Jump to content

Anti-Gay, Anti-Abortion Nazi Scheer


Recommended Posts

On 5/30/2017 at 5:57 AM, Rue said:


Mr. Scheer sounds like a brand name for nylons. Go for it. Hey he is from Saskatchewan. Is that in Canada? Mr. Diefenbaker wasn't he from there? Hey are they both German? Is Saskatchewan in Germany?

 

Languages in SK in order of magnitude:   English, GERMAN, Ukranian, French then I think cree.   But Scheer is not really an SK native - a lot of time in the butthole of the country (Ottawa).  What worries me is that he has no experience actually DOING anything except politics.  Now, that beats the hell out of getting a drama queen...er...teacher, but not sure by how much.

Thiefenbaker was from SK, all right, but being nothing but an ambulance chaser, not much to be proud of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, kimmy said:

The Conservatives can offer political representation to people with anti-gay or anti-abortion views if they wish.  They won't, because they know these issues are vote-losers for them.

They are and they aren't. People seldom hold social views in isolation. They're normally fairly well-matched to their ideological perspective. Those most concerned about social policies like abortion and gay rights are extremely unlikely to ever back the Tories, not just because of those views but a variety of other ideological views which rest on the same base. For example, most of them are probably zealously into carbon emission taxes and other climate change nonsense.

12 hours ago, kimmy said:

What kind of political representation do you want those issues to get?  If you want the Conservatives to be a champion for people who hold those views, the Conservatives will lose.   Why should anti-gay or anti-abortion views be treated any different from other popular (but not popular enough) viewpoints? 

Well... that was basically what I was saying. They're views held by a substantial number of people, but not majority views. They should be treated as such.

12 hours ago, kimmy said:

If we were talking about some view you hate-- say, guaranteed income, or proportional representation-- would you feel like they too need some kind of political representation?

They have some political representation, clearly. 

12 hours ago, kimmy said:

"Listen, 1/3 of Canadians support changing the FPTP system, and those people deserve representation!"

They also have representation. The NDP are fully supportive of changing FPTP.

12 hours ago, kimmy said:

I have a hunch that no, you wouldn't be nearly as sympathetic if we were talking about something that you think is stupid.

You're missing the point. I might think they're stupid, but I don't think anyone who holds such a view should be hounded into the wilderness. The progressive attitude towards those with soc-con views  is somewhat like that of the mainstream towards pedophiles. They not only think the views are stupid, they think they're horrific, illegitimate, and those who utter them should probably be fired, beaten, and forced into exile.

There are anti-abortion Liberals who have been with the party their whole lifetimes. Trudeau, with one sweeping decision, basically made them all outcasts, stating the Liberal party wanted nothing to do with such people, as if they were the dregs of society or something. And I don't think that's a democratic attitude. I think that's a fascist attitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cannuck said:

Languages in SK in order of magnitude:   English, GERMAN, Ukranian, French then I think cree.   But Scheer is not really an SK native - a lot of time in the butthole of the country (Ottawa).  What worries me is that he has no experience actually DOING anything except politics.  Now, that beats the hell out of getting a drama queen...er...teacher, but not sure by how much.

Thiefenbaker was from SK, all right, but being nothing but an ambulance chaser, not much to be proud of.

I think it's worth noting that the Conservatives have once again chosen a leader from outside Central Canada. Something the Liberals have never and will never do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Argus said:

I think it's worth noting that the Conservatives have once again chosen a leader from outside Central Canada. Something the Liberals have never and will never do.

This is where many non-Conservatives would come back to stress that Scheer is really a Central Canada guy cause he was born in Ottawa.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, capricorn said:

This is where many non-Conservatives would come back to stress that Scheer is really a Central Canada guy cause he was born in Ottawa.

They sure as hell never considered Harper a central Canada guy even though he was born and raised in Toronto.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Argus said:

They are and they aren't. People seldom hold social views in isolation. They're normally fairly well-matched to their ideological perspective. Those most concerned about social policies like abortion and gay rights are extremely unlikely to ever back the Tories, not just because of those views but a variety of other ideological views which rest on the same base. For example, most of them are probably zealously into carbon emission taxes and other climate change nonsense.

That's an assumption.  I personally supported the Harper government for many years, precisely because he kept the social-conservative element of the party at bay while doing a reasonable job in other areas.

