are doing in Iraq, handing out condoms to AIDS patients?  Would liberals rather General Mattis had said, "I hate to fight.I think war is much too bloody.I think we should stay home and polish our nails and listen to show tunes."
 
Somehow, I think liberals would.
 
Liberals, especially young liberals seem to forget that war is a very nasty thing.  It is not a panty raid on a women"s dormitory at a local college or a beer chugging contest at an off campus bar.  In battle, the enemy has one thing in mind, he wants to kill.  War is a contest of kill, or be killed and it is not nice.
 
The closest most leftists have come to battle is fighting police at various protests in the United States and around the world.  Their idea of warfare is yelling obscenities at local police and hurling the occasional rock or bottle.  A liberal's badge of honor is spending a few hours in jail after being arrested at a protest in Seattle or Washington, DC and getting his or her mug shots taken.
 
Yet, even with their lack of experience in real warfare, liberals seem to think they have all the answers about how the military should treat captured terrorists and how best to fight the war on terrorism.  Some liberals even claim that the US Constitution protects terrorists.
 
I think they have a lot to learn.
 
First, prisoners captured in Iraq are not leftist protestors staging a sit-in on the steps of a Federal Building singing "Give Peace a Chance".  Prisoners in Iraq have not studied "Activism 101"and have never heard of Martin Sheen, Janeane Garofalo or Al Franken


They are terrorist thugs who behead captured men and women showing no remorse in the act.  They are murderers trained by Al-Qaida or other terrorist organizations.  They want to kill American men, women and children.  They have no rights.
 
Prisoners captured in Iraq are not handled with kid gloves and gently placed in a paddy wagon like liberal protestors arrested in Seattle.  They are trying to kill Americans when captured and would love nothing better than to kill their captor and escape to fight another day.  Captured terrorists should be treated like a rabid dog waiting to bite its handler and thrown in a cage.
 
I really do not care how inhumanely we treat the captured terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghuraib Prison.  They are murderers and thugs.   I think terrorists should lose all human rights once they take the path of terrorism.  A tough approach is the only deterrent these killers will understand.
 
If making a terrorist wear a pair of women"s panties on his head will help save one innocent life by gaining information on future terrorist acts, it is worth the effort.  I think Victoria Secret and Fredrick's of Hollywood should contribute panties to the war effort.  Maybe we would get a few more confessions.
 
I think General Mattis would agree.  I know General Patton would.
 
Steve Darnell
 
Steve Darnell is a self-syndicated columnist and can be reached at [email protected]


Link: To the English Version of PRAVDA NO LESS!
 
So you are actually proud you and W are siding with Pravda and Pooty Poot the Neo-Soviet?

I really do not care how inhumanely we treat the captured terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghuraib Prison.

Redcross said almost all who were in Abu Ghraib were guilty of nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
 
[quote name='ElwoodCuse']PittsburghAfterDark has lost touch with reality. So what else is new?[/quote]

Yet short bus riding fools like you can't define any reality at all except to say.... Bush is wrong.

Now, who's losing their grip on reality?
 
Now, who's losing their grip on reality?


How many of your Compatriots belive we found WMD, believe in a Literal Interpretation of the Bible and believe the Earth is merely a few thousand years old?
 
[quote name='Msut77']
Now, who's losing their grip on reality?


How many of your Compatriots belive we found WMD, believe in a Literal Interpretation of the Bible and believe the Earth is merely a few thousand years old?[/quote]

Wow, way to get off topic.
 
You asked a question I answered. You are supposed to be a grown up and apparently you werent being rhetorical.
 
[quote name='Msut77']You asked a question I answered. You are supposed to be a grown up and apparently you werent being rhetorical.[/quote]

What the fuck are you talking about?

You asked a question completely OT. Why not just ask if I like lemon fucking pie, fried chicken or Indian food?

What the fuck does the question you asked have to do with the topic of this thread. Go ahead, I'm all ears on this one.
 
Well our founding fathers would be happy with people questioning the government. They didnt want people to follow it blindy. But what did they know.
 
copy-paste-bold does not a good arguement make.

speaking of being out of touch with reality..
this article ignores...

liberals who have served in the military

conservatives who were also outraged at the Generals Comments.

