Harrekin
Well-Known Member
I thought you were RobRoy for a minute reading that...
Why do people buy the idea that enemies can be bombed into submission?
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
reasonevangelist
Well-Known Member
"Why do people buy the idea...?"
Because they're force fed, repetitively (e.g. fox news, cnn), and don't have the time or expertise to discern what is or isn't actually true, partly because they lack the ability, and partly because the truth is obscured by design, while being partly substituted with disinformation, in order to make the largest possible number of people think whatever the controllers and social engineers want them to think.
Because they're force fed, repetitively (e.g. fox news, cnn), and don't have the time or expertise to discern what is or isn't actually true, partly because they lack the ability, and partly because the truth is obscured by design, while being partly substituted with disinformation, in order to make the largest possible number of people think whatever the controllers and social engineers want them to think.
reasonevangelist
Well-Known Member
i suppose he and i share a few fundamental agreements...
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
All trolling aside, there isn't a big plot.
The Govt are just inept ideologues, its not a nefarious plot, they're just stupid.
reasonevangelist
Well-Known Member
Well i disagree. But it's not so much a "plot," as it is a dynamic methodology, which responds to changing conditions to keep the cattle moving in the directions they want.
But there are also a lot of "members of government," who aren't the ones in control, who are indeed just stupid. And all those stupid people just makes it really easy for those in control to keep manipulating things into their favor.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
But but...Corporations are people too!!!!!
earnest_voice
Well-Known Member
You know bush classified a report into foreign involvement by state actors, apparently there is some serious evidence to implicate the house of saud. but onto isis, they are much more dangerous than AQ ever was simply because ISIS is comprised of ex iraqi army officers, many of who have been trained by us.
http://foreign-intrigue.com/2014/09/voices-from-the-front-2/
Major R. is an active duty Iraqi Army Infantry officer with over 10 years of service in the Iraqi Army, joining the Iraqi Army with a belief in a free Iraq. He has led Iraqi Army Infantry Platoons and commanded an Infantry company in Baghdad, Iraq during the surge and awakening. He fought against both al-Qaeda and Mahdi Army (Jaysh al-Mahdi) groups and currently is contributing to the fight against ISIS/IS (Islamic State). What makes this interview even more compelling is that Major R is an ethnic Kurd from Ninevah province, where his family is currently in territory occupied by IS.
Q: When ISIS does attack, are they attacking like a conventional Army, or are they attacking like an insurgent force?A: They have great tactics. They have choices when they attack. They will use different engagement lines, and different weapons in ways that you would never expect from an organized Army. They will use their RPG and then transition to their PKM machine guns directly. This speaks to their tactics and their training. When I see (the US army) using the AT-4 and then transition to the 240’s directly, that means you’ve been trained well.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Less Americans die, less money is wasted/transferred to the military industrial complex, more international credibility is gained for not waging another pre-emptive war based on scare tactics from politicians, and if we are eventually attacked, the entire international community will rally around us once again to go in full force, and at that point, I, and many others would likely be on board with an offensive strike against the Islamic State. But as American citizens, we have to remain vigilant that war is a racket, we can't always believe and accept the information coming out of Washington, and we have to conduct ourselves strategically when it comes to engaging the enemy, not do exactly what they want and exactly what they're planning for, that is simply fucking stupid, if I could be so frank.
I agree;
https://www.rollitup.org/t/official-fuck-the-police-thread-examples-of-police-brutality.557777/
Police murdered a childhood friend of mine for answering the fucking door with a knife in his hand he was cutting up
vegetables for dinner with on a no warrant search of his step dads house. I abhor police.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
You're either very naive or completely ignorant. You should study some history, you might like it.
And now it begins..
Saying people don't want war on their front lawns is baseless? Seems pretty universal to me. So much in fact, that when local people decide to participate because of it, they overwhelmingly choose to fight against the invaders.
There's an UncleBuck shitfest if I've ever seen one.
Where did I say I wasn't concerned?
Where did I imply fear of any kind?
Any other misrepresentations you care to pull out of your ass?
Nothing potential about it, it is used to justify perpetual war. America has become quite prissy about it, too, because we have way more to lose than any of our opponents do. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, that's just how it is.
We already know quite a few reasons why terrorists want to attack us. Many of them make a video on the subject. Stop pretending like you've never seen or heard one.
Blah blah blah. ILLUMINATI!
I particularly liked the notion of being in N. Korea. That's a good one!
<Illuminati picture here>
Because nobody here wants any chance of war/terrorism in our front yards.
That's some impressive daydream gibberish. "Just leave!"
I also like the imaginary, yet specific "exact same chance of attack exists" statistic you got there.
If they want our blood and we aren't there, where will they go to get it? We've already sown these seeds and been down this path. There is no running away from it. And yes, it will only continue to add fuel to the fire and give them more reason to recruit. But what other option is there? Just leaving isn't one. They will continue to suck us into a long, drawn out battle because that's all they can do.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
You are afraid an army of roughly 30K people will bring war to America's doorstep, America having the largest military force the world has ever seen, combined with the coalition forces of NATO
You are suggesting/supporting going to the enemies battleground, exactly what they want us to do, waging an indefinite war, exactly what they want us to do, losing more American soldiers lives, exactly what they want us to do, and financially bleeding our country dry, exactly what they want us to, when we could stay home, defend our country and remove ourselves from Middle Eastern affairs that have nothing to do with us, exactly what they don't want us to do because they know they can't attack us at home.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
Ask Israel how that is working out for them...
NLXSK1
Well-Known Member
12 men armed with box cutters killed over 3000 people and did over a billion dollars worth of damage to the USA. They can attack us at home, they are attacking us from home.
You are afraid an army of roughly 30K people will bring war to America's doorstep, America having the largest military force the world has ever seen, combined with the coalition forces of NATO
You are suggesting/supporting going to the enemies battleground, exactly what they want us to do, waging an indefinite war, exactly what they want us to do, losing more American soldiers lives, exactly what they want us to do, and financially bleeding our country dry, exactly what they want us to, when we could stay home, defend our country and remove ourselves from Middle Eastern affairs that have nothing to do with us, exactly what they don't want us to do because they know they can't attack us at home.
I am not worried about 30K troops taking over America. I am worried about the suitcase bomb getting put into the daycare center.
They just found ISIS Terrorists plotting attacks in Australia!! If you think coming home and leaving them alone will work, well just listen to their preaching... They want to kill every last one of us.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Like I said, good fucking luck
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
Obviously you didn't get the part where I asked, should you be wrong about the fear mongering.
god damn right!!!You forgot the worst war of all, the devastating, WAR ON WOMEN.
and you should be scared..women are currently more than 50% of the electorate..wonder how many pubster wives are going to secretly vote for hillary?
and..
How Women Changed the Outcome of the Election
There has been much discussion about the demographic makeup of the 2012 electorate, and one thing is clear: Women’s voices determined the outcome of the election. Across the board, women made the difference. Here are seven key facts about women voters and the gender gap in the 2012 elections.
1. Women were the majority of voters. According to exit polls 53 percent of the voters in the 2012 elections were women—more than one out of every two voters across the country was a woman. Moreover, 55 percent of those women cast votes for President Barack Obama. Women who voted for President Obama made up 29 percent—nearly one-third—of the electorate.
2. The gender gap grew to 10 points. The gender gap is defined as the margin between men and women’s support for a candidate. It’s the best way to measure how men and women’s voting patterns differ. According to official 2012 exit polls, President Barack Obama had a 10-point gender gap over his Republican rival, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney—higher than in most (but not all) presidential races since 1980.
3. Women decided the election. This past November women determined the outcome of the presidential election. Only in President Bill Clinton’s 1996 victory did a candidate succeed by winning with women and losing with men. Again, according to official exit polls, in both of their first terms in office, President Obama and President Clinton won with both genders. In neither of his campaigns did President George W. Bush win with women, although previous Republican presidents did.
4. The gender gap extends beyond women of color. The gender gap widened considerably with Latinos and African Americans this year, but also with whites. While President Obama’s support with white women declined, his gender gap among whites grew and was the same as former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry’s gender gap in 2006 and larger than President Clinton’s 1992 gender gap among whites. It was also larger than the gender gap among whites in the last four midterm elections.
5. The top issues for women were the economy and a candidate who will fight for them. Abortion may have been salient, but jobs and the economy are still the primary concern. Polling firm Momentum Analysis conducted a bipartisan study of “Walmart moms”—women with kids younger than age 18 and who have shopped at a Walmart at least once within the past month—and found abortion lagged behind the economy as a vote driver for these women. Similarly, according to the official exit polls, Gov. Romney bested President Obama by approximately 14 points with the three-fourths of the electorate who said the most important candidate qualities were that he “shares my values,” “is a strong leader,” or “has a vision.” But President Obama trounced Gov. Romney by 63 points with the one-fifth of voters who said “cares about people like me” was the most important value.
6. Extreme remarks and candidates changed the debate. The election highlighted many candidates’ extreme views on women—not just those who made public gaffes. Much was written, of course, about Senate candidates Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) and Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock’s extreme comments on women and abortion. But there was a lot more where that came from, including, many argue, from Republican vice-presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI). The campaign back and forth helped delineate the boundaries of what’s acceptable—both as political speech and as policy.
7. Abortion and women’s health issues played a real role. These extreme views might have driven many women voters to the arms of Democrats. A Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research postelection poll of women who supported President Obama in 2008 and an early December national poll for Planned Parenthood Action Fund both show the issues of abortion and access to birth control helped President Obama more than Gov. Romney. The Planned Parenthood survey found 69 percent of women—5 percentage points higher than all voters—had heard, seen, or read something about Gov. Romney’s plan to “get rid of” federal funding for Planned Parenthood.
With women deciding the presidential election, and with record numbers of women in both the House and the Senate, policies helping women must now be on the front burner. Women determined the outcome of the way the government looks, and it is time for lawmakers to answer the call of the majority of voters in the country and make sure economic fairness, pay equity, and issues of work-family balance are on the top of the policy agenda.
star trek was ahead of its time with ANGEL ONE
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/report/2012/12/12/47916/how-women-changed-the-outcome-of-the-election/
How Women Changed the Outcome of the Election
There has been much discussion about the demographic makeup of the 2012 electorate, and one thing is clear: Women’s voices determined the outcome of the election. Across the board, women made the difference. Here are seven key facts about women voters and the gender gap in the 2012 elections.
1. Women were the majority of voters. According to exit polls 53 percent of the voters in the 2012 elections were women—more than one out of every two voters across the country was a woman. Moreover, 55 percent of those women cast votes for President Barack Obama. Women who voted for President Obama made up 29 percent—nearly one-third—of the electorate.
2. The gender gap grew to 10 points. The gender gap is defined as the margin between men and women’s support for a candidate. It’s the best way to measure how men and women’s voting patterns differ. According to official 2012 exit polls, President Barack Obama had a 10-point gender gap over his Republican rival, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney—higher than in most (but not all) presidential races since 1980.
3. Women decided the election. This past November women determined the outcome of the presidential election. Only in President Bill Clinton’s 1996 victory did a candidate succeed by winning with women and losing with men. Again, according to official exit polls, in both of their first terms in office, President Obama and President Clinton won with both genders. In neither of his campaigns did President George W. Bush win with women, although previous Republican presidents did.
4. The gender gap extends beyond women of color. The gender gap widened considerably with Latinos and African Americans this year, but also with whites. While President Obama’s support with white women declined, his gender gap among whites grew and was the same as former Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry’s gender gap in 2006 and larger than President Clinton’s 1992 gender gap among whites. It was also larger than the gender gap among whites in the last four midterm elections.
5. The top issues for women were the economy and a candidate who will fight for them. Abortion may have been salient, but jobs and the economy are still the primary concern. Polling firm Momentum Analysis conducted a bipartisan study of “Walmart moms”—women with kids younger than age 18 and who have shopped at a Walmart at least once within the past month—and found abortion lagged behind the economy as a vote driver for these women. Similarly, according to the official exit polls, Gov. Romney bested President Obama by approximately 14 points with the three-fourths of the electorate who said the most important candidate qualities were that he “shares my values,” “is a strong leader,” or “has a vision.” But President Obama trounced Gov. Romney by 63 points with the one-fifth of voters who said “cares about people like me” was the most important value.
6. Extreme remarks and candidates changed the debate. The election highlighted many candidates’ extreme views on women—not just those who made public gaffes. Much was written, of course, about Senate candidates Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) and Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock’s extreme comments on women and abortion. But there was a lot more where that came from, including, many argue, from Republican vice-presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI). The campaign back and forth helped delineate the boundaries of what’s acceptable—both as political speech and as policy.
7. Abortion and women’s health issues played a real role. These extreme views might have driven many women voters to the arms of Democrats. A Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research postelection poll of women who supported President Obama in 2008 and an early December national poll for Planned Parenthood Action Fund both show the issues of abortion and access to birth control helped President Obama more than Gov. Romney. The Planned Parenthood survey found 69 percent of women—5 percentage points higher than all voters—had heard, seen, or read something about Gov. Romney’s plan to “get rid of” federal funding for Planned Parenthood.
With women deciding the presidential election, and with record numbers of women in both the House and the Senate, policies helping women must now be on the front burner. Women determined the outcome of the way the government looks, and it is time for lawmakers to answer the call of the majority of voters in the country and make sure economic fairness, pay equity, and issues of work-family balance are on the top of the policy agenda.
star trek was ahead of its time with ANGEL ONE
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/women/report/2012/12/12/47916/how-women-changed-the-outcome-of-the-election/
