We could put them on our face and rob places.
ATTN: NEOCONS... I have a plan....
- Thread starter Dixie - In Memoriam
- Start date
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I'll pose the question again, what do liberals think will be the result of not defeating radical Islam? History is pretty clear about these kind of things, they generally don't just fall out of favor and disappear into the past. Generally speaking, millions of soldiers have to ultimately give their lives defeating such extremists. Since we have decided not to go this route, what exactly is the plan? Are we to wait until radical Islam has taken over all of Europe? It's got a good rolling start there! Should we wait until gays are being publicly executed in New York by Islamic radicals who think homosexuality is not tolerable? At what point do you plan on taking your heads out of the sand and facing the problem? Or do you plan to ever do this? If not, we may as well start talking about the plan to implement Sharia as the law of the land. Inevitably, this is what it will come down to, because they aren't going to stop unless someone stops them.
History tells us also that if we do not fight those who believe that bombs are a tool for religious conversion, then convert we will.
This world is full of religions that are no more because a group has been conquered.
Of course, the best way to fight them IMO is to live well without their religion, not with more bombs.
Kamala Trump
Verified User
But we're fighting for a religion too, globalization, the insane assertion that all humanity must be under the same sociopolitical system controlled by an elite few, and the belief that all countries should be managed to facilitate the expansion of mulitinational corporations, despite the impact on people in general.
Last edited:
It is an extreme stretch to call globalism a religion. It is an effect based on the relative cheapness of travel, not a central belief system.
Fight it if you must, but attempting to make it something more than it is just appears paranoid. It makes people think of the cat lady on the Simpsons.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Not sure I understand what you are saying here. Seems to me, we were 'living well without their religion' when they attacked us on 9/11 and killed 3,000 innocent American citizens. This was after several other smaller attacks preceding 9/11, so it appears it didn't do us much good to 'live well without their religion' and ignore the problem.
I do agree with your statement, if we don't fight them, then convert we will. Problem is, I don't honestly think Liberals are going to be ready to convert to Sharia. Us Bible-toting rednecks won't have as much trouble adapting, we are accustomed to religion and morals, and we believe in our God no matter what you call Him. But can you see the rude awakening coming for the Libs under Sharia? Boy, I sure can, they are not going to like it a bit. BUT... it will be too late to do a damn thing about it once it takes over.
I really think the problem is, Liberals don't take this threat seriously at all. They believe the garbage they've read on some blog, and don't really think we will ever be faced with the threat of conversion by force. It's an easy belief to cling to, as you hop in your BMW and head to Starbucks, like you've done all your life. Far removed from the frontline battles of radical Islam, it is easy to lull yourself into a false sense of security and safety. The Alligator continues to grow, and Liberals continue to pitch food to it, and have no worries about their future. Unfortunately, there are no testimonies from those who have tried this method before, because they are all dead.
Kamala Trump
Verified User
It's more than that, it's an ideologically backed imperative which says coporations MUST follow the cheapest resource DESPITE OTHER NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES TO THE SOCIETIES THEY SERVE. It's the removal of the quest for profit from a greater context, complete with OTHER CONSIDERATIONS. That's what globalism is, it's a value statement.
It makes me appear right.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
It is seldom I hear someone butcher capitalism to such a degree and with such ignorance. What the hell have you been reading? Nevermind, it's a rhetorical question, I don't really care to know what you've been reading. Obviously, it is Socialist brainwash propaganda.
Your premise is incorrect, because corporations depend on the society they serve, which means it is vital for corporations to be concerned with negative impacts on society. In fact, the most successful corporations are generally those who provide a positive impact on society.
Kamala Trump
Verified User
You just can't handle the truth. You neocons state yourselves repeatedly that corporations have no duty to the societies in wich they operate, that that's LIBERALISM/COMMYNISM. Now I mention this again and you freak out. Isn't that weird? Is your mind schismed against itself?
Corporations have a positive impact on society when they are constrained inside a framework of other considerations, hence safety standards, labor standards. And until recently protectionism has been used to protect workers or key industries. All of these are valid in moderation. Your globalization hooey is radicalism.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Here is the truth, you would have to be a stark-raving dingbat to say "corporations have no duty to the societies they serve" because it completely defies the principles of capitalism. It is easy for a Socialist to misconstrue what a Capitalist has said, and believe this is what was meant, but the idea on its face is absurd.
Corporations are not in business to solve societies problems and pacify Socialists, they have a hard time making profits trying to do that. However, they do have an obligation to provide a positive impact and ample motivation to not cause negative impact.