Other service people retired and active who thought the comments were in appropriate.

Conservatives themselves who want us to forget that war is nasty and downplay the killing in Iraq (they never say how many Iraqis they killed just how many post offices they've built)

many many captured combatants are neither murderers or terrorists

toture rarely if ever provides any good intel

What Patton really said..

"Prisoner of War guard companies, or an equivalent organization, should be as far forward as possible in action to take over prisoners of war, because troops heated with battle are not safe custodians. Any attempt to rob or loot prisoners of war by escorts must be dealt strictly with."

“You cannot be disciplined in great things and indiscipline in small things. Brave undisciplined men have no chance against the discipline and valour of other men. Have you ever seen a few policemen handle a crowd?”

"If everyone is thinking alike, someone isn't thinking."



but liberals are out of touch..
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']Well our founding fathers would be happy with people questioning the government. They didnt want people to follow it blindy. But what did they know.[/quote]

Well said. Ironically enough, our founding fathers didn't trust government at all and wanted to make it as difficult as possible for government to control us.
 
Uh PAD you asked who was out of touch with reality I pointed some fairly nomral Con beliefs.

Are you going to cry about it?
 
[quote name='Msut77']Uh PAD you asked who was out of touch with reality I pointed some fairly nomral Con beliefs.

Are you going to cry about it?[/quote]

No, you're stating what you believe are normal conservative beliefs.

This is like me saying liberals want gays in health class to demonstrate safe anal sex, want to murder every unborn baby, would galdly let criminals push drugs to any willing adult, want to confiscate guns and abolish religion. Oh, and then I get to say...

OMG WHAT I SAID WAS FAIRLY NORMAL LIBERAL BELIEFS.

Grow the hell up.
 
And if we wanted to say something else that would be a normal liberal belief, we could tell you, PAD, that your a poster child for abortion. Because all us liberals just love abortion and will get a woman pregnant just so she can support the abortion industy.
 
No, you're stating what you believe are normal conservative beliefs.

They are. A LOT of the Bushies base believe in a Literal Interpretation of the Bible and Evolution/Young Earth is still getting pushed in bastions of conservatism like Kansas.

want gays in health class to demonstrate safe anal sex, want to murder every unborn baby, would galdly let criminals push drugs to any willing adult

Show me one high ranking democrat or one fairly large group of Democrats.
 
Find me a percentage of conservatives that believe a literal interpretation of the bible. Find me a poll, find me political leaders that espouse that position.

As far as you asking to name a group of Democrats to support the positions I listed? Why I've just made as broad sweeping a generality about the left as you have the right. See how foolish it is?

RedvsBule, who pissed in your cornflakes this morning.
 
Here are some interesting polls PAD

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6650997/site/newsweek/

poll from newsweek:
Sixty-two percent say they favor teaching creation science in addition to evolution in public schools; 26 percent oppose such teaching, the poll shows. Forty-three percent favor teaching creation science instead of evolution in public schools; 40 percent oppose the idea.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000728154
gallup poll:
"Public acceptance of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is well below the 50% mark, a fact of considerable concern to many scientists," Frank Newport, editor-in-chief of The Gallup Poll, observed today. He noted that given three alternatives, only 35% say that evolution is well-supported by evidence. The same number say evolution is one of many theories and not well supported by evidence. Another 29% say they don't know enough about it to say.

Almost half of Americans (45%) believe that human beings "were created by God essentially as they are today (that is, without evolving) about 10,000 years ago," acccording to Gallup's poll.

Newport, in his weekly report, cited two possible reasons for these findings: Most Americans have not been regularly exposed to scientific study on these matters; or many Americans know about Darwin's theory, but feel it contradicts a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis. "Indeed, about a third of Americans are biblical literalists," he writes.

abc news poll:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/primetime/US/views_of_bible_poll_040216.html
Overall, 64 percent believe the story of Moses parting the Red Sea is "literally true, meaning it happened that way word-for-word." About as many say the same about creation (61 percent) and Noah and the flood (60 percent). About three in 10 say, instead, that each of these is "meant as a lesson, but not to be taken literally."
 
That article couldn't have been more correct.

