«12. . .3,5493,5503,5513,5523,5533,5543,555. . .3,6073,608»
Final Vegas tally. This poll also ran on Facebook.
No: 6 (15.38%)
Yes: 20 (51.28%)
Capital of fun: 13 (33.33%)
I adjusted for the 3 double votes
Yes, perfectly fine
Excellent.
Post self-deleted by Quayle.
Nah, you can have both. Like me.
The United States military has been in decline, both as a proportion of the economy and in terms of aircraft, ships and so on, for 50 years.
The next President will inherit a military that is in a state of collapse - around 3% of GDP (under Ike and Kennedy it was well over 10%) a lot of which is not even spent on military matters (it is spent on all sorts of nonsense), and with fewer submarines (and so on) than China.
I wish my fellow libertarians would stop writing as if was 1960 - when most Federal government spending really was on the military, it is not now (most government spending is on the Welfare State), we must focus on the modern situation - not the situation of 50 or 60 years ago.
For the record - I do think that "nation building" wars in the Islamic world (Afghanistan, Iraq and so on) are an utter waste of human lives. These wars are based on the false view that the problem in these countries is a few nasty terrorists - in reality it is the general population of these countries that is no good (the situation is hopeless).
But try and explain that to people and they just scream "racist" at you - as if Islam was a race.
Pull out - no good is done by trying to civilise the warriors of the Sunni or the Shia. I know it sounds harsh (it is harsh) - but just let them slaughter each other.
Elwher and The midwest and great lakes
As a Muslim myself, I won't call you racist, but I can tell you that what you say is not entirely true. The people doing all this fighting is a tiny minority, in most countries 1% or less, but I do agree it is none of the U.S.'s business on how we take care of our criminals. Islam is not inherently bad, that's like saying Christianity is inherently bad because Catholics decided to slaughter thousands of innocent Muslims, Jews, and even non-Catholic Christians in the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition. We have fallen on hard times however, and the U.S. invading countries repeatedly on very weak basis' is not helping.
Also, I must correct you on your comment on military spending; while military spending is significantly lower than it used to be, it is still the highest on the budget list. That also includes weapons which go straight to Israel, however, so I don't know how it would look after you took that out.
The merchant republics, Elwher, and The midwest and great lakes
For my own part, I'm annoyed that the game seems to assume my people are all rude! Where are the issues that make people nice? Probably the ones with welfare.
We honestly need only 5% of all spending for the military, and even then the US would still have the largest military in the world. While I still feel like the US should use it's military as a "bargaining tool" to keep Russia and China in line, it is absurd that we spend so much taxpayer's money on creating absurd weapons of war that'll never be used. And guess what else, all of these "technologies" that become unused in the US military are now being incorporated in the police force domestically.
Cut the military by 3/4s and abolish the utter failure that is social security, and I'll be happy for now. That rids us of over 35% of spending.
Otherwise I agree with the rest. Arabia is a lost cause for nation building, the only people that can get the Arabic countries into the 21st century are the people living there themselves. I advocate economic empowerment to that extent by abolishing any restrictions to trade and tariffs from that region in order to facilitate a revolution that will establish a liberal democracy, much similar to the Baltic countries of the 90s.
I'm surprised that you have some of the happiest citizens and the longest lifespan in the region. And yeah, socialist nations tend to be the "nice" ones. Whoever was programming this must of forgotten that fiscal conservatives tend to be the biggest contributors to charities.
I have some of the happiest citzens in the world too, I think I broke the top 500 at one point when I was more active.
That's exactly my thinking, I choose tons of charity options but they only seem to make my people meaner. Doesn't make any sense.
When I watch Al Jazeera (an America hating Muslim television station - owned by Qatar, a country which presents itself as a "friend" of the West whilst financing ISIS and so on) it looks like a lot more than 1% of the population of, say, Syria or Iraq who are interested in killing (either for the Sunni or the Shia cause).
But let us say you are correct - that it is only 1%.
1% who take Mohammed seriously can easily lead 99% who do not know what to believe.
And are not the 1% correct?
Did not Mohammed welcome the murder of the old blind poet who mocked him? When the men tricked their way into the camp of the old blind poet, pretending to be friends and then coming close to the old blind man......
And when the pregnant female poet later protested at the murder of the old blind poet - what happened to the pregnant female poet? Do I have to remind you?
These events (and all the rest) were not the deeds of evil people centuries later perverting the teachings of Mohammed - they were deeds of Mohammed's own time, and done with his approval
So when a mocking film maker is murdered on the streets of a Western city, the murderer knows that Mohammed would approve - because Mohammed ordered such murders himself (of the mocking poets).
And when a Islamic power (for example Iran) tries to deceive infidels with the talk of peace - its rulers know that Mohammed himself (a military commander and political leader of genius) did the same. His most favoured military tactic (and it is one that many commanders have used) was to promise peace (to give his most sacred oath of peace and friendship) and then wait for a moonless night.....
I am an old fat man, with various health problems ("then exercise" - err not really an option I am afraid), who has seen a lot of evil, but I am not yet senile - and talk of peace does not deceive me. Although there is nothing I can do about such things now.
Still this is a side issue. People in, say South Dakota, are hardly likely to fall victim to the warriors of Islam (Sunni or Shia).
However, a world dominated by China (not an Islamic power at all - indeed they oppress Muslims in their empire) would effect everyone - including people in "small town U.S.A".
McCosh is right, let the cvnts slaughter each other. Or no even better, kill all and invest over the rubble to, you know, finally make that part of the world useful.
inb4 you call me racist, well yeah, and fvck you too. Kebabs don't get any respect from me.
i hate right-wingers that go on and on and on about islam because if they got told that the time has become where muslms must be removed from society most of them would start backtracking and going "b-b-b-but"
Well yeah, at least I'm honest about it. Either get rid of that horrid sh!t religion and stay, or keep it and gtfo. You want to convert us forcefully? Call our women sluts because they don't wear veils? Persecute jews who have been in Europe for like forever? Burn gays? Fvckoff then. And never come back.
out of the 6,000,000 french muslims we have 900,000 salafists. All of these can suck on my balls and get the fvck out.
There are many points in the Quran which contradict what you say. I don't know the story you talk about with the poets, but I can assure you, either the story has been corrupted by later generations, or there is simply more to it than that, because the Quran would directly condemn that act, for example:
[4:89] They wish that you disbelieve as they have disbelieved, then you become equal. Do not consider them friends, unless they mobilize along with you in the cause of GOD. If they turn against you, you shall fight them, and you may kill them when you encounter them in war. You shall not accept them as friends, or allies.
[4:90] Exempted are those who join people with whom you have signed a peace treaty, and those who come to you wishing not to fight you, nor fight their relatives. Had GOD willed, He could have permitted them to fight against you. Therefore, if they leave you alone, refrain from fighting you, and offer you peace, then GOD gives you no excuse to fight them.
[4:91] You will find others who wish to make peace with you, and also with their people. However, as soon as war erupts, they fight against you. Unless these people leave you alone, offer you peace, and stop fighting you, you may fight them when you encounter them. Against these, we give you a clear authorization.
Therefore, it is unjust to kill an unbeliever if they do not fight you. In a later Sura, it even says you should allow them in your lands:
[9:6] If one of the idol worshipers sought safe passage with you, you shall grant him safe passage, so that he can hear the word of GOD, then send him back to his place of security. That is because they are people who do not know.
There are numerous others which support these words, including that even those who mock the religion should be left alone. And for your first response, as I said, most countries. On top of this, the people of Syria and Iraq have other reasons to hate us besides religion, and I'd bet 90% hate us for purely political reasons and not religious ones, although they like to twist scripture in their favor to make it look like they're righteous. Note too that the populations of Iraq and Syria account for only about 10% of the entire Muslim population, so even if every single one hated us for religious reason, they'd still be a global minority.
As for you, we could say the same about Christians and Jews in our land, and before you pull the 'we were there first' bit, remember before Christianity, Europe was pagan land. I have no issue with Christians and Jews in Muslim lands, and in my mind, Muslims have a right to be in your country, seeing as how the western European powers owned the vast majority of the Middle-East for over a hundred years.
I don't see Christians and Jews causing even 1% of the quantity of problems muslim pause. And fvck no, salafist scum does not belong in my country. Nor in any civilized place.
Agreed that the pagan times were the best.
The colonization argument is flawed.
Regardless of anyone's views on Islam, Muhammad was a paedophile, a rapist, a warmonger and a mass murderer.
How so? His wives married willingly, and it was very common for people to marry at a young age because people died sooner. Essentially, marrying someone at 12 then was the same as marrying someone at 24 now. The Prophet only fought the ones who attacked him, who were many, and was much more merciful than his enemies. He would usually let them ago if he caught them, unless they said they would kill more innocent people, and then, and only then, did he execute them. Considering that the pagans he fought would torture, rape, and otherwise make suffer the people they caught, be they soldiers or not, the Prophet was very merciful.
No, it's not like saying that. Catholicism is based on a book which has some bad things in it here and there, but are overshadowed by the broader ideals of peace, forgiveness and love. Islam is fundamentally built on a doctrine of hatred and fear, permitting slave-ownership and the rape of women, dictating the killing of non-believers, holy warfare, etc. Islam is fundamentally a set of ideals that can be changed, and must be changed if it wishes to truly be a religion of peace.
No. The Department of Health and Human Services is the biggest item on the budget, expending almost $1 trillion. The Department of Defense spends about $593 billion per year. http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/charts/
Most sources indicate that Aisha was six or seven when she married Muhammad, who was 49 at the time. Their marriage was consummated when she was 9. If your claim had a grain of truth to it, then most 12-year-olds would be marrying other 12-year-olds. But no, the right to marry a child was exclusively reserved for men. "The culture of the time" does not make paedophilia OK - it is and was absolutely monstrous. This poor girl had no ability to consent whatsoever. She was given away against her will by her family, groomed and raped. She later came to worship Muhammad. Stockholm Syndrome at its most sickening.
Sure, if "launching a mass conquest across Arabia to spread your ideals by force and sculpt an empire out of it" counts as "being attacked." He was a power-hungry maniac that literally rode into villages, killed the men and enslaved the women and children, telling his followers it was OK to kill or rape them - which was later put into the Koran.
He also had no qualms about assassinating political enemies and opponents. According to Wiki Islam, he ordered or condoned at least 43 assassinations, including the massacre of most of the Banu Qurayza tribe, culminating in over 600 beheadings. Compelling reasons for these extra-judicial murders include adultery, "opposing Muhammad with poetry," leaving Islam, being Jewish, not divulging the location of hidden treasure, and killing off all male teenagers and adults because "an angel told me to". 600-900 people were beheaded in this particular massacre. Boy, what a man of peace.
http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad
Muslims should either ditch this monstrous warlord or fully embrace his twisted morality. You cannot have it both ways. It would be like saying "I love Hitler. He was a fantastic man who made some great speeches and taught about love and forgiveness. He taught about purity and love. The Holocaust didn't happen, btw."
«12. . .3,5493,5503,5513,5523,5533,5543,555. . .3,6073,608»
Advertisement
