Libs, who is the greater threat to America?

I largely ignore any "Progressive" when they start to talk about money or wealth, because they seem to be obsessively desirous of it. It is like they can't stop talking and obsessing and desiring money, mostly from the pockets of others into their own.

And it is always funny how they will go after the "bad wealthy", like Bill Gates, the Sam Walton heirs, or some random CEO. But for some reason the incredible wealth of actors, singers, athletes, or other corporate types like Warren Buffett never seem to come up at all.

This is how I know it is not really about the money, it is just a tool to attack those they hate.

In fact, I find it deliciously ironic that Babs puts a rant on her own blog about people not paying their taxes.

http://www.barbrastreisand.com/us/article/30-major-companies-paid-zero-income-tax

Yet this EGOT herself is worth over $600 million, and generally avoids paying taxes by using loopholes herself, like transferring property from herself to her husband.

http://radaronline.com/exclusives/2...ns-dollars-vegas-property-hubby-james-brolin/

Of course, nowadays she simply avoids paying most income taxes by performing through her charity. It pays her living expenses, and she then can perform for free to her charity as her charity gets a large "donation". Of course, this is a tax dodge that only the uber-rich Hollywood Liberals can get away with doing, because doing an annual fund raiser for the DNC is a good way to hide your money, and nobody in that crowd is gonna have Babs audited.

Because it is not really about money, it is about the use of money as a weapon.

 

Democrats are always speaking evil of rich people. They always say that Republicans favor the rich and are therefore evil as well. And yet the richest group in our government are Democrats. Go figure.

 

The very rich are NOT being kept in line by our government and laws. Not only is this true in the economic sense, but when is the last time you heard of a very rich person being convicted of a serious crime, much less serving serious time for that crime? You could make a good case for their misbehavior bringing on the near financial collapse of 2007/08, which was a lot more threatening to this country than 9/11 was.

Yes, Jihadi terrorists can potentially kill thousands or even tens of thousands of Americans. Well, so do car accidents and I don't consider them the number one threat to our security. Communism was a pesky annoyance for decades from the 1870s onward: it was only when it took control of a major nation-state that it became a real menace. Its rival, the Anarchist movement, never did make that transition in spite of a higher record of successful terrorist actions. If I get into a plane, I'm more worried about pilot error and the weather and aircraft maintenance than I am about Jihadi terrorism.

 

They don't seem to recognize this is roughly similar to the socio-economic stratification that occurred in the Soviet Union. The rich are bad EXCEPT for those who sucked up to the Politburo/Obama regime.

 

Let's be clear about something here. Radical Islam is, in its current state, virtually no threat to America. None. Its adherents can kill people, but that isn't a threat to America, it's a threat to a minuscule group of Americans. It's like if you asked, "who is the greater threat to America - conservatives or sharks?"

Their policies present multiple dangers.

Their utter rejection of modern economics has led to an economic policy that, were it actually enacted, would be disastrous for America. And before you start bickering about Keynesian economics... Even ignoring the overwhelming evidence supporting stimulus during the current liquidity trap, and the evidence supporting the idea that the stimulus we have already applied has, in fact, been helpful, there is no denying that major players in the tea party supported unconditionally defaulting on the US debt. The showdown about this led directly to Standard and Poor's lowering the country's credit rating. Had congress actually gone through with it, the damage would have been a pretty big deal.

Their utter rejection of modern science has led to both an educational strategy which is harmful and an environmental policy that basically comes down to "let the free market sort it out". Despite the overwhelming international evidence of anthropogenic global warming, they continue to deny its existence, or that we can do anything about it. They want to get rid of the EPA, for christ's sake. This is a terrible idea. And when it comes to actually teaching things, there's the abstract damage that comes from school curricula that hobbles scientific minds (intelligent design, anyone?) and the very real damage that comes from teaching abstinence-only sex education.

There's more, but I'll leave it at that.

And of course, we're comparing a political faction with the power to do real damage to America's economy and people, and a political faction with the power to maybe kill a few people but have no direct input in American politics... Yeah, who the hell do you think is more dangerous? Hell, the democrats are a greater threat than Islamists, and I'm saying this as a social democrat liberal!

 

Sharks can't live outside of water.

Islamists will, on the other hand, go anywhere and would do anything as their act of Jihad. Even maintain a false identity and, 'be ready at the switch' if/when called upon. This might be a long term, dutiful and necessarily secretive performance of one's Jihad obligation.

Jihad is struggling to help Islam, ultimately, attain a global caliphate. And Jihad, the violent or non-violent struggle to help the progress of Islam, is required of all Muslims.

Is it not?

 

For whom did you cast your ballot?

 

Please tell me you're not going to bring up that Taqqiya bull(*)(*)(*)(*) again. It's been demonstrated a hoax so many times but for some reason just won't die.

Well, I'm not a Muslim, but asking my friends who are... no. No, it is not. In fact, Jihad is considered by them not a struggle to help Islam, but a war against oneself. So there's that. You need to stop pretending that radical Islam is so attractive to Muslims in the west.