Throughout the years the world has made bullshit rules and agreements in order to appease each other so we can try to coexist, but the reality is that the only object in war is to win by any means necessary. That's what war is - period.

If you don't do everything in your power to kill the enemy you WILL die because they are doing everything in their power to kill you.
 
Honestly, what's wrong with teaching creationism? Why isn't that viewed as "tolerant"? Not one person anywhere on this Earth can define how the universe was created, the planets formed and life began. Even though many believe the "Big Bang" it's always followed by THEORY.

Likewise it's Darwin's THEORY of evolution. Theories are not facts, they are created with a modicum of scientific evidence and elaborated on by.... theorists.

Now, take those two theories, the Big Bang and evolution. The scientific community practically believes them as gospel much like Creationists believe the story of Genesis. Neither one can prove, with certainty, that their held view is correct and absolutely based in fact.

We're mocking the faith of one while embracing the faith of the other. It's really that simple.

As far as the biblical tales of Moses, Noah, Daniel in the lions den, Jonah and the wale, Sodom and Gommorah etc. how do we know they aren't true? How can you say, with 100% conviction, they can't be true while huge percentages believe in miracles, near death experiences, guardian angels and may believe in the prophecies of Nostradamus or a possible existence of the Bible Code?

Expressions and belief in religous faith cannot be easily dismissed as the missives of a weak minded population. People that hold these views are no less or more intelligent than those who believe equally non-provable theories of the Big Bang or evolution.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Honestly, what's wrong with teaching creationism? Why isn't that viewed as "tolerant"? Not one person anywhere on this Earth can define how the universe was created, the planets formed and life began. Even though many believe the "Big Bang" it's always followed by THEORY.

Likewise it's Darwin's THEORY of evolution. Theories are not facts, they are created with a modicum of scientific evidence and elaborated on by.... theorists.

Now, take those two theories, the Big Bang and evolution. The scientific community practically believes them as gospel much like Creationists believe the story of Genesis. Neither one can prove, with certainty, that their held view is correct and absolutely based in fact.

We're mocking the faith of one while embracing the faith of the other. It's really that simple.

As far as the biblical tales of Moses, Noah, Daniel in the lions den, Jonah and the wale, Sodom and Gommorah etc. how do we know they aren't true? How can you say, with 100% conviction, they can't be true while huge percentages believe in miracles, near death experiences, guardian angels and may believe in the prophecies of Nostradamus or a possible existence of the Bible Code?

Expressions and belief in religous faith cannot be easily dismissed as the missives of a weak minded population. People that hold these views are no less or more intelligent than those who believe equally non-provable theories of the Big Bang or evolution.[/quote]

Well Said :applause:

and

Radical liberals hate the bible because most people who do believe in the bible and practice it are conservatives and/or republicans. It's not that hard to see the connection.
 
I know Zo. I understand that and I don't want to turn this into a debate on the topics we brought up. They're circular, when we'd get into arguments like this on IGN we'd joke "The wheels on the bus go round and round.".

I'm not going to deny that large segments of the American population and Conservative voters hold those views. However Catholics and Jews hold those views in large numbers and both are considered Democratic constituancies.

The argument being created here is that one sides religous makeup are complete fools and nut jobs while the others are just normal Americans who happen to have religous faith. That's not the case.

Those statistics and articles you listed don't discriminate by political persuasion. If you went to Boston, an overwhelmingly Democratic and Catholic city, and polled the population about those same points and beliefs you would get similar if not higher results.

Msut77 is trying to paint one side, one way, while completely ignoring huge swaths of Democratic voters that hold the exact same tennants of faith. If Jewish rabbi's, Catholic priests and their congregants vote Democratic do you want to put a bet on the fact that they hold those same creationist and literal torah/bible interpretations that are being openly mocked?

It's not just born agains or Evangelicals that hold these positions being disparraged.
 
The Bible contradicts itself. Anyone who believes it is the literal truth deserves to have their head examined.

Bet you a Bajillion dollars I read more and understand more of the bible then you Scrub.
 
Wait, liberals don't follow literal interpretations of the bible only because republicans do? So if republicans didn't, then liberals would be literally interpreting the bible? Huh? Who has lost touch with reality?
 
The argument being created here is that one sides religous makeup are complete fools and nut jobs while the others are just normal Americans who happen to have religous faith.

