Interviews with captured ISIS...

[Black Diamond]

How is it not? IIRC, this country was founded on a rebellion against our King. A war.

Truth is, everyone thinks our "founding fathers" were these high-minded idealists when they were mostly elitist businessmen who didn't want to pay their taxes. The US Civil war was fought for basically the same thing. Just a different government doing the same thing. We can't pay tax on our tea to King George, but by God, you WILL pay your whiskey and stamp tax to the founding fathers.

In both wars, it was the poor that fought them, and it was mostly a bunch of rednecks that wanted to just be left alone BUT ...

THEY were willing to fight for their freedom and their yards.

How many people today are willing to fight for anything?

[Gunny]

How many people today are willing to fight for anything?

Want to start with our illustrious Commander in Weak and work your way down the list?

[fj1200]

How is it not? IIRC, this country was founded on a rebellion against our King. A war.

Truth is, everyone thinks our "founding fathers" were these high-minded idealists when they were mostly elitist businessmen who didn't want to pay their taxes. The US Civil war was fought for basically the same thing. Just a different government doing the same thing. We can't pay tax on our tea to King George, but by God, you WILL pay your whiskey and stamp tax to the founding fathers.

In both wars, it was the poor that fought them, and it was mostly a bunch of rednecks that wanted to just be left alone BUT ...

THEY were willing to fight for their freedom and their yards.

A bunch of rich folks didn't have to risk what they had, win independence, and THEN build such things into the DoI and Constitution. That they did and recognize what it took to make it happen is testament.

[Drummond]

I get your sentiment but for what it's worth it technically inaccurate.
Humanity and empathy make defines Humane. A positive characteristic of SOME humans but not all.

Cambridge dictionary
Human:
=a ​person
=of or ​typical of ​people:
=a man, woman, or ​child:

Humane:
=showing ​kindness, ​care, and ​sympathy toward ​others, esp. those who are ​suffering:

the synonyms and antonyms of humane make the point well

<dl style="color: rgb(34, 54, 69); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><dt>Synonyms</dt><dd>beneficent, benevolent, benignant, compassionate, good-hearted, kind, kindhearted, kindly, softhearted, sympathetic, tender, tenderhearted, warmhearted</dd></dl><dl style="color: rgb(34, 54, 69); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><dt>Antonyms</dt><dd>atrocious, barbaric, barbarous, bestial, brutal, brute, brutish, callous, cold-blooded, cruel, fiendish, hard-hearted, heartless, inhuman, inhumane, insensate, sadistic, savage, truculent, uncompassionate, unfeeling, unkind, unkindly, unsympathetic, vicious, wanton</dd>



</dl>.......
"Quantify for me the 'soul', or 'spirit',..."
you can stop right there. That's already above my pay grade Drummond.

You've done an excellent job of illustrating how a description of a terrorist fits the opposite of human qualities. I consider my case to be made for me !

[Gunny]

A bunch of rich folks didn't have to risk what they had, win independence, and THEN build such things into the DoI and Constitution. That they did and recognize what it took to make it happen is testament.

Really? Which of them actually carried a gun? And their ideals are ripped off from the magna carta a tailored to suit them. Not all that brilliant to take someone else's work and tailor it to suit yourself.

[Drummond]

I can't edit a post for relevant information but you can cut sentences in half trying to parse out some sort of meaning? '

You do whatever you want to do to denigrate or abuse a post that disagrees with you. Your editing frequently goes to the lengths of a complete rewrite, usually to abuse. For example, how many times have you entered a 'Blah' smilie instead of any actual words ?

This is something I've never done, not with your posts, not with anyone's. What wording I quote, I quote from previous posts as written, without redrafting it.

I can't control them making a wrong argument.

But, your measure of agreement, is .. ?

Lefties are often wrong.

Really ? Only 'OFTEN' ? Then ... this means they're also often RIGHT ?

Let's have an honest answer to this question, then. What, according to you, are they often RIGHT about ?

Your belief is wrong. Try sticking with a valid discussion point rather than your incorrect beliefs. The Founders believed so much in those rights that they were placed in the founding documents; your logic demands that they were also Leftie. I'm waiting for you to flesh out that argument a little further.

Did Lefties even emerge on to the world, at that point in history ?

I'm sure your Founders understood that fighting for rights, and for what WAS right, was just and necessary. Do you deny this ? Therefore, the whole idea of them being 'natural' rights, as if they just grew on trees, makes little sense.

A Leftie, however, would insist that there were certain 'basic' rights that were inalienable. I believe I've cited our NHS as an example of one, as the Left claim it should be ?

That's not big government. A police force, national defense, and 2A rights are not big intrusive government.

A police force enforces the law of the State.

National defence cannot even exist without Big Government decision-making, and backing, existing to support it. And tell me, by your reckoning, is your Homeland Security Department actually NOT any form of evidence of Big Government in action ?

Big government is not conservative.

Margaret Thatcher was NOT a Conservative, then ?

Conservatives do not promote needless Big Government, theirs is a philosophy of individual reliance. That said, Big Government is, on occasions, mandated to solve a problem. In the UK, it was the only solution to marauding Unions. In yours, you have Homeland Security which has been given powers of intrusion, granted to them at State level, in order to effectively operate.

Should the Republicans win your next election, will you require them to disband Homeland Security ?

It appears your Labour government has much in common with your Conservative government in expanding. Finally, please tell me how limited taxes, limited government, etc. is leftie.

You're aware that our Conservative Government is committed to austerity measures, to bring spending under control. You are also aware how committed YOU are to opposing their approach. The only halfway logical abandonment of its being overturned would absolutely require a large-scale raising of taxes, in an effort to recoup the shortfall caused by relaxed controls on spending.

This is in line with LEFT-wing political thinking, and as you must know, it's LEFT WING Parties who consistently oppose austerity regimes ..

.. as YOU YOURSELF do.

I have. Repeatedly; small-government, pro-Constitution conservative.

Yet you support an approach which defies it !

[fj1200]

Really? Which of them actually carried a gun? And their ideals are ripped off from the magna carta a tailored to suit them. Not all that brilliant to take someone else's work and tailor it to suit yourself.

I think George Washington got shot at a lot.

[Gunny]

I think George Washington got shot at a lot.

No he didn't. Maybe in the French and Indian War. He's been glamorized a lot. I want to see someone in sub-zero weather posing on the prow of rowboat. I'll stay in my tuck and watch from the bank, thanks. Generals didn't lead from the front then. And certainly not the commander of the entire army.

[fj1200]

You do whatever you want to do to denigrate or abuse a post that disagrees with you. Your editing frequently goes to the lengths of a complete rewrite, usually to abuse. For example, how many times have you entered a 'Blah' smilie instead of any actual words ?

This is something I've never done, not with your posts, not with anyone's. What wording I quote, I quote from previous posts as written, without redrafting it.

No I don't. Your incessant whining doesn't need to be repeated.

But, your measure of agreement, is .. ?

Virtually zero.

Really ? Only 'OFTEN' ? Then ... this means they're also often RIGHT ?

Let's have an honest answer to this question, then. What, according to you, are they often RIGHT about ?

They get torture right but probably for the wrong reason.

Did Lefties even emerge on to the world, at that point in history ?

I'm sure your Founders understood that fighting for rights, and for what WAS right, was just and necessary. Do you deny this ? Therefore, the whole idea of them being 'natural' rights, as if they just grew on trees, makes little sense.

A Leftie, however, would insist that there were certain 'basic' rights that were inalienable. I believe I've cited our NHS as an example of one, as the Left claim it should be ?

I don't care what a leftie would insist when they're wrong. Your stretching of logic is also wrong.

A police force enforces the law of the State.

National defence cannot even exist without Big Government decision-making, and backing, existing to support it. And tell me, by your reckoning, is your Homeland Security Department actually NOT any form of evidence of Big Government in action ?

Homeland is big government in action and is largely ineffective. Kathianne has posted articles pointing this out but as I recall you failed to address them. National defense can be big government such as WWII but there is more than one way to wage war and supply armaments, etc. FDR to his credit, and in defiance of his advisers, chose one driven by the private markets as opposed to one done by a command and control structure.

Margaret Thatcher was NOT a Conservative, then ?

Conservatives do not promote needless Big Government, theirs is a philosophy of individual reliance. That said, Big Government is, on occasions, mandated to solve a problem. In the UK, it was the only solution to marauding Unions. In yours, you have Homeland Security which has been given powers of intrusion, granted to them at State level, in order to effectively operate.

Should the Republicans win your next election, will you require them to disband Homeland Security ?

Big government is not conservative. Just because a conservative might advocate big government doesn't make their big government solution conservative.

I hope the next Republican president will make Homeland effective and not just big. Your also wrong about the unions, deregulation of labor markets is not big government, it's small government by its very nature.

You're aware that our Conservative Government is committed to austerity measures, to bring spending under control. You are also aware how committed YOU are to opposing their approach. The only halfway logical abandonment of its being overturned would absolutely require a large-scale raising of taxes, in an effort to recoup the shortfall caused by relaxed controls on spending.

This is in line with LEFT-wing political thinking, and as you must know, it's LEFT WING Parties who consistently oppose austerity regimes ..

.. as YOU YOURSELF do.

No it's not. Osborne pushed through some tax cuts. Lefties don't generally advocate cutting taxes and regulations as I do. You continue to lie and continue to fail to point out my desire to increase taxes.

Yet you support an approach which defies it !

Never have.

[jimnyc]

I wish I could interview someone from ISIS. It would be more along the lines of a mafia enforcer trying to get some last minute information out of a snitch that is dead either way.

[Drummond]

No I don't. Your incessant whining doesn't need to be repeated.

Abusive remarking is not debate. Neither is editing what you prefer not to read.

They get torture right but probably for the wrong reason.

