DescentBB

Find some time to listen to Mr. Cruz discuss the real threat that exists and must be confronted.



I'm glad he's representing Texas in Congress.

He makes a good point regarding the Kurds, of course the fear is that after they defeat ISIS they would go on to form a homeland that would include part of Turkey and some other nations, such as Syria and Iraq.

I can’t agree with everything he said, but I also find it hard to disagree with most of it.

I couldn't make it past the 9min mark because this guy was putting me to sleep. Even in the beginning he's got a few of his facts wrong and over-generalizes, which makes me think he doesn't understand the complexity of the situation.

He understands more than the president does.

vision wrote:I couldn't make it past the 9min mark because this guy was putting me to sleep.

I think they call that ADD....J/K

vision wrote:I couldn't make it past the 9min mark because this guy was putting me to sleep. Even in the beginning he's got a few of his facts wrong and over-generalizes, which makes me think he doesn't understand the complexity of the situation.

Can you name some of these facts and over-generalizations?

You might not have caught all of the 'complexities' because you didn't bother watching the whole video.

I stopped at 15 minutes in, after he mentioned that the solution is to destroy the terrorist leaders.

Has that ever worked? Ever?

No.

Every leader that's been targeted and killed has had no effect on stopping terrorist attacks.

ThunderBunny wrote:Can you name some of these facts and over-generalizations?

I'm trying to avoid a book-long rant on this thread. I'll try to sum up why the United States, no matter who is president, will do almost nothing to combat Islamic extremism.

1. It's not in the country's best interest. The US is rather amoral when it comes to foreign policy. Economic and militaristic gains trump all other concerns.

2. Regarding point #1, the risk/benefit ratio of fighting Islamic terrorism pushes us towards doing as little as possible. This is because relatively few Americans are ever at risk compared to the great amount of turmoil caused by terrorism in the Middle East, thus keeping those nations at a disadvantage.

3. Related to point #2, paradoxically, those Americans who favor a crackdown on Islamic extremism often don't realize the greatest beneficiaries of such an effort (by a massive margin) are Muslims in the Middle East and Africa, not Christian Americans or even Europeans or even Israel.

4. Regarding point #3, the Muslims who benefit most from Western efforts to curb Islamic extremism are Shiite. And the greatest concentration of Shia Muslims is ....drum roll... IRAN.

It's a tangled mess, and it's way more complicated than the tiny bit I wrote above. Obama can't untangle it and neither can Cruz. No president can. But I believe this is one of those things that will unravel itself over the rest of this century as more and more people (especially women and children) in the Middle east and Africa get access to education.

vision wrote:

ThunderBunny wrote:Can you name some of these facts and over-generalizations?

I'm trying to avoid a book-long rant on this thread. I'll try to sum up why the United States, no matter who is president, will do almost nothing to combat Islamic extremism.

1. It's not in the country's best interest. The US is rather amoral when it comes to foreign policy. Economic and militaristic gains trump all other concerns.

2. Regarding point #1, the risk/benefit ratio of fighting Islamic terrorism pushes us towards doing as little as possible. This is because relatively few Americans are ever at risk compared to the great amount of turmoil terrorism causes in the Middle East, thus keeping those nations at a disadvantage.

3. Related to point #2, paradoxically, those Americans who favor a crackdown on Islamic extremism often don't realize the greatest beneficiaries of such an effort (my a massive margin) are Muslims in the Middle East and Africa, not Christian Americans or even Europeans or even Israel.

4. Regarding point #3, the Muslims who benefit most from Western efforts to curb Islamic extremism are Shiite. And the greatest concentration of Shia Muslims is ....drum roll... IRAN.

It's a tangled mess, and it's way more complicated than the tiny bit I wrote above. Obama can't untangle it and neither can Cruz. No president can. But I believe this is one of those things that will unravel itself over the rest of this century as more and more people (especially women and children) in the Middle east and Africa get access to education.