Read whats the matter with Kansas, its a real eye opener.

Find me one Democratic Leader who pushes Intelligent Design.
 
I refuse to argue the validity of religion, but the bible cannot be word for word correct. It has nothing to do with the validity of the bible. The simple reason is because there are multiple translations that vary somewhat in what they say. This would not be possible if they were word for word correct.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Wait, liberals don't follow literal interpretations of the bible only because republicans do? So if republicans didn't, then liberals would be literally interpreting the bible? Huh? Who has lost touch with reality?[/quote]

Actually a some liberals do interpret the bible literally, I've seen it happen even when they are arguing against reglion. The shameful thing is both sides do it too much, and even a little bit can be too much. No one should expect ancient documents to live up to today's society and look at them in a literal sense, religious or otherwise.
 
Religion and the torah/bible (The torah is entirely contained in the Old Testament.) cannot be accurately translated word for word. No translation today is 100% correct.

If we can't accurately translate "How's it hanging?" from English to Japanese with the same meaning how can tales meant to demostrate faith be translated accurately 100% from Hebrew/Aramaic to Latin or Greek, to English, French or German?

However the laws of the bible translate universally. There are only 10 commandments and translating "Thou shall not kill." really is pretty simple. I don't think those who did the Hebrew, Latin, English translations had that much trouble. Not to mention the ongoing translations that are being done by countless religous orders, academic organizations and simple hobbyists from the orignal languages to modern ones without the interceding generations of translations.

There are slight disparities between the King James version of the bible to those done in Latin that are centuries old. Same is true of the Gutenberg bible or the Good News Bible (Widely used by Evangelicals, Baptists, Anglicans.) there are things that are different.

However now we're nitpicking. We're on the topic of could Genesis be true. Who believes it to be true. Who believes in the other major tennants of the Bible or Torah.

The answer is every political group and party have significant percentages of their makeup that hold these religous tennants to be true and literally true at that.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Honestly, what's wrong with teaching creationism? Why isn't that viewed as "tolerant"? Not one person anywhere on this Earth can define how the universe was created, the planets formed and life began. Even though many believe the "Big Bang" it's always followed by THEORY.

Likewise it's Darwin's THEORY of evolution. Theories are not facts, they are created with a modicum of scientific evidence and elaborated on by.... theorists.

Now, take those two theories, the Big Bang and evolution. The scientific community practically believes them as gospel much like Creationists believe the story of Genesis. Neither one can prove, with certainty, that their held view is correct and absolutely based in fact.

.[/quote]

learn your definitions before spouting. Evolution is both a fact and theory. It is based on observations in the real world. The same cannot be said for creationism, sorry. Therefore by any scientific or rational defination, Creationism is NOT a theory, it is a story.



A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.
- Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15
 
"Thou shall not kill." really is pretty simple.

Not really people contend nowadays that its only thou shall not murder...

BTW The Gospels contradict each other how can they all be correct?
 
You can't have a theory be a fact.

You can prove the revolution of the Earth around the sun. You can prove the Earth isn't flat. You can prove that birds may have come from dinosaurs.

You cannot prove the initial creation of life. That is the basis of Creationism, a description of the beginning of life. Evolution has no explination of life's origins. You can connect it to may possible things, the big bang, primordial goo, the existence of water but there is no fact about how life began.

We cannot create life from nothing. If we knew, for fact, how life is created we could replicate the process. We could create single or multi-cell life forms from base elements or substances.

Evolution may have aspects of it that are facts. However it can't tackle the initial creation of life and have that proclaimed as fact. In that regards it is still as theorhetical as faster than light travel. In that regards Creationism is as valid a theory as Evolution.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']

RedvsBule, who pissed in your cornflakes this morning.[/quote]

I don't eat cornflakes. They're made by an american company and since I'm a liberal I hate anything american.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You can prove the revolution of the Earth around the sun. You can prove the Earth isn't flat. You can prove that birds may have come from dinosaurs.[/quote]
Actually, that last one pretty much disproves the standard Creationism 'theory'. Creationism is the whole '10,000 years ago, God waved his hands and everything was the way that it is right now.' If you accept that birds came from dinosaurs - congrats, you just disproved Creationism.

