Another Topic The Right Wing Will Never Talk About

[Old_Trapper70]

Ironically, the real Reagan would be considered a RINO in today's political climate.

And he was. Reagan was no "conservative", and did more to destroy the middle class then anyone in history. He set the groundwork for Bush43.

http://www.salon.com/2015/02/07/ron...president_had_quite_a_brian_williams_problem/

 

[YehYah]

'm sorry, I thought you c

Thank you, Old_Trapper70, Maybe this will help. ("Yes Reagan was a saint" "No Reagan was not a saint"), Feel free to copy and paste one.

Unsolicited opinions are more acceptable when kept brief and concise.

"I resent Reagan and all that he stood for" would have been more than sufficient. No justification required, being it's your opinion.

We justify our opinions when we form them. To seek justification for our opinions from others borders on insecurity.
Seeking justification for our opinions using the opinions of others borders on insanity.
Seeking justification for our opinions by demeaning others borders on cruelty.

If possible I would like to get your opinion on what makes a great leader.

YEH YAH

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Thank you, Old_Trapper70, Maybe this will help. ("Yes Reagan was a saint" "No Reagan was not a saint"), Feel free to copy and paste one.

Unsolicited opinions are more acceptable when kept brief and concise.

"I resent Reagan and all that he stood for" would have been more than sufficient. No justification required, being it's your opinion.

We justify our opinions when we form them. To seek justification for our opinions from others borders on insecurity.
Seeking justification for our opinions using the opinions of others borders on insanity.
Seeking justification for our opinions by demeaning others borders on cruelty.

If possible I would like to get your opinion on what makes a great leader.

YEH YAH

Well, I don't feel the need to justify what was obviously sarcasm, and you are too ignorant to realize such. And if you think you have any opinions that are solely those of your own without the support of others then I would say you are quite the narcissist, or a simple egomaniac.

As to a "great leader", there would be many qualifications the first would be one of honesty, and honor. However, in the culture we now live in these types have mostly disappeared.

 

[PLC1]

Well, I don't feel the need to justify what was obviously sarcasm, and you are too ignorant to realize such. And if you think you have any opinions that are solely those of your own without the support of others then I would say you are quite the narcissist, or a simple egomaniac.

As to a "great leader", there would be many qualifications the first would be one of honesty, and honor. However, in the culture we now live in these types have mostly disappeared.

Lots of people are honest and honorable, but those qualities seem to be a disqualifier for political office.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Lots of people are honest and honorable, but those qualities seem to be a disqualifier for political office.

If that were true then they would not be voting for Trump, or Hillary, just as they would not have voted for Clinton, Reagan, Bush43, and a whole list of others in the WH, and the Congress. In fact, they would be running for office.

 

[YehYah]

Well, I don't feel the need to justify what was obviously sarcasm, and you are too ignorant to realize such. And if you think you have any opinions that are solely those of your own without the support of others then I would say you are quite the narcissist, or a simple egomaniac.

As to a "great leader", there would be many qualifications the first would be one of honesty, and honor. However, in the culture we now live in these types have mostly disappeared.

Well, I don't feel the need to justify what was obviously sarcasm, and you are too ignorant to realize such. And if you think you have any opinions that are solely those of your own without the support of others then I would say you are quite the narcissist, or a simple egomaniac.

Sarcasm is mockery and benefits no one.

I think you might have confused fact with opinion. Opinions formed by me are mine, how I formed them doesn't matter, that's why
they're called "my opinions". For example "Reagan was not a saint" is not an opinion, it's a fact, and requires no justification.
Reagan was a great leader, is an opinion and requires justification.
Attempting to demean via name calling is a sign of immaturity, and is an opinion held by many, but it is also "my opinion", and only
requires my justification.

Thank you Old_Trapper70 for a brief and concise opinion. I appreciate that, as do others, I'm sure.

It would have been, and would be, an invaluable gain to the countries of the world if all great leaders had been, and were, honest
and honerable men. To our misfortune not all leaders had, or has those two character traits.
In my opinion, to be a great leader requires the communication skills to unite the masses toward a common goal, be it good or evil,
as demonstrated by leaders such as F.D.R., Churchill, Hitler, and J.F.K to name a few.

