I think hunting is great....but I just don't do it myself.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Terrorist Attack in Oslo, Norway
- Thread starter jarofthoughts
- Start date
Marble
Rolling Marble
Comunism is a left winged ideology and see what communist countries have done & do (UdSSR, Cambodia, China, North Korea).
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
While it is true that some Communists are leftists, not all leftists are Communists. Hence, left wing ideology itself is not inherently violent, nor does it necessarily foment violence.
In most countries nowadays, the leftist ideology generally favors reduction of militarism, whereas the right tends to favor the opposite. So Republicans in the US tend to be more supportive of military actions outside of the country than Democrats, although the truth is that both parties have supported the boondoggle wars we are stuck in. Obama recommitted us to the hopeless war in Afghanistan, even though his own party seems to be more opposed to it than Republicans. Both sides support violent behavior, but the right supports it more strongly than the left.
That's a very convenient set of definitions you have there.
But I wouldn't take much pride in the rallying cry....
"We're better cuz we're slightly less violent than the other guy!"
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Believe me, I do not. I'm saying that both sides share the blame, but the blame is not equal. Had Al Gore's popular win in the 2000 election translated into an electoral college win, we might never have invaded Afghanistan, and we almost certainly would not have invaded Iraq. The fault that lies with the left is that they were enablers of these very wrong-headed acts of war, not the primary instigators.
Last edited:
Coulda woulda shoulda...who knows what Gore would've done. No one expected Obama to engage Lybia militarily either.
Btw, tis a myth that Gore won the popular vote. I recall reading multiple analyses which differed in outcome depending
upon assumptions. Statistically, it was about as close as they get. But that ain't our system anyway.
I think the Libertarian candidate won over 50% of the vote, but the Big Two conspiracy kept us marginalized.
Source?
Al Gore - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States presidential election, 2000 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Once you validate it go correct wikipedia. Tis a myth is just your opinion because you can believe whatever you believe despite what actually happened.
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
He would probably have continued many of the Clinton administration's policies and strategies, which included a watchful eye on Osama bin Laden, something that the bin-Laden family friend and Saddam-obsessed, GW Bush, thought was a waste of time and resources. It is obvious that Gore had no interest in invading Iraq. He would have been far more cautious about an invasion of Afghanistan.
This is a completely separate issue from the two major wars that are now dragging our economy down.
I think that your recollection may be a trifle skewed, but Sententia asked the right question. The official final count has Gore at roughly half a million voters above Bush. You may be thinking of the popular vote in Florida--the vote count that the Republican-dominated Supreme Court stopped, before ducking out the back door to escape the press.
I think that Libertarians are adept at keeping themselves marginalized. Most seem to identify with Republican goals lately, since those seem the most inimical to a functional government.
Of course it is my opinion. Tis based upon analyses I vaguely recall after the election.
I also concocted my own method for a re-count which would've put Bush significantly ahead.
But to cook the method (as many have done) is meaningless. It was close, & sore losers always seem to carp about conspiracies.
I had no horse in that race anyway, having voted Libertarian, & seeing no big differences between the big 2 anyway.
I see another fun election season coming up.....
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...n_gop_lets_take_these_son_of_*******_out.html
More histrionics, profanity, allusions to violence.....oh, boy!
Last edited:
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
The official vote count has Al Gore winning the popular vote and losing the electoral vote. I still think you are confusing it with the popular vote in Florida. The official count had him losing the vote there, although a lot of us still believe that that election was rigged. There is no controversy over whether Gore won the popular vote in the US election. He did.
I was addressing the whole country, rather than just Florida.
And while that official tally puts Gore ahead, the difference is small (albeit, bigger than I remembered) & could vary enuf to alter the result, depending upon recount scenarios.
Of course, I'm certain of some things......Dubya won, & my guy lost by a statistically significant margin (both popular & electoral votes).
You just wait til 2012! We'll double our take.
Last edited: