November,,,POST of the month nominations

Shangrila · Nov 1, 2015

Thank you for participating.
Please post both the entire text and link, along with brief explanation why you find your nomination worthwhile.
Members are encouraged to like their favorite post. At the end of the month, staff will count the likes and announce the best post winner.
We are hoping and emphasizing that members should only nominate posts that meet all posting rules and guidelines. Removing inappropriate nominations will be at the discretion of the PF staff.

DarkSkies · Nov 15, 2015

I would like to nominate this post by godisnotreal because it explains the form of thinking behind terrorism. Great post.

Actually, the liberal who wrote the Salon article has a great point. A terrorist is a person who believes in a cause so strongly, that he is willing to kill other people to justify his own cause.

The moral of the story - Don't believe in anything too strongly.

This doesn't really matter if you're conservative or liberal. In our modern day society, strong beliefs are bad. Because if you believe in something so strongly (whether it's religion, politics, whatever), that you're willing to die for your beliefs, then you are also willing to kill for your beliefs--and that makes you--by definition --a TERRORIST.

But in modern day America, conservatives are more likely to hold strong beliefs than liberals, and thus conservatives are closer to being terrorists than liberals are. People often criticize politicians for being "wishy-washy". But being unsure or uncommitted to a cause is actually a sign of maturity. Because in life, things are often uncertain, and it's a sign of maturity to accept this reality. The opposite - a steadfast, blind, stubborn adherence to belief is actually a departure from reality--it is a delusion. And delusion has a name - it's called zealotry aka radicalism. And the logical consequence of radicalism and zealotry is terrorism. It doesn't matter whether you're a radical islamist or a radical christian or a radical environmentalist or a radical capitalist or communist. Any time of radicalism leads to terrorism. Let's not forget that.
Click to expand...

Found here:
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=432431&p=1065550089#post1065550089

Junkieturtle · Nov 22, 2015

I would like to nominate this post by Perotista. This post and his posts in general show what I consider to be good objective analysis of the topics. It is refreshing to read posts that do not seem to be written to make you favorably view one politician or ideology over the other. It is truth that is needed now and always, and truth is made up of both the good and the bad. We cannot value honesty or truth if we are not willing to be honest about both.

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...ple-good-enough-democracy.html#post1065576729

I spent 10 years in Southeast Asia, 1967-76 and 7 of them were fighting the North Vietnamese in different countries. It hurt me to first see Carter and then Reagan support the Khmer Rouge only because the Vietnamese invaded Cambodia and put an end to Pol Pot's killing fields. Pol Pot killed between 2-3 million of his own people in once was a country of 7 million. We should have been thanking the Vietnamese from the bottom of our hearts. That was a huge turning point in my life. How in the world can we back someone who kills around 40% of his own people only because we still had a grudge against the Vietnamese.

Not only did we stand by and let Pol Pot do his thing, we stood by when the Pathet Lao along with the Vietnamese tried to exterminate the Hmong Tribe in Laos. The same tribe that fought the North Vietnamese and communist on our behest.

Was the harsh communist regime of the Vietnamese after they took over Cambodia better for Cambodians than the rule of Pol Pot, you betcha. Was it better for the Laotians, no way. But over time all the countries of Southeast Asia have adjusted and prospered.

If we had stayed out of Syria and left Assad alone, would he have put down the rebellion and thus ISIS in the process? Who knows? When to intervene and when not is as you put it, not easy to determine. Having my background I could understand intervening to prevent communist expansion during the cold war. Believe it or not times and geopolitics were much simpler. Today the world is one heck of a confusing place.

Back during the cold war things seem black and white. Good vs. Evil. Today we know leaving Khadafy in place in Libya would have been the best choice. Not a nice guy, but no exporter of terrorism and he did keep Libya fairly stable. Assad may fall into that category.

I was for the war in Afghanistan. All chief Omar had to do to prevent it was hand over UBL and his Taliban could have continue to march to one tribal rule of Afghanistan. Getting UBL was a must. Iraq or should I say the second Iraq war, I was against it. It made no sense. Libya, against it and trying to eliminate Assad, against.

But what is amazing is the partisan divide. When a republican president tries regime change or a war most Democrats are against it. When a Democrat president tries regime change or a war most Republicans oppose it. I am old fashioned, the party of the president shouldn't matter, it is the goal and whether it is a good idea or not. Why do doves who were against Desert Storm, Iraq and Afghanistan suddenly become hawks when it comes to Bosnia, Libya and taking out Assad? The reverse also applies.

I am at a lost. The united America during the cold war with the exception of Vietnam has fragmented into something so confused it is not understandable.
Click to expand...

Doug_yvr · Nov 22, 2015

Junkieturtle said: ↑

I would like to nominate this post by Perotista. This post and his posts in general show what I consider to be good objective analysis of the topics. It is refreshing to read posts that do not seem to be written to make you favorably view one politician or ideology over the other. It is truth that is needed now and always, and truth is made up of both the good and the bad. We cannot value honesty or truth if we are not willing to be honest about both.

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...ple-good-enough-democracy.html#post1065576729
Click to expand...

I was just about to nominate this same post. I agree with Junkieturtle* that this is an excellent example of a well thought out analysis of a situation he knows from the ground but also is able to look at the broader scope of the situation.

"I agree with Junkieturtle" is a phrase usually only uttered after a good hit of acid. Also 'Junkieturtle' would be a good band name.

Dollface · Nov 28, 2015

I didnt win??? This is rigged . Wink wink.

RPA1 · Dec 4, 2015

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=435187&p=1065613746#post1065613746

This has got my vote.

tecoyah · Dec 9, 2015

RPA1 said: ↑

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=435187&p=1065613746#post1065613746

This has got my vote.
Click to expand...

I happily second this.

Log in or Sign up

November,,,POST of the month nominations

Shangrila staff Past Donor

DarkSkies Well-Known Member

Junkieturtle Well-Known Member Donor

Doug_yvr Well-Known Member Past Donor

Dollface New Member

RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

November,,,POST of the month nominations

Shangrila staff Past Donor

DarkSkies Well-Known Member

Junkieturtle Well-Known Member Donor

Doug_yvr Well-Known Member Past Donor

Dollface New Member

RPA1 Well-Known Member Past Donor

tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Useful Searches