Also in my opinion, all wars are bad, and all freedoms are good.

Thank again.

YEH YAH

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Sarcasm is mockery and benefits no one.

Who says anything has to benefit everyone, or anyone, other then the one using the sarcasm? Sarcasm often highlights the weaknesses of ones argument, or opinion, and thus is beneficial.

I think you might have confused fact with opinion. Opinions formed by me are mine, how I formed them doesn't matter, that's why
they're called "my opinions". For example "Reagan was not a saint" is not an opinion, it's a fact, and requires no justification.
Reagan was a great leader, is an opinion and requires justification.
Attempting to demean via name calling is a sign of immaturity, and is an opinion held by many, but it is also "my opinion", and only
requires my justification.

You were the one falsely claiming I was seeking justification. As to Reagan, in the minds of many the idea of Reagan as a "saint" has validity, and thus is an "opinion".

It would have been, and would be, an invaluable gain to the countries of the world if all great leaders had been, and were, honest
and honorable men. To our misfortune not all leaders had, or has those two character traits.
In my opinion, to be a great leader requires the communication skills to unite the masses toward a common goal, be it good or evil,
as demonstrated by leaders such as F.D.R., Churchill, Hitler, and J.F.K to name a few.

Interesting that you threw Hitler in there. So, according to your prior statement, how do you "justify" classifying a "leader" who's only tools for accomplishing what he did are murder, and terrorism?

Also in my opinion, all wars are bad, and all freedoms are good.

Yet some wars are necessary.

 

[Lisa Davis]

OK, I have a lot of friends that are Muslim. MOST of them abhor Muslims that use Islam as a justification for their violence. However, I will say that I know a few Muslims that I believe sympathize with the terrorist actions at least in part because they pretty much won't speak on the issue with anyone that isn't a follower of Islam. Am I leery of all Muslims? No. I will say though I have been on a plane that has had a Muslim passenger more than once and guaranteed there is always someone who says SOMETHING to me regarding the fact that they're on board. So, apparently, there are quite a few people that do stereotype everyone of Arab descent. Fear will do that to you.

 

[pwarbi]

OK, I have a lot of friends that are Muslim. MOST of them abhor Muslims that use Islam as a justification for their violence. However, I will say that I know a few Muslims that I believe sympathize with the terrorist actions at least in part because they pretty much won't speak on the issue with anyone that isn't a follower of Islam. Am I leery of all Muslims? No. I will say though I have been on a plane that has had a Muslim passenger more than once and guaranteed there is always someone who says SOMETHING to me regarding the fact that they're on board. So, apparently, there are quite a few people that do stereotype everyone of Arab descent. Fear will do that to you.

Here in the UK, studies have shown that around 25% of Muslims have some sympathy with the Muslim extremists, and while they themselves dint want to be associated with that behaviour, they don't have a problem with those that do.

25% of course is a minority, but if that figure is around the same as in the USA, then that's one hell of a lot of Muslims that people need to be wary of so I can see why there's that fear in people.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Here in the UK, studies have shown that around 25% of Muslims have some sympathy with the Muslim extremists, and while they themselves dint want to be associated with that behaviour, they don't have a problem with those that do.

25% of course is a minority, but if that figure is around the same as in the USA, then that's one hell of a lot of Muslims that people need to be wary of so I can see why there's that fear in people.

Then what do you do with the higher percentage that are actually helping the FBI, etc., in preventing activities by the radicals?

Second, there seems to have been no fear for the past 30 years of having around 30 Jihadist training camps scattered about the country.

 

[YehYah]

Who says anything has to benefit everyone, or anyone, other then the one using the sarcasm? Sarcasm often highlights the weaknesses of ones argument, or opinion, and thus is beneficial.

If sarcasm was beneficial, it would be used by ad agencies to promote products ranging from cereal to luxury cars.

You were the one falsely claiming I was seeking justification. As to Reagan, in the minds of many the idea of Reagan as a "saint" has validity, and thus is an "opinion".