Uh...this is why you need to listen to the entire clip. Iran is addressed. Cruz goes on to point out that we should NOT go in there expecting to solve over a millennium of muslim sectarian warfare- rather, to address specific threats to our interests and those of our allies.

What he is pointing out is that our current administration is being WILLFULLY BLIND when it comes to islamic terrorism- and the barbarity of these savage animals.

ThunderBunny wrote:Uh...this is why you need to listen to the entire clip. Iran is addressed.

I'm sorry your boyfriend is so bloody boring of a speaker. He should write up his good ideas and hire someone else to deliver the speeches.

ThunderBunny wrote:Cruz goes on to point out that we should NOT go in there expecting to solve over a millennium of muslim sectarian warfare- rather, to address specific threats to our interests and those of our allies.

This is exactly what we already do, except when it is in our best interest not to.

ThunderBunny wrote:What he is pointing out is that our current administration is being WILLFULLY BLIND when it comes to islamic terrorism- and the barbarity of these savage animals.

Absolutely false. See immediately above.

Also, I have yet to hear the words of a single politician* who has expressed a proper understanding of the uniqueness, color, and dynamics of each country in the Middle East and Africa. I would be happy to listen to an abridged version of Cruz's speech with all the idiotic pandering and swipes at the current administration cut out so I can hear exactly what his master plan is. I'm sure you can manage the editing, so get to work.


* The closest would probably be Carter, but he hasn't been relevant for decades.

Cruz is incapable of discussing ANYTHING without idiotic pandering, exaggerations and swipes at Obama. He is a dangerous person, with a decent mind, and selfish focus on his own political ends.

Right, and I watched nothing but speeches over the last 6 years where Obama used EVERY opportunity to pander and take swipes at Republicans in congress.

I don’t usually do the “he does it too” bit, but this is a case where it must be pointed out.

Oh and vision, your points were more like reasons we shouldn’t be fighting terrorism…no so much of a clarification of “Cruz’s facts and generalizations”.

Cruz basically has a track record of fabricating facts, and ought have ZERO credibility.

wow, 65% of all statements analyzed proved to be lies:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ted-cruz/

there's your boy, TB

Spidey wrote:Oh and vision, your points were more like reasons we shouldn’t be fighting terrorism…no so much of a clarification of “Cruz’s facts and generalizations”.

You are right. Like I said, I am trying to avoid writing a book in this thread so I went right to the "this is why things are the way they are" instead of focusing on this Cruz nitwit.

callmeslick wrote:wow, 65% of all statements analyzed proved to be lies:
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ted-cruz/

there's your boy, TB

And 52% for Hillary. There's your Heroine.

http://www.politifact.com/personalities ... y-clinton/

And 54% for Glorious Leader

Such seething hatred from Vision and slick.

I like Cruz even better already.

vision wrote:

Spidey wrote:Oh and vision, your points were more like reasons we shouldn’t be fighting terrorism…no so much of a clarification of “Cruz’s facts and generalizations”.

You are right. Like I said, I am trying to avoid writing a book in this thread so I went right to the "this is why things are the way they are" instead of focusing on this Cruz nitwit.

Oh, I'm sure Vision would like the warring muslims to kill eachother off.

The problem is, they want to kill all of us along with them.

Cruz lies or is simply wrong 2/3 of the time. This is yet another. If we don't stop with the 'go over there and kill all the terrorists' stupidity, which has NEVER, EVER worked, and let the region clean itself up, we are doomed to pissing away trillions and frittering away the worlds best economy. Nice gift to leave the grandkids, eh, TB?

He didn’t say “all” the terrorists.

I wonder if there is a callmeslick truth meter.

ThunderBunny wrote:Such seething hatred from Vision and slick.

Where do you get seething hatred? He's not worth the energy to hate. I give zero shits about the guy. He simply doesn't register. Of course, given your tendency to exaggerate everything to extremes, you will certainly imagine I hate him. But it is all in your head, kiddo.

ThunderBunny wrote:Oh, I'm sure Vision would like the warring muslims to kill each other off.