Harper won several elections by assuring voters that he wasn't going to meddle with social issues that they didn't want meddled with, and he backed it up by telling the likes of Cheryl Gallant to shut up.  You know that Harper's personal sympathies are in line with social conservatives, but he was smart enough to recognize that they had to let those issues go if they wanted to win.

The BC Liberals were (until a couple of weeks ago) Canada's most successful conservative government, and they also managed to stay in power for a long time by rejecting social conservatism.

 

11 hours ago, Argus said:

Well... that was basically what I was saying. They're views held by a substantial number of people, but not majority views. They should be treated as such.

 ...and how do we usually treat views that aren't popular enough to get political parties to implement them?

 

11 hours ago, Argus said:

You're missing the point. I might think they're stupid, but I don't think anyone who holds such a view should be hounded into the wilderness. The progressive attitude towards those with soc-con views  is somewhat like that of the mainstream towards pedophiles. They not only think the views are stupid, they think they're horrific, illegitimate, and those who utter them should probably be fired, beaten, and forced into exile.

So... let me see if I've got this right...  you want the Conservative Party to advocate for social conservative views, because social conservatives deserve representation. But you don't want the Conservatives' opponents to campaign against those issues, because it's mean to social conservatives to suggest that it's terrible and backwards that they want to take peoples' rights away? Is that what you're trying to say?

11 hours ago, Argus said:

There are anti-abortion Liberals who have been with the party their whole lifetimes. Trudeau, with one sweeping decision, basically made them all outcasts, stating the Liberal party wanted nothing to do with such people, as if they were the dregs of society or something. And I don't think that's a democratic attitude. I think that's a fascist attitude.

There have been lots of ideas that enjoyed some measure of popular support at various times in history that went out of vogue.  I don't think the failure of such ideas to retain support past their "Best Before" date is necessarily a failure of democracy.

 -k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, kimmy said:

.....

There have been lots of ideas that enjoyed some measure of popular support at various times in history that went out of vogue.  I don't think the failure of such ideas to retain support past their "Best Before" date is necessarily a failure of democracy.

 -k

I think that Scheer's position is that opinions "out of vogue" still deserve the right to be said out loud.

It was once "in vogue" to take thalidomide, smoke cigarettes, favour eugenics, go to tanning salons, avoid cholesterol - but in those times, it was possible to say out loud that this was wrong.

Unless we are free to say out loud what is "out of vogue" - (nowadays: abortion, gay marriage, gravity, string theory, global warming seem to be in vogue) - then what will we know is wrong?

=====

Kimmy, let me throw you a bone to chew - out loud: if the State insures all the costs of her retirement, then why would any woman have children?  

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, cannuck said:

Languages in SK in order of magnitude:   English, GERMAN, Ukranian, French then I think cree.   But Scheer is not really an SK native - a lot of time in the butthole of the country (Ottawa).  What worries me is that he has no experience actually DOING anything except politics.  Now, that beats the hell out of getting a drama queen...er...teacher, but not sure by how much.

Thiefenbaker was from SK, all right, but being nothing but an ambulance chaser, not much to be proud of.

I defer to your comments and add a smile. Butthole? Wow. I heard someone call Cornwwall that once, and people from Moncton say that about Saint  John but Ottawa? Seesh.

I believe the words you are looking for are  policy wonk. Your comments about Scheer are what turned a lot of people off  Jean Charest when he wanted to tun for the federal PC's. I think we are hard pressed to get any experienced business people to come into politics. Why would they?  Somedays I think the most qualified person to ru n this country would be a psychiatric nurse or a special education teacher....or we go with Celine Dion. She's scary. I would listen to her.. Not her music mind you..She would be much better than Justin Bieber-Trudeau..

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rue said:

I defer to your comments and add a smile. Butthole? Wow. I heard someone call Cornwwall that once, and people from Moncton say that about Saint  John but Ottawa? Seesh.

 

It spews nothing but BS and its residents gas off constantly something that stinks.   What else could one call it?

While I could get behind CD and she would be far, far better than JT/B, I would still like to see leadership from someone who has accomplished something and produced something significant (though one could argue that CD's recordings are indeed something significant).   Need to have solved problems creatively to bring perspective to the office - and, no, deciding what suit/dress to wear and how to stage a selfie are not what I would consider significant problems.