The more rational Christians (and generally the quieter ones. The loud ones are usually insane...) have given up on that and moved on to "billions of years ago, God created the universe and helped shape life". Now THAT one can't be proven or disproved by science. Yet. We'll see.


We cannot create life from nothing. If we knew, for fact, how life is created we could replicate the process. We could create single or multi-cell life forms from base elements or substances.
We're working on it. Just give them a couple more years.

Evolution may have aspects of it that are facts. However it can't tackle the initial creation of life and have that proclaimed as fact.
It does, however, disprove the standard Creationism theory.

In that regards it is still as theorhetical as faster than light travel. In that regards Creationism is as valid a theory as Evolution.
Someone doesn't understand what a scientific theory is.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']. In that regards Creationism is as valid a theory as Evolution.[/quote]

No. Again you don't seem to understand what theory is beyond the vernacular.

Evolution taken back to the beginning is the theory. The idea we evolved out of some ooze is scientific conjecture and nothing more. It is based in the FACT that evolution exists. Because evolution exists (as observed in nature) one can generate a theory which puts the concept in reverse.

Creationism is based on NOTHING that is observed in nature. It is based on a story in the Bible. So, again, it is not a theory.

Additionally, pretty much every science understands the difference between Evolution Theory (as beginning of life) and evolution fact (mutations which occur over time) and in my experience, teaches each as such.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']Scientific Law of biogenesis

- Life can only come from other life

Lois Pasteur
[/quote]
1) You misspelled his name (unless he had a sex-change operation that I'm not aware of)
2) God-forbid a scientist from 150 years ago be not entirely correct
 
Scrub, your using a scientific theory, a very old one at that, to discredit another which you claim to be a theory. Neither you say can be proven, therefore you shouldn't use one to discredit the other. Again though, why use a quote from a long dead scientist? Science isn't religion, it is constantly updated and expanded on.

We cannot create life from nothing. If we knew, for fact, how life is created we could replicate the process. We could create single or multi-cell life forms from base elements or substances.

There seems to be a flaw in your logic, you seem to think we cannot do, therefore it cannot be done.

You also seem to believe, in regards to we don't know conclusively how life was created, that if there are two current explanations, the one that is more absolute and complete must be correct. That was the appeal of aristotle, and we can see how his scientific ideas have been pushed aside.

Also, in my earlier comment I wasn't nitpicking. You held up examples of general rules (though the murder/kill one is a good point by msut), when I was arguing that the bible cannot be word for word accurate, as many americans believe.

What argument can be made for creationism beyond an appeal to ignorance? The only arguments that seem to be made are "we don't know, so it must be divine", "that doesn't explain everything so it must be divine" etc, then the ever popular and totally useless in arguments "because the bible says so".
 
I love doughnuts, but who wants crappy doughnuts made from refrigerator biscuits? Blech! Sign me up with whatever religion gets good doughnuts, with cream filling :twisted:
 
[quote name='Drocket']I love doughnuts, but who wants crappy doughnuts made from refrigerator biscuits? Blech! Sign me up with whatever religion gets good doughnuts, with cream filling :twisted:[/quote]

I've never seen a skinny Pagan, and when you really want the good food you have to ask yourself who's got the goods - Mother Gaia or a skinny magic carpenter offering you wafers and wine :wink:
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='Drocket']I love doughnuts, but who wants crappy doughnuts made from refrigerator biscuits? Blech! Sign me up with whatever religion gets good doughnuts, with cream filling :twisted:[/quote]

I've never seen a skinny Pagan, and when you really want the good food you have to ask yourself who's got the goods - Mother Gaia or a skinny magic carpenter offering you wafers and wine :wink:[/quote]

:rofl:
 
[quote name='camoor'][quote name='Drocket']I love doughnuts, but who wants crappy doughnuts made from refrigerator biscuits? Blech! Sign me up with whatever religion gets good doughnuts, with cream filling :twisted:[/quote]

I've never seen a skinny Pagan, and when you really want the good food you have to ask yourself who's got the goods - Mother Gaia or a skinny magic carpenter offering you wafers and wine :wink:[/quote]

Buddha always seemed like he got enough meals in. And he couldn't be happier.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']You can't have a theory be a fact.

