Wow, some people
Anyone can say anything about a guerilla war
The main thrust to defeat Saddam's army was the war, army vs army
What came after was the administration
Would you like that in a language other then English !!!'
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Tim Cook, Tech CEOs and Top Republicans Attend Secretive Meeting About Donald Trump
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wow, some people
Anyone can say anything about a guerilla war
The main thrust to defeat Saddam's army was the war, army vs army
What came after was the administration
Would you like that in a language other then English !!!'
The attempts to label the tolerant and friendly Trump a racist are hilarious
I think the left has to go really low when their treasure PC is threatened and someone starts speaking the truth
It's all nu-speak aka 1984. The objective of PC is take all language out of the culture that contradicts the politics of the ruling elite
Trump is driving a tractor through that, which really worries the lefties who have spent a generation building the mountain of lies.
The most horrific thing about this election is that both democratic candidates are competing to say that anyone and anything can come over American borders at will
I think the left has to go really low when their treasure PC is threatened and someone starts speaking the truth
It's all nu-speak aka 1984. The objective of PC is take all language out of the culture that contradicts the politics of the ruling elite
Trump is driving a tractor through that, which really worries the lefties who have spent a generation building the mountain of lies.
The most horrific thing about this election is that both democratic candidates are competing to say that anyone and anything can come over American borders at will
Guerrilla war is still war. (hint: it's the second word in that phrase)
The U.S. being involved in a guerrilla war is the U.S. being involved in war. That's about as plainly in English as it can be described.
Can you post a credible source that lists the Iraq war ending in May, 2003? That's when George W. Bush declared major combat operations against the Iraqi army over, and apparently your end to the war.
Nope. Not if you went bankrupt because you didn't have enough (perhaps gigantic) profits from previous years in the bank to survive any downturns (which happens quite often, unless you are just a very young kid with no memory of downturns or failed companies).
Last edited:
Actually, progressive liberals are usually the idealists, with their ideals often having little correspondence with the what happens in the real world.
I guess the Pentagon, bastion of liberalism that is is, claiming it was still an active war even after the successful initial push is nothing more than PC doublespeak, meant to fool the blinkered masses into believing another lie.
[doublepost=1457639255][/doublepost]
It's more like liberal progressives try to recreate the world as they think it should be, while conservatives attempt to deal with the world according the way they think it is. Both can become equally ungrounded in the right circumstances.
I guess it's supposed to sound better if the 4,000+ Killed and 30,000+ wounded American troops resulted from an "Administrative" action.
If you want to push it even farther, you could always remind him that Iraq was officially classified as a war by the government. It was a "skirmish", maybe a "conflict" at worst. Never a "war".
It's like Korea in a way, which was a "police action".
They haven't declared "War" Since World War II, but you still get killed just the same.
But conservatives who are investors, businessmen/women, and working entrepreneurs have actual profits and failures due to their own real world activities, infinitely more first-hand knowledge than those who just think they understand. That "skin-in-the-game" keeps these business conservatives more grounded in reality than people who always discount the present real world as compared to some idealized (and possibly unrealistic) future. (There is another poster commenting on this thread who's brain appears to be too small to even imagine a bankrupt Apple... even though that actually nearly occurred... I know because I was a shareholder reading their 10K's).
That may be why Trump is drawing voters, not only away from D candidates, but away from R politicians vetted by pure ideological conservatives (who have never had to survive their own business bankruptcies and figure out how to come out alive).
Larry-K, Why do you hate Freedom?
Ha, ha. Seriously, whenever I hear the doublespeak and PC-isms I cringe. The term hate-speech sounds an awful lot like Thought Crime. -Crimethink may be the correct term, and it's spread throughout every institution in America, and perhaps Western Europe. The word Bully has now been co-opted as a PC term used in bailing out of debate, or calling someone out on a particular issue while they cower under under a protected class.As a people, we've apparently lost the ability to disagree with each other. When one is losing a claim, or an election, or does not have the skill to debate an issue, they simply lay out their trump cards (no pun intended) and walk away, claiming the moral victory.
And this will eventually divide everyone into one of the following groups:
[1] Enemies of the State.
[2] Cowards & Snitches.
"You know who also wanted iPhones unlocked? Hitler."
Last edited:
I think this quote right here sums up the one biggest mistake in your reasoning.
See, most of what you see argued from the so-called liberal side isn't pie in the sky dreaming of a better, possibly unattainable future. It's more about returning to the standard we were governed under previously, when the nation truly was that shining city on the hill. A heavier push for education, blue sky research, healthcare, stronger social safety nets, infrastructure, and domestic manufacturing. These aren't crazy ideals. These standards have served us in the past, and everyone, from the smallest person to the largest corporation, reaped the dividends from them.
It's strange to think that the modern liberal platform is actually based upon a now conservative (by the literal definition of the term) ideal. Being a corporate-centric, pro-business at the expense of all else country has only served to slide us back in every single standard and measure we once excelled in when compared to the other 1st world countries, while only making a handful of people richer than they otherwise would've been.
[doublepost=1457645413][/doublepost]
As opposed to those who quote 1984 entirely out of context. They're the real free thinkers.
