Liberals often downplay threats

It seems that many liberal people seem to always downplay threats to the United States. By liberal, I mean the people that usually side with the democratic party and leftist libertarians. This obviously accounts for politicians and media people, as well.

Put the bias aside. I know that many of you probably already know this. What is it about liberals and there problem with identifying clear right and wrong? Cultures and perspective is bull crap. Some things are absolute, and can't be excused. Killing innocent people = evil. There is no "conditions" and people have a free will. The USA does not cause more terrorism by being aggressive against it, that logic fails. Whenever good rises to the occasion, evil usually does as well. "Buh buh who says that we're always on teh good side?" That is ridiculous beacuse nothing is perfect, and neither is America. However, liberals seem to love pointing out America's flaws. No one is questioning your patriotism, because that can be defined in more than one way. Absolute right and wrong can't. When the US deals with its enemies - such as terrorists or rogue nations - we can't always think about the root cause. That's not our problem. It's all about life, and protecting it. Actions are what should define us, not "intentions."

You think that being closer to neutraliy is the smartest and most efficient thing to do, yet it's also naive a lot of the time. Not every person that stands firm is a "war monger." Ronald Reagan called the former Soviet Union for what is WAS, an "Evil Empire." The Soviet Union fell without war.

Peace through strength, not weakness. If talking tough to scare our adversaries prevents war, then shouldn't the so-called "Pacifists" be more supportive?

Peace through strength? What the hell? :lol:

The only reason liberals downplay threats is because the majority of threats aren't legitimate.

Even Bush was aware of 9/11 and he didn't really do anything to prevent it, now did he?

Dude, it seems that you make these conservative posts whenever I'm on. I'll check back tommorrow to see if you do this stuff every day.

On topic, if war can be prevented without force, then let's at least TRY it before we DO use force! It really works!

probably because conservatives often exaggerate threats. dooly420

i agree

Dude, it seems that you make these conservative posts whenever I'm on. I'll check back tommorrow to see if you do this stuff every day.

On topic, if war can be prevented without force, then let's at least TRY it before we DO use force! It really works!

Lord__Darkstorn

Really? About how often are you on GameSpot? Oh, and it's not just conservative. It's based on logic.

I agree with your last sentence. Diplomacy without the possible threat of force isn't effective. Why would insane leaders such as Kim Jong Il compromise if he didn't feel the least bit threatened? Kim Jong Il wanted assurances that the USA wouldn't attack North Korea before they would agree to fully disclose their nuclear program.

No offense, but any time I read the instruction to "put the bias aside" in a post involving politics, it seems to pretty much always mean "agree with me".

Regarding the post at large, I'm not really sure what you're saying. If it's that there are things to be worried about in the world... then yes, that would be true, and I don't think liberals disagree.

No offense, but any time I read the instruction to "put the bias aside" in a post involving politics, it seems to pretty much always mean "agree with me".

Regarding the post at large, I'm not really sure what you're saying. If it's that there are things to be worried about in the world... then yes, that would be true, and I don't think liberals disagree.

GabuEx

Some liberals seem to be more concerned with "global warming" than terrorists.

Ronald Reagan called the former Soviet Union for what is WAS, an "Evil Empire." The Soviet Union fell without war.

MayorJohnny

[QUOTE="GabuEx"]

No offense, but any time I read the instruction to "put the bias aside" in a post involving politics, it seems to pretty much always mean "agree with me".

Regarding the post at large, I'm not really sure what you're saying. If it's that there are things to be worried about in the world... then yes, that would be true, and I don't think liberals disagree.

MayorJohnny

Some liberals seem to be more concerned with "global warming" than terrorists.

in conclusion: Ronald Reagan single-handedly defeated the Soviet Union, which had been so strong before his presidency, and liberals are imbeciles who believe that hate can be fought with tolerance and understanding, rather than more hate. I love Big Brother.
quiglythegreat

I call you "terrorist." I get to bypass that whole overrated "trial" thing. Now enjoy your unlimited stay in one of our delightful prison camps, er, I mean, detention facilities. Oh, wait, I'm not the president. Damn it.

[QUOTE="MayorJohnny"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

No offense, but any time I read the instruction to "put the bias aside" in a post involving politics, it seems to pretty much always mean "agree with me".

Regarding the post at large, I'm not really sure what you're saying. If it's that there are things to be worried about in the world... then yes, that would be true, and I don't think liberals disagree.

quiglythegreat

Some liberals seem to be more concerned with "global warming" than terrorists.