You can prove the revolution of the Earth around the sun. You can prove the Earth isn't flat. You can prove that birds may have come from dinosaurs.

You cannot prove the initial creation of life. That is the basis of Creationism, a description of the beginning of life. Evolution has no explination of life's origins. You can connect it to may possible things, the big bang, primordial goo, the existence of water but there is no fact about how life began.

We cannot create life from nothing. If we knew, for fact, how life is created we could replicate the process. We could create single or multi-cell life forms from base elements or substances.

Evolution may have aspects of it that are facts. However it can't tackle the initial creation of life and have that proclaimed as fact. In that regards it is still as theorhetical as faster than light travel. In that regards Creationism is as valid a theory as Evolution.[/quote]

While you are correct in that there is no provable theory of origin (without the ability to create planets ourselves), it still relies on scientific theory and deals within the realm of science, without resorting to stories and blind guesses. There is at least SOME plausible evidence to suggest the theory.

Intelligent design is nothing more than creationism in a color coated candy.

I have a hard time grasping the necessity of teaching creationism in public schools when obviously such devout religious parents would take their children to church each week, Sunday school, and teach those beliefs at home. It seems that the child then receives the best of both worlds. At school, a scientific view, at home, a religious view.

Correct me if I am wrong, but the entire debate on "intelligent design" seems more like a sly ploy.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Liberals have lost touch with reality

02/09/2005 13:07


General George S. Patton once said, "Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack."

Those on the left seem to be cynical about everything to do with the war on terrorism. I think if Patton were alive today he would say liberals lack the courage to fight the enemy and would slap a few of them around.

Liberals are also cynical about the way the military handles terrorist prisoners. I am sure Patton would tell liberals they lack the basic understanding of warfare and prisoner handling and challenge them to spend a few days on the front line to see how things are really done. Then he would slap a few of them around once again.

A soldier's job is to kill the enemy, or as Patton also said, "The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his." The sooner liberals understand the true meaning of war, the sooner we can make the "other bastard" die for his country.

To prove how out of touch liberals are with reality these days look at the uproar that occurred because of comments made by Lt. General James Mattis. General Mattis, who has commanded troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, was recently speaking at a forum in San Diego about strategies for the war on terror.

Mattis said, "Actually, it's a lot of fun to fight. You know, it's a hell of a hoot. ... It's fun to shoot some people. I'll be right upfront with you, I like brawling." General Mattis is the kind of General I want leading our troops into battle. Marines are there to kill the enemy, not coddle them. They need a leader like General Mattis.

But, of course there was an uproar by liberals. Jeff McCausland, director of the Leadership in Conflict Initiative at Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pa claimed that, "Clearly for an officer from any service to say that publicly is unprofessional and inappropriate and sends a terrible message to subordinates." I disagree; I think the General's troops loved the message sent and probably feel the same way.

What do liberals think Marines are doing in Iraq, handing out condoms to AIDS patients? Would liberals rather General Mattis had said, "I hate to fight.I think war is much too bloody.I think we should stay home and polish our nails and listen to show tunes."

Somehow, I think liberals would.

Liberals, especially young liberals seem to forget that war is a very nasty thing. It is not a panty raid on a women"s dormitory at a local college or a beer chugging contest at an off campus bar. In battle, the enemy has one thing in mind, he wants to kill. War is a contest of kill, or be killed and it is not nice.

The closest most leftists have come to battle is fighting police at various protests in the United States and around the world. Their idea of warfare is yelling obscenities at local police and hurling the occasional rock or bottle. A liberal's badge of honor is spending a few hours in jail after being arrested at a protest in Seattle or Washington, DC and getting his or her mug shots taken.

Yet, even with their lack of experience in real warfare, liberals seem to think they have all the answers about how the military should treat captured terrorists and how best to fight the war on terrorism. Some liberals even claim that the US Constitution protects terrorists.

I think they have a lot to learn.

First, prisoners captured in Iraq are not leftist protestors staging a sit-in on the steps of a Federal Building singing "Give Peace a Chance". Prisoners in Iraq have not studied "Activism 101"and have never heard of Martin Sheen, Janeane Garofalo or Al Franken


They are terrorist thugs who behead captured men and women showing no remorse in the act. They are murderers trained by Al-Qaida or other terrorist organizations. They want to kill American men, women and children. They have no rights.