You stated"St. Reagan", then when questioned if it were true, you pasted an article from The Watley Review as justification for
stating such. Am I wrong in assuming that an answer of "No, Reagan was not a saint" would have avoided the so called false
accusation?

Interesting that you threw Hitler in there. So, according to your prior statement, how do you "justify" classifying a "leader" who's only tools for accomplishing what he did are murder, and terrorism?

Hitler transformed Germany from a country in economic and industrial ruin, with an impotent military force, into one of the most powerful countries of the era, both economic and industrial, with a military force to be reckoned with. He did that in six years. That entitled him the label of a great leader.
I'm not aware of Hitler personally killing anyone, but his hatred for the jewish people and surrounding himself with aides that needed little motivation to murder cost millions their lives.
Not condoning the murder and terrorizing of millions of Jews would have also entitled him the label of a good and righteous leader, there is a difference.

If murder and terrorism were the only requirements for bringing about economic and industrial growth. Syria,Iraq and Afganistan
would have been industrial and economic giants decades ago.

Thanks,

YEH YAH

 

[dogtowner]

If sarcasm was beneficial, it would be used by ad agencies to promote products ranging from cereal to luxury cars.

You stated"St. Reagan", then when questioned if it were true, you pasted an article from The Watley Review as justification for
stating such. Am I wrong in assuming that an answer of "No, Reagan was not a saint" would have avoided the so called false
accusation?

Hitler transformed Germany from a country in economic and industrial ruin, with an impotent military force, into one of the most powerful countries of the era, both economic and industrial, with a military force to be reckoned with. He did that in six years. That entitled him the label of a great leader.
I'm not aware of Hitler personally killing anyone, but his hatred for the jewish people and surrounding himself with aides that needed little motivation to murder cost millions their lives.
Not condoning the murder and terrorizing of millions of Jews would have also entitled him the label of a good and righteous leader, there is a difference.

If murder and terrorism were the only requirements for bringing about economic and industrial growth. Syria,Iraq and Afganistan
would have been industrial and economic giants decades ago.

Thanks,

YEH YAH

Those who can only think in one dimension have much to learn.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Those who can only think in one dimension have much to learn.

And you can't even reach one dimension.

 

[YehYah]

And you can't even reach one dimension.

Those who can only think in one dimension have much to learn.

A true learning experience indeed.
And just when I assumed that the flow of learning opportunities had ebbed, this dazzling gem appears on the horizon.

"Belittling in tandem". ( Overshadowed only by the introduction of the Intelligent Toilet, I'm sure.)

The sheer coordination and timing is astounding, spurred on by multidiminsional and progressive thinking, no doubt.

Like two pees in a pod striving to advance higher education. With this added to my bank of knowledge, I can definitly see a
Phd. in my future.

Wishing to add more to my knowledge bank, could you possibly answer the following question?

In the Politico article by Mr. Hirsh, why was a county sheriff cruiser photoshopped into the mosque image rather than a Dearborn
PD cruiser? A vehicle from chief Haddads' department would have been more appropriate, wouldn't you think?

By the way, if anyone from the FBI happens to be reading this post, would you and your colleagues please take out the 30+ jihadists
training camps located in the U.S.? They're driving my benevolent teacher up the wall.

Thanks,

yeh Yah

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Like two pees in a pod striving to advance higher education. With this added to my bank of knowledge, I can definitly see a
Phd. in my future.

In what? Stupidity? Or arrogance?

Wishing to add more to my knowledge bank, could you possibly answer the following question?

In the Politico article by Mr. Hirsh, why was a county sheriff cruiser photoshopped into the mosque image rather than a Dearborn
PD cruiser? A vehicle from chief Haddads' department would have been more appropriate, wouldn't you think?

Maybe, however, the emphasis of the article was on cooperation between the different enforcement agencies. Odd that you would make a point of that rather then the idea that Muslims are working with authorities to prevent more attacks by radicalized Muslims.

By the way, if anyone from the FBI happens to be reading this post, would you and your colleagues please take out the 30+ jihadists
training camps located in the U.S.? They're driving my benevolent teacher up the wall.

Thanks,

yeh Yah

Those camps have been there for over 30 years now. Perhaps the forces that be feel it is better to know where they are at then not.