Political movements? Less than 5,000 people?

Good and evil shouldn't be defined through a political perspective. That's A-1 bull.

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"]

in conclusion: Ronald Reagan single-handedly defeated the Soviet Union, which had been so strong before his presidency, and liberals are imbeciles who believe that hate can be fought with tolerance and understanding, rather than more hate. I love Big Brother.
SpaceMoose

I call you "terrorist." I get to bypass that whole overrated "trial" thing. Now enjoy your unlimited stay in one of our delightful prison camps, er, I mean, detention facilities. Oh, wait, I'm not the president. Damn it.

You cry out and feel sorry for the Gitmo terrorists as if it's a massive tragedy. Yet, when a suicide bomber kills dozens of people, it's just something that's not surprising; a limited movement...

The only reason liberals downplay threats is because the majority of threats aren't legitimate.

Even Bush was aware of 9/11 and he didn't really do anything to prevent it, now did he?

kayn83

Eh that would be Mr. Clinton's fault.

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="MayorJohnny"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

No offense, but any time I read the instruction to "put the bias aside" in a post involving politics, it seems to pretty much always mean "agree with me".

Regarding the post at large, I'm not really sure what you're saying. If it's that there are things to be worried about in the world... then yes, that would be true, and I don't think liberals disagree.

MayorJohnny

Some liberals seem to be more concerned with "global warming" than terrorists.

Political movements? Less than 5,000 people?

Good and evil shouldn't be defined through a political perspective. That's A-1 bull.

lawl, there's no 'absolutes', man. Morals are COMPLETELY relative. THAT is based on logic.

It is in the best interest of the global community and the advancement of the human species that scum like these terrorists are dealt with, not because the US wields flawless moral authority.

[QUOTE="SpaceMoose"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"]

in conclusion: Ronald Reagan single-handedly defeated the Soviet Union, which had been so strong before his presidency, and liberals are imbeciles who believe that hate can be fought with tolerance and understanding, rather than more hate. I love Big Brother.
MayorJohnny

I call you "terrorist." I get to bypass that whole overrated "trial" thing. Now enjoy your unlimited stay in one of our delightful prison camps, er, I mean, detention facilities. Oh, wait, I'm not the president. Damn it.

You cry out and feel sorry for the Gitmo terrorists as if it's a massive tragedy. Yet, when a suicide bomber kills dozens of people, it's just something that's not surprising; a limited movement...

[QUOTE="dooly420"]probably because conservatives often exaggerate threats. GreatDecay

i agree

Better safe then sorry.

[QUOTE="MayorJohnny"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="MayorJohnny"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

No offense, but any time I read the instruction to "put the bias aside" in a post involving politics, it seems to pretty much always mean "agree with me".

Regarding the post at large, I'm not really sure what you're saying. If it's that there are things to be worried about in the world... then yes, that would be true, and I don't think liberals disagree.

quiglythegreat

Some liberals seem to be more concerned with "global warming" than terrorists.

Political movements? Less than 5,000 people?

Good and evil shouldn't be defined through a political perspective. That's A-1 bull.

FEAR? It's not about fear. It's about LIFE and DEATH. It's about doing what is possible to keep a person from dying.

Can you answer these questions with a simple yes or no?

Are the jihadist terrorists evil?

Should the US military, CIA, NSA, etc... Do things to prevent and/or eliminate it?

If you can answer simply, I will not debate you anymore for the time being.

lawl, there's no 'absolutes', man. Morals are COMPLETELY relative. THAT is based on logic.

It is in the best interest of the global community and the advancement of the human species that scum like these terrorists are dealt with, not because the US wields flawless moral authority.

mikeg0788

Heh, of course. It's about universal right and wrong. To protect human life and dignity. I didn't say it because the USA is perfectly righteous.

No, morality is NOT relative. Killing innocent people = %100 evil and inexcusable.

[QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="MayorJohnny"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="MayorJohnny"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

No offense, but any time I read the instruction to "put the bias aside" in a post involving politics, it seems to pretty much always mean "agree with me".

Regarding the post at large, I'm not really sure what you're saying. If it's that there are things to be worried about in the world... then yes, that would be true, and I don't think liberals disagree.

MayorJohnny

Some liberals seem to be more concerned with "global warming" than terrorists.

Political movements? Less than 5,000 people?

Good and evil shouldn't be defined through a political perspective. That's A-1 bull.

FEAR? It's not about fear. It's about LIFE and DEATH. It's about doing what is possible to keep a person from dying.

Can you answer these questions with a simple yes or no?