Just for frame of reference:  one of my political heroes is/was Sir Roger Douglas.

Edited by cannuck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

...and how do we usually treat views that aren't popular enough to get political parties to implement them?

By discussing them and voting on them.

Quote

So... let me see if I've got this right...  you want the Conservative Party to advocate for social conservative views,

No. Why would I want that? I don't hold much in the way of social conservative views myself, except maybe on immigration and culture. What I believe is that those with so-con views make up a not unsubstantial percentage of this country. They have a right to make themselves heard, and to discuss their issues in public without being screamed at and sneered at and called names. I think there's probably more of them than there are leftist progressives, yet we treat the latter with respect, even allowing them to dictate to the rest of us on occasion, while we dismiss so-cons as idiots and losers from a bygone time.

Quote

because social conservatives deserve representation. But you don't want the Conservatives' opponents to campaign against those issues, because it's mean to social conservatives to suggest that it's terrible and backwards that they want to take peoples' rights away? Is that what you're trying to say?

What I'm saying is that they have the right to be treated respectfully and to air their beliefs in public forums and in parliament, just like the progressives, who I personally consider wack job loonies, and often dangerous wack job loonies. The mainstream opinion makers in media, which is not, of course, mainstream, but leans decidedly to the Left, treats so-con views, even those which are reasonable and not shrill, with complete contempt, as if they're completely illegitimate views. Yet takes the likes of BLM seriously. I put it to you that Niki Ashton is far more of a fruitloop than Brad Trost, and a lot more dangerous. Yet she's treated with respect and is given every opportunity to air her views. She's not dismissed a a wack job, and she and her ilk won't face demonstrations and protests no matter where she goes or what they say. Demand that all business be nationalized? Okay. Demand a 99% tax rate for anyone making over $100k? No problem. Demand we befriend Hamas and Hezbollah and break ties with Israel? Fine. But dare to suggest Canada puts in place the same laws on abortion that Sweden has, and suddenly the media recoils in horror while making signs to ward off evil.

 

 

Edited by Argus
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the average conservative parties win elections in various countries because they have a better reputation of maintaining good economic policy than their rivals. In some countries that reputation is deserved while in others it is not.

However, people tend to dislike conservatives when they start intruding people's private lives. For some people that intrusion is enough to make conservatives lose elections. For others, conservatives still win elections despite poking their noses where it does not belong, not because of it. I don't think conservatives have ever lost elections because people would be thinking that they haven't poked their noses enough into people's private lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/1/2017 at 11:34 AM, Argus said:

By discussing them and voting on them.

 

I think these topics have been discussed and voted on many times.

On 6/1/2017 at 11:34 AM, Argus said:

No. Why would I want that? I don't hold much in the way of social conservative views myself, except maybe on immigration and culture. What I believe is that those with so-con views make up a not unsubstantial percentage of this country. They have a right to make themselves heard, and to discuss their issues in public without being screamed at and sneered at and called names. I think there's probably more of them than there are leftist progressives, yet we treat the latter with respect, even allowing them to dictate to the rest of us on occasion, while we dismiss so-cons as idiots and losers from a bygone time.

I think you're being a bit melodramatic here.   Yes, on university campuses the social justice warriors have taken on a mob mentality, but aside from that I don't see this aggression you're talking about.   We do have a Christian Heritage Party that people can vote for if they truly long for social-conservative values.  Anti-abortion protestors marching up and down the street every week just a few blocks away from me, at the local hospital... they haven't been hunted down or harmed. The R.E.A.L. Women are still out there doing their thing.  Religious groups are still doing their thing.   I don't think it's true that none of these people are allowed to talk, I think it's more a matter of nobody listening.

On 6/1/2017 at 11:34 AM, Argus said:

What I'm saying is that they have the right to be treated respectfully and to air their beliefs in public forums and in parliament, just like the progressives, who I personally consider wack job loonies, and often dangerous wack job loonies. The mainstream opinion makers in media, which is not, of course, mainstream, but leans decidedly to the Left, treats so-con views, even those which are reasonable and not shrill, with complete contempt, as if they're completely illegitimate views.

Nobody is preventing them from speaking in public forums, with the exception of mobs at universities as I said earlier.  That's a legitimate complaint that I agree with.   Brad Trost has been an MP for a long time,  and if anybody has prevented Brad Trost from expressing his views in Parliament, it's either Brad Trost or Stephen Harper.  I'd suggest that the real reason social conservatives aren't talking about their issues in Parliament isn't that they are being silenced by leftist hordes, but rather that they realize that these issues are vote-losers for them.

