PASabreFan Posted July 28, 2016 Report Share Posted July 28, 2016 (edited) Been saying for years, it's about politics. ISIS and others like them, use religion as a recruiting tool for soldiers to fight for a political agenda. People who insist on believing it's all about religion are playing right into their strategy. Interesting. So maybe ISIS is the Middle East equivalent of the Haliburton neo-cons? I agree it's about politics. The political agenda is an Islamist Caliphate. There. How'd I do? I've seen a lot. I'm old. The intellectual contortion around the phrase radical Islam is an example of what I've come to see as the left's preference for shutting down debate. "This is uncomfortable or inconsistent with our view that everyone's a victim. Let's deny it exists and explain that those who don't deny it exists are closed minded bigots." The Ministry of Truth. We all have views. I'm sure I disappoint others. Offered in the spirit of knowing where I/we come from and in search of the more perfect Union. Words shouldn't scare us. No conversation should be shut down. Broad generalization - the switch from "the left" being the home of free thinkers to "the left" being the home of rigid orthodoxy is one of the great pivots in my life experience. IMHO, of course. The president doesn't deny that there are extremist or radical elements within Islam. Please. He is conducting a war on them, and it's probably more effective than most people want to give him credit for. Did you know ISIS has lost half the territory it gained in 2014 and is starting to pivot its PR message to the idea that, hey, it's OK if we don't occupy territory, we'll fight the battle the way we did before? The president's explanation for why he doesn't want to use the adjective "Muslim" before "terrorist" (and all the variations of those terms) is a sound one. But it's smart and nuanced, and I don't expect most Americans, especially mouth-breathing conservatives, to get it. Edited July 28, 2016 by PASabreFan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted July 28, 2016 Report Share Posted July 28, 2016 (edited) George W. Bush was a leftist? News to me. I disagree that the left's side of the issue is about shutting down debate. That's akin to me saying the right's side of the debate is about satisfying their need to use a sledgehammer in all things foreign policy. Mischaracterizes the point, IMO. I'm not sure I get the GWB reference. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing. Could GWB use language to shut down debate? Well, yes. Is the right capable of using language to shut down debate? Well, yes. Regarding the specific phrase and issue, it's been explained to me, here and elsewhere, that we all "know what it is, but don't want to inflame sensibilities by saying it out loud". That's my paraphrase, admittedly. If the left's side of the issue (using a phrase, or not) isn't about shutting down debate, what is the left's side of the issue about? Let's debate the phrase. The president's explanation for why he doesn't want to use the adjective "Muslim" before "terrorist" (and all the variations of those terms) is a sound one.Not being smart, and being a mouth breathing conservative with no appreciation for nuance, I'll ask. What is the explanation and when did he give it? I'll decide if I think it's sound. Nuance has come to mean "I don't want to talk about it so I'll refer to the topic as subtle and complex and hide in the shadows". Edited July 28, 2016 by N'eo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted July 28, 2016 Report Share Posted July 28, 2016 I agree it's about politics. The political agenda is an Islamist Caliphate. There. How'd I do? I've seen a lot. I'm old. The intellectual contortion around the phrase radical Islam is an example of what I've come to see as the left's preference for shutting down debate. "This is uncomfortable or inconsistent with our view that everyone's a victim. Let's deny it exists and explain that those who don't deny it exists are closed minded bigots." The Ministry of Truth. We all have views. I'm sure I disappoint others. Offered in the spirit of knowing where I/we come from and in search of the more perfect Union. Words shouldn't scare us. No conversation should be shut down. Broad generalization - the switch from "the left" being the home of free thinkers to "the left" being the home of rigid orthodoxy is one of the great pivots in my life experience. IMHO, of course. I need you to expand more upon this before I comment. I'm not sure what your intent is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted July 28, 2016 Report Share Posted July 28, 2016 It's nuanced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted July 28, 2016 Report Share Posted July 28, 2016 It's nuanced. :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank Posted July 28, 2016 Report Share Posted July 28, 2016 Neo - unequivocally my favorite poster to read, regardless of how much I may disagree with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Flagg Posted July 28, 2016 Report Share Posted July 28, 2016 Neo - unequivocally my favorite poster to read, regardless of how much I may disagree with him.His writing is very thought-provoking, and when he disagrees with you he somehow does it so that you know he doesn't think you're the biggest goof around. A treat to read for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted July 28, 2016 Report Share Posted July 28, 2016 Thank you, both. However, before there are 11 linked posts, I do have my flaming moments! This group's tolerated my trespasses, by and large. Pre-emptive confession #42. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted July 29, 2016 Report Share Posted July 29, 2016 Neo, I thought you'd like to know that you, me, and Hillary Clinton have something in common: we three all prefer option #1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted July 29, 2016 Report Share Posted July 29, 2016 (edited) I noticed that! I did! The beard, the bald and the broad! Edited July 29, 2016 by N'eo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted July 29, 2016 Report Share Posted July 29, 2016 I noticed that! I did! The beard, the bald and the broad! Now, are we "hawkish"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted July 29, 2016 Report Share Posted July 29, 2016 I would say no to "hawkish". I looked it up. The word belligerent appears in several definitions. I know some posters consider her a hawk. Everyone's view of someone else depends, of course, on where their own feet are. I guess she's be a hawk to someone who's more dovish. That's an incomplete thought. On matters of war, I think "decisive" is a word I look for. Hawk, dove ... mean less to me. I think HRC is decisive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darksabre Posted July 29, 2016 Report Share Posted July 29, 2016 I would say no to "hawkish". I looked it up. The word belligerent appears in several definitions. I know some posters consider her a hawk. Everyone's view of someone else depends, of course, on where their own feet are. I guess she's be a hawk to someone who's more dovish. That's an incomplete thought. On matters of war, I think "decisive" is a word I look for. Hawk, dove ... mean less to me. I think HRC is decisive. I know you have more nice things to say about Hillary. Out with them! :P Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted July 29, 2016 Report Share Posted July 29, 2016 If HRC was centrist on the judiciary and social justice issues, and if she didn't have monumental ethical issues, I'd gladly consider her. Those are two huge "ifs". They give rise not only to opposition, but to animus, in me. Shocker, I know. Read any of my posts. We all prioritize differently. No one's policy stances are exactly mine. Thank heavens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude_Verret Posted July 29, 2016 Report Share Posted July 29, 2016 If HRC was centrist on the judiciary and social justice issues, and if she didn't have monumental ethical issues, I'd gladly consider her. Those are two huge "ifs". They give rise not only to opposition, but to animus, in me. Shocker, I know. Read any of my posts. We all prioritize differently. No one's policy stances are exactly mine. Thank heavens. That and she's held heavy political influence since the early 90's FFS. It's 2016. Enough of entrenched politicians, especially ones carrying an excess of heavy baggage like HRC. Weary is the word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted July 29, 2016 Report Share Posted July 29, 2016 (edited) To Claude: Twenty years from now I'll be watching George Prescott Bush and Chelsea Clinton debate. I'll be in ill humor after learning our OneAmerica National Care program won't pay for a knee replacement in light of the actuarial ROI for a 75 year old. I'd get drunk, but the $11.23 SocialJusticeSecurity check won't buy a shot. Maybe I'll call Deluca and go target shooting. Edited July 29, 2016 by N'eo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude_Verret Posted July 29, 2016 Report Share Posted July 29, 2016 To Claude: Twenty years from now I'll be watching George Prescott Bush and Chelsea Clinton debate. I'll be in ill humor after learning our OneAmerica National Care program won't pay for a knee replacement in light of the actuarial ROI for a 75 year old. I'd get drunk, but the $11.23 SocialJusticeSecurity check won't buy a shot. Maybe I'll call Deluca and go target shooting. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Buffalo Posted July 29, 2016 Author Report Share Posted July 29, 2016 To Claude: Twenty years from now I'll be watching George Prescott Bush and Chelsea Clinton debate. I'll be in ill humor after learning our OneAmerica National Care program won't pay for a knee replacement in light of the actuarial ROI for a 75 year old. I'd get drunk, but the $11.23 SocialJusticeSecurity check won't buy a shot. Maybe I'll call Deluca and go target shooting. The private one would probably cut you out sooner because you make too much to qualify for pro bono charity... Sigh yup gonna be interesting to see when I am 72. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.