Regulations that you mentioned for labor and safety, are neccessary because of Greed, not Capitalism. The Yippies discovered that regulation is needed regardless of whether you operate a capitalist business or not, the ever-popular "free stores" of the 60's failed because unregulated people are greedy. You wanna wage a war on greed? That's fine, just don't lump it in with Capitalism. Not all Capitalists are Greedy, it's a human trait we share across the board.
"Globalism" is a bunch of hooey, I will agree with you on that. What does the term even mean? It sounds ominous... like people want to take over the globe! I guess that's why you adopted it to wage war on Capitalism, it sounds so much worse.
Kamala Trump
Verified User
How is it absurd. This is the argument you guys make all the time, "corporations are not charities and are not jobs programs etc....." ad nauseum.
Right, they're there to make a profit.
Yes like communist labor standards and protectionism here and there, the things you rail against like a psychoputz.
But the gordon gecko style "GREED IS GOOD" capitalism is exactly what is happening on a grand scale.
How does one operate a non-capitalist business?
Saying capitalism has nothing to do with greed is fucking assinine, you blithering ass-chimp.
People now say globalization and capitalism are the same thing, they aren't, technically, globalization is a radicalized worldview which asserts that corporates must use cost cutting measures even when those measures may have overall negative consequences on concerned populations. You could say it's capitalism combined with a particular moral stance.
Last edited:
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Asshate just loathes the idea that he can't exorcise control over other people. We just have too many damn rights.
Kamala Trump
Verified User
You're the one who hates individuals. You think the GDP is more important than individuals, douchesuck.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
No, I think GDP and liberty are more important than individuals - that is, a healty economy and freedom for ALL (not just for would-be tyrants like you).
Kamala Trump
Verified User
What is the value of gdp if people are going into mountains of personal debt from all those transactions? In this scenario, gdp becomes more an indicator of indebtedness than anything else.
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
I believe that people should have the right to make life for themselves. I do not believe, as you do, that they should be babied and catered to by government. Liberty is equality of opportunity, not of circumstance. Who are you to tell me that I cannot borrow what I cannot afford to pay back?
Kamala Trump
Verified User
I question whether or not a gdp BASED on stupid personal financial decisions is really a "good thing". Im not questioning a persons right to be stupid; i question the framing of mass stupidity as something good.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
AHZ, I suggest you try reading my post again, and don't pause to interject the first knee-jerk argumentative socialist thought that comes into your commie bastard mind. Try to soak in the entire context of what I am saying, because you are missing things I am saying and it's causing you to look rather foolish.
Greed can be a component of Capitalism, just as it can be a component of most anything Humans do. It is a human attribute, not confined to Capitalists or Capitalism. Regardless of what kind of system you have, including all out Anarchy, the element of Greed is still present, because it is a Human trait. To attempt to tie Capitalism and Greed together and make them 'as one' with each other, is intellectual dishonesty. I find it hard to debate with the intellectually dishonest.
Corporations do indeed involve themselves in society, in countless ways, and not just to get a tax break. I can name a few companies for you, if you like, but I think you will find most of American major corporations are very actively involved in community programs, partnerships with education, and helping those in times of need. Most of them have a vibrant Public Relations department, where the primary focus is the consumer and what they want or need.
That said, Corporations are all in business to make a profit. They are sometimes obligated to shareholders to do just that, or they cease being a corporation anymore. Attacking them for making a profit is a bit absurd, it's like attacking fish for swimming. Without corporations, there would be fewer jobs, don'tchya think? Of course, without jobs, people have no money so capitalism doesn't really matter anymore, and it will be easier to convince them of the greatness of Socialism under those conditions, is that your idea?
Greed can be a component of Capitalism, just as it can be a component of most anything Humans do. It is a human attribute, not confined to Capitalists or Capitalism. Regardless of what kind of system you have, including all out Anarchy, the element of Greed is still present, because it is a Human trait. To attempt to tie Capitalism and Greed together and make them 'as one' with each other, is intellectual dishonesty. I find it hard to debate with the intellectually dishonest.
Corporations do indeed involve themselves in society, in countless ways, and not just to get a tax break. I can name a few companies for you, if you like, but I think you will find most of American major corporations are very actively involved in community programs, partnerships with education, and helping those in times of need. Most of them have a vibrant Public Relations department, where the primary focus is the consumer and what they want or need.
That said, Corporations are all in business to make a profit. They are sometimes obligated to shareholders to do just that, or they cease being a corporation anymore. Attacking them for making a profit is a bit absurd, it's like attacking fish for swimming. Without corporations, there would be fewer jobs, don'tchya think? Of course, without jobs, people have no money so capitalism doesn't really matter anymore, and it will be easier to convince them of the greatness of Socialism under those conditions, is that your idea?