Are the jihadist terrorists evil?

Should the US military, CIA, NSA, etc... Do things to prevent and/or eliminate it?

If you can answer simply, I will not debate you anymore for the time being.

[QUOTE="MayorJohnny"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="MayorJohnny"][QUOTE="quiglythegreat"][QUOTE="MayorJohnny"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

No offense, but any time I read the instruction to "put the bias aside" in a post involving politics, it seems to pretty much always mean "agree with me".

Regarding the post at large, I'm not really sure what you're saying. If it's that there are things to be worried about in the world... then yes, that would be true, and I don't think liberals disagree.

quiglythegreat

Some liberals seem to be more concerned with "global warming" than terrorists.

Political movements? Less than 5,000 people?

Good and evil shouldn't be defined through a political perspective. That's A-1 bull.

FEAR? It's not about fear. It's about LIFE and DEATH. It's about doing what is possible to keep a person from dying.

Can you answer these questions with a simple yes or no?

Are the jihadist terrorists evil?

Should the US military, CIA, NSA, etc... Do things to prevent and/or eliminate it?

If you can answer simply, I will not debate you anymore for the time being.

You don't believe in evil... Why?

If a man means to hit you, run away? What?

You don't believe in evil... Why?

If a man means to hit you, run away? What?

Good and evil are subjective products of the human mind.

[QUOTE="mikeg0788"]

lawl, there's no 'absolutes', man. Morals are COMPLETELY relative. THAT is based on logic.

It is in the best interest of the global community and the advancement of the human species that scum like these terrorists are dealt with, not because the US wields flawless moral authority.

MayorJohnny

Heh, of course. It's about universal right and wrong. To protect human life and dignity. I didn't say it because the USA is perfectly righteous.

No, morality is NOT relative. Killing innocent people = %100 evil and inexcusable.

Ok, on whose authority do you make the claim morality is NOT relative? Who has the right to say that morals are absolute? If you even hint at religion I'll quit now.

Where do you draw the line? Does murder always =evil? No, not hardly. Killing another is sometimes completely justified (well, relatively justified to be more accurate). The only morals we can really base our life on is what we agree with most, and fortunately most people hold the same morals that are usually based around the golden rule.

You cry out and feel sorry for the Gitmo terrorists as if it's a massive tragedy. Yet, when a suicide bomber kills dozens of people, it's just something that's not surprising; a limited movement...

MayorJohnny

Good and evil are subjective products of the human mind.

xxDustmanxx

[QUOTE="MayorJohnny"]

You cry out and feel sorry for the Gitmo terrorists as if it's a massive tragedy. Yet, when a suicide bomber kills dozens of people, it's just something that's not surprising; a limited movement...

SpaceMoose

Your ability to entirely miss the point is astounding. What proof do you have that all of the people in there are, in fact, terrorists?

What proof do you have that the US government impisons innocent people?

What proof do you have that the US government impisons innocent people?

MayorJohnny

Our system doesn't work that way. Guilt has to be proven, not innocence. Now are you going to answer my question or are you going to resort to more diversion tactics?

[QUOTE="SpaceMoose"][QUOTE="MayorJohnny"]

You cry out and feel sorry for the Gitmo terrorists as if it's a massive tragedy. Yet, when a suicide bomber kills dozens of people, it's just something that's not surprising; a limited movement...

MayorJohnny

Your ability to entirely miss the point is astounding. What proof do you have that all of the people in there are, in fact, terrorists?

What proof do you have that the US government impisons innocent people?

The fact that they have means for people in Iraq/Afghanistan to submit messages detailing thoughts that *insert person's name* could very well be a terrorist. Thus allowing a margin of error, since it's "better safe than sorry" and cheaper not to investigate too heavily into people to determine if it's fact or fiction. Enough reports on a person, and an arrest is made..ewhich would open the door for terrorist orgs to submit non-terrorist people so that they can prey on families of innocents who were arrested by the "savage" and "infidel" Americans.

Every innocent civilian casualty we cause over there plants seeds for revenge and hatred, which in turn can lead those people to terrorism. It's a vicious circle.

And the term innocent until proven guilty is seemingly forgotten nowadays.

The only reason liberals downplay threats is because the majority of threats aren't legitimate.

Even Bush was aware of 9/11 and he didn't really do anything to prevent it, now did he?

kayn83

[QUOTE="MayorJohnny"]

Ronald Reagan called the former Soviet Union for what is WAS, an "Evil Empire." The Soviet Union fell without war.

quiglythegreat