Prisoners captured in Iraq are not handled with kid gloves and gently placed in a paddy wagon like liberal protestors arrested in Seattle. They are trying to kill Americans when captured and would love nothing better than to kill their captor and escape to fight another day. Captured terrorists should be treated like a rabid dog waiting to bite its handler and thrown in a cage.

I really do not care how inhumanely we treat the captured terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay or Abu Ghuraib Prison. They are murderers and thugs. I think terrorists should lose all human rights once they take the path of terrorism. A tough approach is the only deterrent these killers will understand.

If making a terrorist wear a pair of women"s panties on his head will help save one innocent life by gaining information on future terrorist acts, it is worth the effort. I think Victoria Secret and Fredrick's of Hollywood should contribute panties to the war effort. Maybe we would get a few more confessions.

I think General Mattis would agree. I know General Patton would.

Steve Darnell

Steve Darnell is a self-syndicated columnist and can be reached at [email protected]


Link: To the English Version of PRAVDA NO LESS![/quote]

"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity."
- General Dwight D. Eisenhower

"If men can develop weapons that are so terrifying as to make the thought of global war include almost a sentence for suicide, you would think that man's intelligence and his comprehension... would include also his ability to find a peaceful solution."
- General Dwight D. Eisenhower

"If the United Nations once admits that international disputes can be settled by using force, then we will have destroyed the foundation of the organization and our best hope of establishing a world order."
- General Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Strength lies not in defense but in attack."
- Adolf Hitler

"How fortunate for leaders that men do not think."
- Adolf Hitler

By profession I am a soldier and take pride in that fact. But I am prouder -- infinitely prouder -- to be a father. A soldier destroys in order to build; the father only builds, never destroys. The one has the potentiality of death; the other embodies creation and life. And while the hordes of death are mighty, the battalions of life are mightier still. It is my hope that my son, when I am gone, will remember me not from the battle field but in the home repeating with him our simple daily prayer, ''Our Father Who Art in Heaven.''
- General Douglas MacArthur

I have known war as few men now living know it. It's very destructiveness on both friend and foe has rendered it useless as a means of settling international disputes.
- General Douglas MacArthur

"I am sick and tired of war. Its glory is all moonshine.
It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard
the shrieks and groans of the wounded
who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.
-General William T. Sherman,
speech 1880 from which we derive the phrase "War is hell"

"The mothers and fathers of America will give you their sons and daughters...with the confidence in you that you will not needlessly waste their lives. And you dare not. That's the burden the mantle of leadership places upon you. You could be the person who gives the orders that will bring about the deaths of thousands and thousands of young men and women. It is an awesome responsibility. You cannot fail. You dare not fail..."
-General H. Norman Schwarzkopf

We can play quote games all day long, but let's set one thing straight. War is not glorious, nor trivial, nor taken lightly. The views against this war may echo in some of our past generals, who saw war as a last resort, and a desperate measure.

"These results are also consistent. 'Military' Presidents appear to have a marked tendency to shape policy in such a way as to avoid military conflicts. When these do arise they shape the subsequent operations to be as brief, as low-casualty and as decisive as possible. Non-veteran Presidents appear to have both far less fear of war and also far less aptitude for waging it. That is, it's something they don't know and thus fear much less. This permits them to allow political trends and talk to drift in directions leading towards large scale conflicts."
http://www.faem.com/maguire/eliteams.htm

(This site is great in that it lays out military service for former presidents along with their tendency for armed conflict. The end result doesn't exactly match up to what you might think, as most military men value peace and non-combat means in order to achieve their goals. Take from it what you will.
 
Neo, I hope you only linked to faem.com through google, that you didn't read all of the text you linked to, and that it is not a site you frequent for information. If it is, then you have more problems than I previously thought. Also, when reading this, remember the "first war to kill white people" was WW1, and the "second war to kill white people" was WW2.

On the exact page you linked to-
The vast majority of these real combat leaders and subsequent statesmen started or entirely served in the 'Militia' that modern Judeo-Marxists would have us believe either didn't exist or didn't play a significant role in American wars. (see end note).