 

"...that the dar al Islam is permanently under Jihad obligation until dar al-harb is reduced to nonexistence."

Majid Khadduri

Well, I'm not a Muslim, but asking my friends who are... no. No, it is not. In fact, Jihad is considered by them not a struggle to help Islam, but a war against oneself. So there's that. You need to stop pretending that radical Islam is so attractive to Muslims in the west.[/QUOTE]

Surprise your friends by showing them your diligence and initiative in finding the TRUTH about Islam and they may show you what I'm warning you to beware. You know what I mean?

 

Surprise your friends by showing them your diligence and initiative in finding the TRUTH about Islam and they may show you what I'm warning you to beware. You know what I mean?[/QUOTE]
http://alexanderbackman.com/catholic_narcos_converting_to_islam.html
How about Mexico ?

 

A radicalist interpretation from a radical. You still don't understand that there are many different interpretations of Islam, and that your particular pet peeve radicalist version isn't exactly the dominant version.

Yeah. Sure. Right after you tell all your Christian friends about how they should be out stoning people to death for being gay or having multi-threaded garments.

 

Sure it is. Until your friends "take their religion back" it is. BTW, don't hold your breath waiting for THAT to happen.

You sound like the resident Dhimmi constantly having to ask your Muslim masters the answers to simple questions and then believing the lies they feed you to propagandize us with.

When will you actually convert?

Maybe then you'll be able to answer simple questions like, "what is Jihad's purpose and which Muslims are excused from performing Jihad?" for yourself, er for Islam.

 

A war against "ONESELF," eh?

One part of self wants to be normal and that part of the self is at war with the other part of "oneself" that is instructed to help Islam progress.

The struggle comes from doing MORE or more abundantly or more effectively or for a longer period of time, more boldly, more violently, or whatever it is one does to help Islam grow toward global dominance, to struggle to do it better.

Otherwise, what is the point or the goal or ideal being strived for or struggled for if not for the progression of Islam?

Nothing else would make sense.

Now you go and ask your friends so they can tell you another lie you can parrot to us here.

 

http://alexanderbackman.com/catholic_narcos_converting_to_islam.html
How about Mexico ?[/QUOTE]

The Mexicans have the potential of being a very great threat IF they had a hard on for US or they wanted something we possess. But, as we speak they don't pose much of a threat to America, do you think they do?

 

The Mexicans have the potential of being a very great threat IF they had a hard on for US or they wanted something we possess. But, as we speak they don't pose much of a threat to America, do you think they do?[/QUOTE]

The Mexican people themselves no not all. However terrorist yes. Have an unprotected border. Yeshttp://youtu.be/-kKr44Ey8WU
http://youtu.be/-kKr44Ey8WU

 

The Mexican people themselves no not all. However terrorist yes. Have an unprotected border. Yeshttp://youtu.be/-kKr44Ey8WU
http://youtu.be/-kKr44Ey8WU[/QUOTE]

IMO, the reason for the post-9/11 push to close the Southern border wasd to stem possible terrorist infiltration activity but then the anti-Mexican bloc of American voters complicated things by wanting to ban illegal MEXICANS too! LOLOL

 

I would agree with this. Liberals do seem to be their own worst enemy. They cause all of the problems they complain about. Indeed if they left the country, they would take all of those problems with them. And then they would be puzzled as to why their new environment had all the same problems as their old one. Never putting two and two together and recognizing that they, themselves, are the common denominator.

 

Since I said I was for GOP, that suggests I didn't vote Democrat

 

Yeah yeah, you don't like Muslims. We get it. But before I go call my friends terrorists, I'd appreciate if you could even acknowledge that comparing the Islam practiced most commonly in the west to that of Al Qaeda is akin to comparing the Unitarians to the WBC.

 

Terrific post!

 

QUICK!

Don't tell anyone that you suspect them to be terrorists!

STOP!

 

Any actual content to this, or just another context-free, data-free rant about how (*)(*)(*)(*)ty <insert your political opponents here> are?

...And here, you go right off the rails.

 

I have no problem with individual Muslims if they are good, decent, pleasant and etc. and so on.

What I have a problem with, in the context of these posts, is in getting side tracked by discussing the form of Islam being practiced in the U.S. There is no inconsistency here. Simply being Muslim is enough to help the progression of Islam.

In fact, the more peaceable and friendly and Westernized a Muslim can be only helps the long term prospects for Islam to reign supreme over all.

 

I'm trying to wrap my head around this idea. These people do not even remotely espouse the same values as the group you are criticizing. They do not consciously or unconsciously want to achieve these goals, and most of them would vocally object to attempts to insert Sharia into the legal code. And yet, despite all of this, they are aiding the progression of radical Islam.

...Nope, don't have quite enough head to wrap around it. Sorry.

 

They represent different kinds of threats.

- - - Updated - - -

They represent different kinds of threats.