On 6/1/2017 at 11:34 AM, Argus said:

 Yet takes the likes of BLM seriously. I put it to you that Niki Ashton is far more of a fruitloop than Brad Trost, and a lot more dangerous. Yet she's treated with respect and is given every opportunity to air her views. She's not dismissed a a wack job, and she and her ilk won't face demonstrations and protests no matter where she goes or what they say. Demand that all business be nationalized? Okay. Demand a 99% tax rate for anyone making over $100k? No problem. Demand we befriend Hamas and Hezbollah and break ties with Israel? Fine. But dare to suggest Canada puts in place the same laws on abortion that Sweden has, and suddenly the media recoils in horror while making signs to ward off evil.

I think this is more hyperbole.  I don't think "the media" have attacked anyone's position. I think the media, when social conservatives speak up, reports their comments and reports the reaction to it as well. I'm not aware of anybody calling for 99% tax rates, befriending Hamas, or so on.  I do think the media handles BLM with kid-gloves, out of fear of being called racist themselves.

 -k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, kimmy said:

I think you're being a bit melodramatic here.   Yes, on university campuses the social justice warriors have taken on a mob mentality, but aside from that I don't see this aggression you're talking about.

....

 -k

Melodramatic? "... aside from that... "

=====

Kimmy, I disagree.

If you want to understand more, read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_and_Death_in_Shanghai 

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2017-05-29 at 6:37 AM, Argus said:

To progressives, anyone who holds views on social issues different from theirs is a heretic. They've taken the view that such beliefs are illegitimate, and that no one holds them aside from 'dinosaurs' or other such fringe creatures of the past. Yet most polls show that between a third to half of Canadians hold views opposing abortion, gay/transgendered rights, legalizing marijuana or favoring the death penalty. You can't simply dismiss vast numbers of people like that as somehow beyond the pale, unfit for airing in public, and  not deserving of political representation. 

The NDP and the Liberals have become more and more narrow-focused over the years, expelling anyone who doesn't match up with an increasingly narrow group of ideological beliefs, beliefs which themselves change year by year. Remember, Chretien's government brought in a new marriage act which specifically stated that marriage was only to be between a man and a woman - because Liberal MPs rebelled at one which didn't. Now, to listen to Liberals only a dinosaur isn't in love with every aspect of an alphabet stew of gender and sexual roles. The NDP used to represent farmers out on the prairies. Now it mocks and sneers at them and their beliefs, and appeals to late' sipping tree huggers from downtown Toronto and Vancouver.

At least the Conservatives remain a big tent party, which allows a wide variety of views on social and ideological issues.

Very good post!  Food for thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, kimmy said:

Nobody is preventing them from speaking in public forums, with the exception of mobs at universities as I said earlier. 

 -k

I have been on another news comment forum which is dominated by progressives and liberals and I can tell you they are  not open-minded at all.  There is a group of maybe a dozen or so regulars that frequent that website who will be very rude and hostile to any conservative or especially a social conservative who expresses an opinion.  There is one guy who even wants other people to contact their MP to make it a hate crime to speak against man-made climate change.  Others are rude in different ways. At least this website allows one to have a reasonably rational discussion.  That other site is a news comment site where there is no rational discussion if you differ with the progressives.

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, August1991 said:

Melodramatic? "... aside from that... "

"...so, aside from that, how was the play, Mrs Lincoln?"

Ok, so college campuses aren't friendly places for inflammatory right-wing speakers like Ann Coulter or Milo Whatsisname.  But that wasn't the question we've been discussing. The question has been, are social conservative views being given fair representation in our democracy?   And the atmosphere on college campuses is pretty tangential to that question.  It's no more relevant than the atmosphere in small-town diners where rural people meet for coffee.

12 hours ago, blackbird said:

I have been on another news comment forum which is dominated by progressives and liberals and I can tell you they are  not open-minded at all.  There is a group of maybe a dozen or so regulars that frequent that website who will be very rude and hostile to any conservative or especially a social conservative who expresses an opinion.  There is one guy who even wants other people to contact their MP to make it a hate crime to speak against man-made climate change.  Others are rude in different ways. At least this website allows one to have a reasonably rational discussion.  That other site is a news comment site where there is no rational discussion if you differ with the progressives.

So some places are frequented by people are very rude and hostile to conservatives?  Ok. What about it?  There's lots of places frequented by social conservatives who are hostile to people who don't share their views too. What about it?

 -k

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎2017‎-‎06‎-‎01 at 8:57 AM, cannuck said:

It spews nothing but BS and its residents gas off constantly something that stinks.   What else could one call it?

While I could get behind CD and she would be far, far better than JT/B, I would still like to see leadership from someone who has accomplished something and produced something significant (though one could argue that CD's recordings are indeed something significant).   Need to have solved problems creatively to bring perspective to the office - and, no, deciding what suit/dress to wear and how to stage a selfie are not what I would consider significant problems.

Just for frame of reference:  one of my political heroes is/was Sir Roger Douglas.

If you refer to the New Zealander Sir Roger, I got you although his economic policies such as flat rate income tax, I would need to wrap my head around some more.

Economics is not my forte and he had some pretty innovative economic theories reinventing some old ones. Not sure he could have done what he did in Canada. Our economy is too tied to the US to have done what he did with the currency for example. Our currency devaluation is in direct relation to reacting to the US dollar not any other reason.

Was Mitchell Sharp are equivalent to him? I do not know. Maybe? I personally find our financial policies predictable and boring and basically unimaginative that assume we will always be a US branch plant. We've always started off with that assumption. There's been no willingness to strive for less dependence on US markets and investments other than to say if not the US then China.

I will be curious to see with the Scheer Conservatives what the approach will be on free trade with the US, Europe, Asia.

I myself would like to see Canada diversify its economic activities. This is not the time to be heavily dependent on a very protectionist US government.

As a conservative on economic policies only, I don't like what the US is threatening  to do and what he has done with  the Great Lakes.

I do not like some of the things the US Commerce Secretary has said about Canada, Mexico, Germany. They sound absurd in their simplistic labelling.

Then again Trump said the exact same things about China. South Korea and Japan, and now has done a 360 on those three countries...so....

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, kimmy said:

Ok, so college campuses aren't friendly places for inflammatory right-wing speakers like Ann Coulter or Milo Whatsisname.  But that wasn't the question we've been discussing. The question has been, are social conservative views being given fair representation in our democracy? 

Let me use an example I've used before. The great majority of Canadians favour values testing for potential immigrants. The great majority of Canadians favour some way, if it exists, of forcing women not to wear the niquab during citizenship swearing in ceremonies. Almost twice as many Canadians oppose than support M103.

As far as I'm aware no one in the English media favours values testing. No one in the English media favours banning the niquab.A rare few columnists oppose M103. I've watched these things discussed endlessly in political panels, sometimes with half a dozen members, all of whom condemn them (and support M103). I've read column after column in the major papers, including the supposed conservative ones, all condemning them. The opinion makers are pretty much all strongly on the Left of the political spectrum on virtually all social issues. I doubt there's a single so-con on any political panel, or writing for any major newspaper. And when a couple of dozen people sought to protest against M103 at Toronto city hall, progressive showed up to scream abuse and physically attack them.

If you look at the Conservative election, despite Scheer promising from the first day of the contest that he would not reopen the abortion issue, the media has muttered darkly about him being pro-life. Has anyone muttered about anyone being pro-choice and wanting no laws on abortion? No, because that's the accepted mainstream view. Any other view is considered virtually 'extremist', despite the fact Swedes, who do have laws on abortion, can hardly be called So-cons, much less right wing extremists.

 

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Argus said:

The great majority of Canadians favour values testing for potential immigrants. The great majority of Canadians favour some way, if it exists, of forcing women not to wear the niquab during citizenship swearing in ceremonies.

Both her policy's on "Canadian values testing" and "barbaric cultural practices snitch line" sealed her fate in politics, thankfully. She should go back to her doctor's office. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a barbaric cultural practices snitch line is a good idea.  Who wouldn't want to snitch on those?

Of course, we could always use Crimestoppers.  Just have to make sure there are no liberals manning the switchboards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, kimmy said:

"...so, aside from that, how was the play, Mrs Lincoln?"

Ok, so college campuses aren't friendly places for inflammatory right-wing speakers like Ann Coulter or Milo Whatsisname.  But that wasn't the question we've been discussing. The question has been, are social conservative views being given fair representation in our democracy?   And the atmosphere on college campuses is pretty tangential to that question.  It's no more relevant than the atmosphere in small-town diners where rural people meet for coffee.

So some places are frequented by people are very rude and hostile to conservatives?  Ok. What about it?  There's lots of places frequented by social conservatives who are hostile to people who don't share their views too. What about it?

 -k

Sometimes you can be polite and still evoke a rude response.  So the rudeness is not always equally shared.  But that's the nature of these sites.  If one wants to comment, he/she must be ready for receive, sometimes more than one dishes out.   I accept that.

 

Edited by blackbird
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, bcsapper said:

I think a barbaric cultural practices snitch line is a good idea.  Who wouldn't want to snitch on those?

Of course, we could always use Crimestoppers.  Just have to make sure there are no liberals manning the switchboards.

Technically if you think someone is abusing a child, committing any kind of assault against another, you can tell the police, you don't need a snitch line so to speak. "Barbaric practice" gets a little touchy. I think some people would consider most of what fundamentalist Muslims do "barbaric". I myself  find requiring a woman be covered head to foot, barbaric. The point is I am not sure it would be a good idea having people clog up a snitch line with such complaints. It could get quite subjective and never end. I think of course you mean serious stuff, like female circumcision, wife beatings, beatings of children, gay attacks, crap like that. Its technically already illegal.

I don't think however a barbaric snitch line will stop autocratic fundamentalist fathers demanding their daughters marry first cousins or not date, etc. It might not be possible given our Charter of Rights that protects religious beliefs.

I had a discussion with someone yesterday in light of the London insanity. He said, he knew there was trouble when they started creating public "religious" washrooms. Some people, decent, tolerant people, are getting fed up with accommodation of religious beliefs of any kind every time they see another terror attack by someone in the name of Allah. People by nature blur the line between all accommodations and some, all terrorists and non terrorists. It is an expected  human reaction each time a Muslim commits terror, that all Muslims are lumped in with that terrorist and what was once considered simply a different ritual, now considered a barbaric act. You heard the words of the British PM. There is a level of tolerance in Britain towards Islam that many are now asking be re-drawn. How far will that go?

I can tell you this. When terrorism against Jews world-wide or in Israel by Muslims was limited to them, there were a hell of a lot of people lecturing we Jews and Israelis that we brought it on ourselves and it was  our fault for having a country. Now those exact same people seeing the terrorism on their doorstep are  in fact making far more harsh and intolerant responses to all Muslims then I have witnessed in Israel after terror attacks. I used to say once the terrorism hits the immediate doorsteps of the West the same people blasting Israelis for how they have reacted to terrorism would change. It now has. I go back to the Israeli model. Israelis have had to live with this crap since their creation. They know the difference between a terrorist Muslim and a peaceful one. If the terrorist one hides behind or poses as an innocent Muslim which they often do, Israel has adapted to this kind of cowardly practice and yes sometimes they make mistakes or innocent people put in the line of fire by terrorists die unintentionally-its a price that is paid-every Israeli knows someone who has died for that price of freedom from terrorism by feeling the sting of an innocent one killed. So do Muslims. Its why I try use balanced words in this debate. Its hard.

Some days I would like to round up anyone with a beard and dump them in the ocean attached to cement blocks. That's the reaction these scum terrorists want. They want you and me lashing out at the shadows and the innocent where they hide.

The way to deal with terrorists is to hunt them down and kill them. I do not think people on this board get that. They don't get you don't get distracted by their hiding behind pregnant women. You become specialized, small, fast moving and you don't fight them where they try drag you to. You do your intelligence and track them down to where they subsist and wipe them out before they can attack. Its bloody, its swift, and its a  job for an unemotional, detached, trained, counter-intelligence commando who has been taught not to react to noise and tactics designed to distract. Believe me they don't allow emotions to get to them. They have a dead calm. There's no place for emotions when dealing with terrorists just like one does not shed tear stamping on a roach. In the coming days many terrorists will be tracked down and killed. None of us will know about it. The cycle will then begin again with a new cell replacing the old one wiped out. Terrorists are like roaches. They can reproduce very quickly. I am not sure snitch lines will catch them or stop them.

 

Edited by Rue
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...