Dwight David Eisenhower. Professional U.S. Army officer. Graduated from West Point in 1915 where he was nicknamed "the Swedish Jew". Remained in continental United States during the First War To Kill White People. Served in various staff positions thereafter. No direct combat experience at any rank. Aide-de-camp to General Douglas MacArthur in the Philippines from 1935 to 1940. Hand-picked by General Marshall to command OPERATION TORCH in 1942 during the Second War To Kill White People. Surprised in the Ardennes during the Battle of the Bulge. As Supreme Commander was responsible for hundreds of thousands of atrocities and deaths against surrendering white German troops, as well as "Operation Keelhaul" to return anti-communist East Europeans to the control of Stalin and his Jewish murderers Lavrenti Beria (NKVD boss) and Lazar Kaganovich. Conducted private negotiations with Iosef Stalin to the latter's advantage concerning areas of occupation in post-war Europe. Eisenhower's conduct as Allied Commander-In-Chief has been subjected to scathing criticism, the ultimate coming from his former boss, General MacArthur: "He let his subordinate generals fight the war for him. They were good and covered up for him. Meanwhile he drank tea with Queens and Prime Ministers. Right up Ike's alley.".........

The three bloodiest American wars, invariably described as grand 'moral crusades' by hordes of non-veteran Judeo-Marxist academics, were the wars of 1861-65, FWATKWP and SWATKWP.......

1. The large Eastern European Khazar Jewish immigration to America starting in the late 19th Century.

As Mr. Earley has extensively shown, Jews in America have not carried anywhere near their share of the war-fighting burden. But until the late 1890s their numbers were also under 200,000 in America. After that time vast numbers began arriving. Politically Jews are overwhelmingly Marxist in outlook (or the Jew Mordechai Levy a/k/a Karl Marx was overwhelmingly Jewish in outlook). As a block Jews have inhabited the Democratic Party for a century with occasional side excursions into Communism or the Greens Party. The small number of Jews in the GOP are there contingent only upon exercising power and implementing pro-Zionist policies. They insist on leading but bring few Jewish votes. While Jews as group in their own state insist on strong national leadership (like 19th Century white America) they demonstrably favor 'weak' leaders when voting among other peoples. It's irrelevant whether this preference arises from 'instinct' (i.e. genes and 'culture') or from conscious calculation ('evil intent') designed to make to secure their own advantage.........

3. Widespread non-white immigration and voting.

As has been well-remarked, non-whites prefer to be ruled by their own people. And as Mr. Earley has shown, they haven't carried their share of the military burden. Certainly their political tendency is also towards favoring 'weak' leadership when the choice is among white politicans. For instance, negroes overwhelmingly favored the 'First Negro President' (and draft-dodger) William Jefferson Clinton to junior combat infantry officer Robert Dole.

It is true that the combat-shirking elites identified by Mr. Earley have come to dominate American society. It is equally true to observe that these degenerates have done so in close political alliance with the above three groups.


Front page-
Our Race Is Our Nation ...
DOwn With ZOG! Anti Zionist Alliance

Our future's lost if we,
As men, hearken to she.
She who's never been a man,
But dreams, what one should be.
Having left the nest,
Sucking no more at breast.
We seek other comrade men,
She knows not, what is best.

Childhood rest at last,
The time for mom has past.
As men, we can rise to more,
Our ideals: hold them fast.

We gather for the fight,
Without her hand is right.
Boys seek mom but men seek men,
Sans tear, for we are White.
 
[quote name='Ledhed'][quote name='camoor'][quote name='Drocket']I love doughnuts, but who wants crappy doughnuts made from refrigerator biscuits? Blech! Sign me up with whatever religion gets good doughnuts, with cream filling :twisted:[/quote]

I've never seen a skinny Pagan, and when you really want the good food you have to ask yourself who's got the goods - Mother Gaia or a skinny magic carpenter offering you wafers and wine :wink:[/quote]

Buddha always seemed like he got enough meals in. And he couldn't be happier.[/quote]

The funny thing is that I was listening to Eboman's "Donuts with Buddha" while typing all this out. Talk about synchronicity.
 
bread's done
Back
Top