Curious that you seem unsure.

Have a catch-up with whoever writes your scripts, then come back with some definite information.

I don't care what a leftie would insist when they're wrong. Your stretching of logic is also wrong.

I wouldn't know. It never happens.

Homeland is big government in action and is largely ineffective.

So, you DO want them disbanded ? Yes, or no ? If 'no' -- why not ??

Kathianne has posted articles pointing this out but as I recall you failed to address them.

What Kathianne posts holds zero interest for me.

National defense can be big government such as WWII but there is more than one way to wage war and supply armaments, etc. FDR to his credit, and in defiance of his advisers, chose one driven by the private markets as opposed to one done by a command and control structure.

I'm not following, but then, it doesn't matter ... the fact remains that national defence cannot help but involve Big Government decisions and actions. The War on Terror, for example, involved these .. it couldn't NOT do so.

It's not a question of approval of them. It IS a question of living in the real world, and doing what you must to deal with its many problems.

Big government is not conservative. Just because a conservative might advocate big government doesn't make their big government solution conservative.

But since what I say about the necessity of some Big Government decisions and follow-up actions is true .. if YOUR 'logic' were also true, you'd be saying that there was no such thing as a Conservative Government !

Perhaps Lefties would love to claim it.

I hope the next Republican president will make Homeland effective and not just big.

So ... NOT disbanded, then ? Excellent. So, you CAN approve of a Big Government approach !

Your also wrong about the unions, deregulation of labor markets is not big government, it's small government by its very nature.

Immaterial to anything I've discussed. My references to Unions has to do with Mrs Thatcher having no choice but to deal with them by wielding the power of the State against them.

No it's not. Osborne pushed through some tax cuts.

He does, and will, when he can. Likewise, he'll increase taxes when he must. Being a Conservative, he's a realist.

Lefties don't generally advocate cutting taxes and regulations as I do. You continue to lie and continue to fail to point out my desire to increase taxes.

You express it indirectly. You do so by being so solidly anti-austerity. The only way that can be made to 'work' (and then, only temporarily, since it's no solution to fiscal weakness at all, ultimately) is to go in for tax hikes.

LEFT WING political Parties go in for such hikes. They ALSO fully agree with you about opposing austerity measures.

Funny, isn't it, that I can supply a list of countries' LEFT WING Parties who see things your way ... and equally 'funny' that this doesn't give you the smallest pause for thought ...

[fj1200]

Abusive remarking is not debate. Neither is editing what you prefer not to read.

Neither is whining yet you persist.

Curious that you seem unsure.

Have a catch-up with whoever writes your scripts, then come back with some definite information.

I don't keep track of lefties like you do.

And that's why you're an delusional fool.

I wouldn't know. It never happens.

So, you DO want them disbanded ? Yes, or no ? If 'no' -- why not ??

I want them to be effective and Constitutional.

What Kathianne posts holds zero interest for me.

Because you ignore what proves you wrong.

I'm not following, but then, it doesn't matter ... the fact remains that national defence cannot help but involve Big Government decisions and actions. The War on Terror, for example, involved these .. it couldn't NOT do so.

It's not a question of approval of them. It IS a question of living in the real world, and doing what you must to deal with its many problems.

Incorrect assumption.

But since what I say about the necessity of some Big Government decisions and follow-up actions is true .. if YOUR 'logic' were also true, you'd be saying that there was no such thing as a Conservative Government !

Perhaps Lefties would love to claim it.

Incorrect assumption. You've advocated and defended big government actions even when not necessary.

So ... NOT disbanded, then ? Excellent. So, you CAN approve of a Big Government approach !

Not when it's ineffective.

Immaterial to anything I've discussed. My references to Unions has to do with Mrs Thatcher having no choice but to deal with them by wielding the power of the State against them.

It's central. You do not understand conservatism. You can only defend what Mags did without having a base understanding.

He does, and will, when he can. Likewise, he'll increase taxes when he must. Being a Conservative, he's a realist.

Tax cuts worked. Tax increases do not. I've shown repeatedly in other threads that increasing taxes and cutting spending is a loser of an economic policy. If you want to call whatever the Brits are doing as austerity that's fine with me but it's not what I call austerity.

You express it indirectly. You do so by being so solidly anti-austerity. The only way that can be made to 'work' (and then, only temporarily, since it's no solution to fiscal weakness at all, ultimately) is to go in for tax hikes.

LEFT WING political Parties go in for such hikes. They ALSO fully agree with you about opposing austerity measures.

Funny, isn't it, that I can supply a list of countries' LEFT WING Parties who see things your way ... and equally 'funny' that this doesn't give you the smallest pause for thought ...

Laughable; when I don't say what you imagine to be true then you just make it up. Please supply that list of left wing parties that advocate for a reduction of tax rates and regulatory burdens otherwise you're a lying sack.

And for goodness sake, learn how to post in paragraphs rather than parsing a post sentence by half-sentence. It shows an amazing amount of immaturity on your part in how you discuss things.