Idealism is a function of hope, and liberals gladly run on hope and reason. Conservatives, especially the farthest right ones, run on fear and emotion. That's why they're willing to vote for the craziest son of a bitch they can find -- Trump. That's not a real world position to take.
To what years are you thinking about returning? The years when total and per-capita government expenditures were far smaller (even adjusted for inflation) than today? The years when the the U.S was drafting 18 year olds to send to 'Nam? The years when women earned even less compared to men than today? The years when the U.S. imported almost nothing made in China? Or maybe the years when the U.S. borders were actually closed to an ethnic group (e.g. Chinese with no family in California)? On instead, the years when the U.S. put Japanese families in prison camps?
Read any real history lately?
Last edited:
So when Unavision brought up the crying woman who talked about her son/brother/mother being deported (in Spanish) and Hillary and Sanders fawn all over her (in English) it's not about emotion? Ridiculous.
The entire argument that when the wages of Americans continue to be depressed by illegal immigration the solution is more illegal immigration because it's some kind of "humanitarian tragedy" not to let them come here, take jobs and milk the system is pretty much the epitome of emotional appeal.
What do you characterize the shrill and dire warnings from the global warming, global cooling, climate change, (whatever) Left?
You hope it's a sunny day for a long hike. A crazy man runs in and says it's raining. So you go out without a coat or umbrella, get soaked and die of pneumonia. Crazy reality versus idealism.
So the only way you can counter my argument is to bring up the various social issues of the time as an example of the failures of a system that weren't directly connected to them?
Government spending has gone up over the years, mostly due to our massive military budget and corporate welfare. Welfare, as in the food stamps government assistance type welfare, is actually running a smaller budget, and is harder to get onto than it was back in the 60's. That's right. We actually spend less now on social assistance than we did in the days when Americans were red-blooded, and hated the commies. The AFDC was considerably more lax, and handed out more money than the far more restrictive TANF, which replaced it back in the late 90's.
So yeah, I think it'd be better to return to the economic standards of the 50's and 60's, basically using our taxes for what they were intended to be used for, while applying modern social standards to this model.
And that assumption that they are going to take our jobs and milk the system are exactly the kind of fear I was talking about.
You'd compare that to the Chicken Little warnings about illegals? Amazing.
The liberal wouldn't just hope, he'd check the weather report. The crazy man would be the one who runs in and tries to convince me that the weather is the opposite of what it really is, because he heard it on Fox "News".
That is an extremely inaccurate statement especially considering that most of the modern welfare that we deliver today was introduced as part of LBJ's war on poverty in the 1960's.
1. Wealth & Welfare is one of the only books that actually tries to determine all social welfare spending and compare it by country. Guess what? The US spends much more on social programs aimed at the poor than every other "enlightened" european country other than Norway. Additionally the authors make some compelling argument that US poverty numbers are quite inflated based on the old metric of claiming a certain percentage below median income equals "poverty" regardless of actual living standards.
2. I would like to know where you are getting your data from, because AFAIK there is no data available more recently than around 2013 time-frame.... at which time we could see that compared to 2003 the United States was spending more in every single category (SNAP, Medicaid, Medicare, WIC, CHIP, supplementary energy assistance) with the exception of assistance payments to states... which lines up with the Federal governments goal of pushing states into the margins in this area and becoming the primary "care provider" for people who are unable to take care of themselves, from birth to death.
3. The US does spend roughly 50% of their budget on military programs, however where-as you want to cut military spending and then re-distribute that to help "the poor", many people are in favor of cutting military AND OTHER spending and paying down our insane debt!
4. Many Americans, especially those who've never served in the military don't understand the need for military spending because they don't see the results in their day to day lives.... here's what the military does in a nutshell - the military keeps people from coming here or going somewhere else friendly to Americans and their business interests and taking all of your stuff... which is something that countries with weak militaries have found out about now for many thousands of years. Rome didn't fall because the Goths and Vandals were better then them technologically or even tactically... they won because the average Roman had lost the will to fight them. Towards the end of the western Roman Empire men of military age had gotten into the habit of cutting of their thumbs so they couldn't hold a sword, insuring they couldn't be pressed into military service. Similar to the draft dodging dirty hippies of the US circa 1970.
The liberal indoor apologist and their lackey Obama, who hates the outdoors, wants you to believe the lie of a rainy day.
I'm cross posting this from Prosecutors Ask Judge to Review Pro-Apple Ruling in New York Case since it's important.
Eddie Cue is chipping in. I like that Apple execs keep an united front. They have thought through this way before it became a major current event.
One thing Apple does exceedingly well is strategy, that combined with a sound principal approach, make them a tuff adversary for the neocon Federal scumbags.
What's next? FBI telling us to turn iPhones into pocket spy bugs? It'll happen, says Apple exec
Eddie Cue is chipping in. I like that Apple execs keep an united front. They have thought through this way before it became a major current event.
One thing Apple does exceedingly well is strategy, that combined with a sound principal approach, make them a tuff adversary for the neocon Federal scumbags.
What's next? FBI telling us to turn iPhones into pocket spy bugs? It'll happen, says Apple exec
Last edited: