Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
No Damian, they are dispicable murdering terrorists, your comments have shown that you are too.
Another WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU THINKING moment!!!
- Thread starter trader
- Start date
No Damian, they are dispicable murdering terrorists, your comments have shown that you are too.
Sorry Damian
Graham and others are right on this.
I have posted this question before but you name me one terrorist organisation that has had it’s views changed by violence.
Graham does not support terrorism he supports PEACE.
Fact the IRA a catholic organisation was supported by money from the USA.
Fact I was bought up a Catholic, I like many others despised the IRA.
Fact Colin Parry’s son was killed in Warrington (were I live) by an IRA bomb.
Fact he went to America to meet and plead with those financially supporting the IRA to stop they refused.
Fact Colin Parry set up the Warrington Peace centre to teach the young that “killing them all” is not the answer.
Fact Colin Parry met the IRA to talk to them this did not make him a terrorist supporter this made him an incredible inspirational man.
He said: "I want Gerry Adams to realise that, despite the loss of my son, we've achieved a great deal. "Personally, meeting Gerry Adams is a challenge for me. I can't say it'll be easy - it may not be easy for him, either. But I've got to face him, speak to him."
"I don't want an apology, I don't expect an apology. That is not on the agenda, if I got one it wouldn't mean anything.
"I can't do much about the pain my family and I have been through in the past but if we can do something to help that will be for the greater good
Fact if supporting terrorism suits the USA government of ANY political persuasion they will do it.
Wed Aug 10 2011
Given the supreme importance of the fight against terrorism and the terrible ramifications which ostensibly exist for providing material support to terrorists, it is puzzling to see prominent individuals within the U.S. political establishment openly lobbying for, and taking money from, an Iranian organization which is designated by the State Department as a terrorist group.
Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) is an organization with a history of violent terrorism against Americans and others, and was a key strategic asset of Saddam Hussein during his brutal crackdown on Iraqi Kurds in the early 90’s. Despite being implicated in the deaths of numerous American and Iranian civilians, (and being designated as a terrorist organization by countries around the world for its actions) U.S. political figures such as Ed Rendell, Andrew Card and John Bolton are openly advocating for MEK and are in many cases receiving significant sums of money for doing so.
It is somewhat arrogant to think I can change your mind and I try to respect every point of view, but anyone who could possibly class Graham as a terrorist supporter is clearly delusional.
This combined with the fact for the first time on this forum I am now very angry means I really should stop posting in this arena, not that I believe it would worry you in any way, but believe me my friend it should.
Matthew 5:9 9“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God"
P.S. that is not a quote by some religious nut job it is by a bad Christian who knows he should practice what he preaches and is in awe of those non Christians who do practice what he preaches.
Graham and others are right on this.
I have posted this question before but you name me one terrorist organisation that has had it’s views changed by violence.
Graham does not support terrorism he supports PEACE.
Fact the IRA a catholic organisation was supported by money from the USA.
Fact I was bought up a Catholic, I like many others despised the IRA.
Fact Colin Parry’s son was killed in Warrington (were I live) by an IRA bomb.
Fact he went to America to meet and plead with those financially supporting the IRA to stop they refused.
Fact Colin Parry set up the Warrington Peace centre to teach the young that “killing them all” is not the answer.
Fact Colin Parry met the IRA to talk to them this did not make him a terrorist supporter this made him an incredible inspirational man.
He said: "I want Gerry Adams to realise that, despite the loss of my son, we've achieved a great deal. "Personally, meeting Gerry Adams is a challenge for me. I can't say it'll be easy - it may not be easy for him, either. But I've got to face him, speak to him."
"I don't want an apology, I don't expect an apology. That is not on the agenda, if I got one it wouldn't mean anything.
"I can't do much about the pain my family and I have been through in the past but if we can do something to help that will be for the greater good
Fact if supporting terrorism suits the USA government of ANY political persuasion they will do it.
Wed Aug 10 2011
Given the supreme importance of the fight against terrorism and the terrible ramifications which ostensibly exist for providing material support to terrorists, it is puzzling to see prominent individuals within the U.S. political establishment openly lobbying for, and taking money from, an Iranian organization which is designated by the State Department as a terrorist group.
Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) is an organization with a history of violent terrorism against Americans and others, and was a key strategic asset of Saddam Hussein during his brutal crackdown on Iraqi Kurds in the early 90’s. Despite being implicated in the deaths of numerous American and Iranian civilians, (and being designated as a terrorist organization by countries around the world for its actions) U.S. political figures such as Ed Rendell, Andrew Card and John Bolton are openly advocating for MEK and are in many cases receiving significant sums of money for doing so.
It is somewhat arrogant to think I can change your mind and I try to respect every point of view, but anyone who could possibly class Graham as a terrorist supporter is clearly delusional.
This combined with the fact for the first time on this forum I am now very angry means I really should stop posting in this arena, not that I believe it would worry you in any way, but believe me my friend it should.
Matthew 5:9 9“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God"
P.S. that is not a quote by some religious nut job it is by a bad Christian who knows he should practice what he preaches and is in awe of those non Christians who do practice what he preaches.
Last edited:
Nick,
Thank you so much for your support, It actually means a lot to me (now whether that makes me a saddo or not I don't know
).
Damien.
I would like to extend an olive branch to you.
If we can try to debate these issues without the use of absolutes, then let's have at it.
The rules are truly simple:-
1. Be true to your beliefs but don't hold them so high that they drown out all others
2. Take the time to drink in the opinions of others before you reply.
3. Take a moment of pause, and think to yourself "Am I being a rounded individual, or am I speaking from personal prejudice?"
If you can do these things, then we have a chance for all of us to learn something from each other.
If not, basically we're fucked.
Thank you so much for your support, It actually means a lot to me (now whether that makes me a saddo or not I don't know
).Damien.
I would like to extend an olive branch to you.
If we can try to debate these issues without the use of absolutes, then let's have at it.
The rules are truly simple:-
1. Be true to your beliefs but don't hold them so high that they drown out all others
2. Take the time to drink in the opinions of others before you reply.
3. Take a moment of pause, and think to yourself "Am I being a rounded individual, or am I speaking from personal prejudice?"
If you can do these things, then we have a chance for all of us to learn something from each other.
If not, basically we're fucked.
Terry Oxandale
Skinny Man
Do NOT confuse my empathy with any sympathy.
I'll have no hesitation about setting one of these terrorists down in front of Allah's feet, but I also can see clearly enough as to why he, as and individual, feels he must do what he does. Our leader's lack of ability or inclination to do this with those cultures we do not understand causes more issues than it solves.
Well I don't know about that Damian, you (not personally) have shot down the odd civilian airliner, caused some quite awful 'blue on blue' incidents and have bombed a shelter full of women and children here and there, but I guess that was just being trigger happy or suffering a breakdown of intelligence, just like what's happening here.
Not sure the victims of any of the above incidents would quite see it your way, however, that is understandable. What is not understandable is anyone who myopically thinks they are always totally in the right, that might is right, and who also carries an assault weapon and wears a belt with a buckle that says "Gott Mit Uns" on it.
Whichever particular "Gott" you favour.
Sounds a bit Zionist to me....
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Last edited:
Last edited:
Yes, thank you Graham. The German is incidental but reflects (and symbolises) a paradox from over 100 years ago which is every bit as relevant today.
If Dom is a saucy mare, can she be ridden bareback?
Now someone help me please. There a number of threads I could have posted this question on and as I happen to be here, I have chosen this one. I am genuinely interested in learning about American politics - it seems red & blue primary colours (it's that why some elections are called primaries?).
It seems (at least to me) that the American Political Process is a rerun of both the War of Revolution and the American Civil (or should that be Uncivil?) War such is the vehemence and vitriol that is displayed. Much of it must be rhetoric because in a nation that worship guns, some of the abuse is beyond tolerance and yet the political death rate seems remarkably low, limited to a few 'Nutjobs'
I wonder if, in a moment of calm reflection, our American friends from both sides of the Great Primary Colour Divide can furnish me an explanation for this graphic which landed unsolicited in my inbox just today.
Is this a Democrat vs Republican map? Are the red states ALL Democrat? Are the blue states the ONLY republican states? Is this a post election Republican insult?
Please enlighten, but this is a genuine question my friends, not a pot stir. To me, it suggests that the Democrats had an overwhelming victory in the election.. which naturally, the Republicans seem a bit miffed about.
Are Republicans that much a minority? If so, why are they the loudest?
If Dom is a saucy mare, can she be ridden bareback?
Now someone help me please. There a number of threads I could have posted this question on and as I happen to be here, I have chosen this one. I am genuinely interested in learning about American politics - it seems red & blue primary colours (it's that why some elections are called primaries?).
It seems (at least to me) that the American Political Process is a rerun of both the War of Revolution and the American Civil (or should that be Uncivil?) War such is the vehemence and vitriol that is displayed. Much of it must be rhetoric because in a nation that worship guns, some of the abuse is beyond tolerance and yet the political death rate seems remarkably low, limited to a few 'Nutjobs'
I wonder if, in a moment of calm reflection, our American friends from both sides of the Great Primary Colour Divide can furnish me an explanation for this graphic which landed unsolicited in my inbox just today.
Is this a Democrat vs Republican map? Are the red states ALL Democrat? Are the blue states the ONLY republican states? Is this a post election Republican insult?
Please enlighten, but this is a genuine question my friends, not a pot stir. To me, it suggests that the Democrats had an overwhelming victory in the election.. which naturally, the Republicans seem a bit miffed about.
Are Republicans that much a minority? If so, why are they the loudest?
You just don't seem to grasp that your own words define you to be the exact opposite of what you think you are.
I am trying so hard not to get angry by your posts. You seem to think that you have a genuinely open, fair, reasonable and honest dislike for everything abominable. I am sure that you think you are a thoroughly decent bloke.
Many folk here, from a cross-section of views, religions and geography have all unanamously attempted to converse with you only to be greeted by the same entrenched rhetoric you began with.
Good luck to you in your life, I wish you the best and look forward to the day when we find something that we can agree upon.
Jeez, it's hard not to revert to simply calling you names! I must have edited this a dozen times, to remove offensive comments. I do not want to offend you, even though I am offended by you.
The thing is, you frighten me more than those who actually are terrorists. You prove that there will always be terrorists, because there will always be people like you. Two sides of the same coin.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Keith,
I'm not sure how acurate your map is to the current political demographics, but it seems fairly lose.
Except...... the blue States are mostly Domocratic and the red States are mostly Republican. Although it appears that the majority of the Country is red, by far the most folks live on the coasts and around the Great Lakes.
For the most part, the more education, travel and exposure to people from other lands tends to make people liberal (hence the coasts and big cities). On the other hand, lack of exposure to thse things (small town, middle America) tends to make one consevative.
I'm not sure how acurate your map is to the current political demographics, but it seems fairly lose.
Except...... the blue States are mostly Domocratic and the red States are mostly Republican. Although it appears that the majority of the Country is red, by far the most folks live on the coasts and around the Great Lakes.
For the most part, the more education, travel and exposure to people from other lands tends to make people liberal (hence the coasts and big cities). On the other hand, lack of exposure to thse things (small town, middle America) tends to make one consevative.
Last edited:
Yes, thank you Graham. The German is incidental but reflects (and symbolises) a paradox from over 100 years ago which is every bit as relevant today.
If Dom is a saucy mare, can she be ridden bareback?
Now someone help me please. There a number of threads I could have posted this question on and as I happen to be here, I have chosen this one. I am genuinely interested in learning about American politics - it seems red & blue primary colours (it's that why some elections are called primaries?).
It seems (at least to me) that the American Political Process is a rerun of both the War of Revolution and the American Civil (or should that be Uncivil?) War such is the vehemence and vitriol that is displayed. Much of it must be rhetoric because in a nation that worship guns, some of the abuse is beyond tolerance and yet the political death rate seems remarkably low, limited to a few 'Nutjobs'
I wonder if, in a moment of calm reflection, our American friends from both sides of the Great Primary Colour Divide can furnish me an explanation for this graphic which landed unsolicited in my inbox just today.
Is this a Democrat vs Republican map? Are the red states ALL Democrat? Are the blue states the ONLY republican states? Is this a post election Republican insult?
Please enlighten, but this is a genuine question my friends, not a pot stir. To me, it suggests that the Democrats had an overwhelming victory in the election.. which naturally, the Republicans seem a bit miffed about.
Are Republicans that much a minority? If so, why are they the loudest?
Keith, no you can't ride me bareback, and I am not female.
Let me try and explain a bit. The red states are republican, a bit more conservative than the blue states (democrat). Let me use a phrase so consistent with Chicago (Democratic) politics: Vote early and vote often.
The American political process has always been rough and tumble. Back in the early 1800s, duels were actually used to solve problems. From the Burr Hamilton duel:
Burr
States like California, New York, Illinois have large populations, and hence have many votes in the Electoral College. The Electoral College was a system devised by our forefathers to cast a state's vote 100% for the winner of that's state. So Obama won Illinois by say 53 - 47, he would get the 21 votes in the electoral college. Now if McCain won Iowa which has 7 votes, and only two states voted, Obama wins the election. The attached link gives you the votes by state. You can see that California has 55 votes, NY 31, Pennsylvania 21 etc.
Google Images
I have seen other maps breaking win/loss by county, and Illinois has a far larger area that voted red rather than blue. Chicago as you know has a large black, hispanic and Jewish community located in the City (that's why Chicago always has a Democratic mayor).
The Democrats traditionally have a majority of registered voters, and their constituents are the Jewish, black, hispanic, young, ethnic and white female voters. The Republicans tend to draw more men, and independents (who can vote for whoever they so desire).
The primary system is more complex, and hence takes some further discussion. Perhaps Al, and Jim can explain more of how they see it.
Domtoni,
Thats not bad, sound fairly close to how it is
Thanks Jim !!
First lesson learned and it's a big one.
Over here, Conservative is always Blue, and the Leftists are always Red (for obvious reasons). The middlish ground (Liberal Democrat) are Yellow. Now our "Labour" or rather our "Recent Labour" is most likely equal to the very left of your Democrats and our Conservatives seem to be on the very right wing of your Democrats, whilst our Liberal Democrats are more probably your middle voting Democrats. so who/what the hell are YOUR Conservatives?
We don't seem to have an equal and that is possibly why some of our cross ditch debates end up in the er, ditch.
Have I got any of this right? If the image represents the voting pattern in the USA i.e. if it's a Red state it's Republican, why is there a Democrat Administration? Or is that just the President?
Confused of Great Britain, Plan Red Conspiracy Theorist.
Over here, Conservative is always Blue, and the Leftists are always Red (for obvious reasons). The middlish ground (Liberal Democrat) are Yellow. Now our "Labour" or rather our "Recent Labour" is most likely equal to the very left of your Democrats and our Conservatives seem to be on the very right wing of your Democrats, whilst our Liberal Democrats are more probably your middle voting Democrats. so who/what the hell are YOUR Conservatives?
We don't seem to have an equal and that is possibly why some of our cross ditch debates end up in the er, ditch.
Have I got any of this right? If the image represents the voting pattern in the USA i.e. if it's a Red state it's Republican, why is there a Democrat Administration? Or is that just the President?
Confused of Great Britain, Plan Red Conspiracy Theorist.
Anyone can vote for whomever they desire, even write someone in. I believe a small part of our problem is the party affiliation nonsense. It seems to be human nature to act on emotions and "join" a group. I believe too many people get drawn into a group and pretty much never leave, creating a situation where they vote for a party instead of a person. That also is the beginning of the "us and them" mentality that has been snowballing in this country (and of course not only in the U.S.) for a looooong time now. Mark the other "group" as not even worth listening to and guess what? People actually stop listening to them. People, in general, are very impressionable and act on emotion. All the huge leaders in history fed off this simple idea and, consequently due to the very nature of how that works, were able to rise to unprecedented heights and commit unspeakable atrocities. Why? People stopped thinking for themselves and allowed themselves to be led. Our "system" has not truly been working as intended for quite some time now. But we'll all go into the pens, sorry - I mean polls, in the next election and continue the madness...
Keith, that's what makes the US so different. We have two houses, the Congress and the Senate. The congress is voted by population (a give to the big states in the early days of the Republic), and the senate (two senators per state was a give to the small states in the early days of the Republic).
Bills can be introduced by either house or the president, but have to be passed by both houses and then signed by the president. When challenged, the Supreme Court gets involved (after a long process) and determines if the law passes the constitutional test. If not, it is struck down.
Your assessment of how the Labour, Conservative and Lib Dems stack up is accurate. I made a similar comment in another unremembered post months ago. The conservatives actually want to go back to a more free market, less centralized federal government, giving the local states far more power to control their own destiny. And we don't have a real equivalent of the US conservatives here in the UK.