I would prefer no one gets killed. What our elected officials want is a different story. It is my belief that the safest and most realistic solution is to support (not necessarily arm) Muslims who fight against extremists and provide much needed education and medical resources to women and children in affected areas. It's a long road ahead but it is possible to make the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia a safer place.

ThunderBunny wrote:The problem is, they want to kill all of us along with them.

They can try. I still have a greater chance of winning the Mega Millions Lottery than dying at the hand of Islamic extremists. Not worried at all.

vision wrote:They can try. I still have a greater chance of winning the Mega Millions Lottery than dying at the hand of Islamic extremists. Not worried at all.

Tell that to a journalist.

Or the 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians beheaded in a mass slaughter.

neither of those lame examples in ANY WAY negates visions point. As Americans, on American soil, he is less likely to be killed by an ISIS type terrorist than to be struck by lightning.

Can you guarantee that 5 years from now? 10? 15? Also tell that to the families of the 3000 that died on 9/11.

I wasn’t trying to negate his point, I was making a point of my own.

Is that the only way you know how to debate, by negating the others point…never mind, I know exactly what you call a debate. (paint opponent in worst possible light, and attack that)

Sometimes an argument can be made without trying to destroy the opponent...you should try it some time.

woodchip wrote:Can you guarantee that 5 years from now? 10? 15? Also tell that to the families of the 3000 that died on 9/11.

those 3000 died purely because of Bush's incompetence. I trust we won't have another so-called leader so asleep at the wheel. As with anything, I or no one can 'guarantee' anything. But, that fact does not mean blundering further in the Middle East serves any good. It sure as hell hasn't done us any favors to date.

Spidey wrote:I wasn’t trying to negate his point, I was making a point of my own.

Is that the only way you know how to debate, by negating the others point…never mind, I know exactly what you call a debate. (paint opponent in worst possible light, and attack that)

Sometimes an argument can be made without trying to destroy the opponent...you should try it some time.

I was responding to Woody, but your point regarding journalists was sort of far fetched too, and, as noted, in NO WAY negates visions assertion. Get on your high horse all you want with me, Spidey, but your contribution was, at best, trivial. That is not meant to demean you, just point out that you didn't really add to the debate, now did you?

woodchip wrote:Can you guarantee that 5 years from now? 10? 15?

What can you guarantee 5, 10, and 15 years from now?

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:Can you guarantee that 5 years from now? 10? 15? Also tell that to the families of the 3000 that died on 9/11.

those 3000 died purely because of Bush's incompetence. I trust we won't have another so-called leader so asleep at the wheel. As with anything, I or no one can 'guarantee' anything. But, that fact does not mean blundering further in the Middle East serves any good. It sure as hell hasn't done us any favors to date.

It's replies like this that show what a tool of the Dem. Party you are and why some of us don't believe a word you say. Yes, blame 9/11 on Bush. The guy was in in office for 9 months and it's his fault. Don't blame people like Jamie Gorelick under the Clinton admin:

Gorelick, an appointee of Bill Clinton, is the one who constructed the wall of separation that kept the CIA and the FBI from comparing notes and therefore invading the privacy of nice young men like, say, Muhammed Atta and Zacarius Moussaoui.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles ... e_gor.html


"But Ms. Gorelick’s memo clearly indicated that the Clinton administration had decided as a matter of policy to go even beyond the law’s already stringent requirements in order to further choke off information sharing."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/200 ... 758-5267r/

Keep up the good work slick.

until someone proves that Rice nor Bush heeded secruity warning briefs entitled--al Qaeda plans use of commercial airliners for domestic acts of terror, or something similar, they bear the responsibility. Not a party thing, it should be everyone's feeling.....odd that so much of the report on the matter remains classified.

I don't think it is fair to blame any particular president for 9/11, there really wasn't much that could be done. The system of government we have has been broken for years from corruption, infighting, and incompetence. Those planes were going to crash into the WTC no matter what. However, I squarely blame Bush and friends for the horrible reaction to 9/11.

Slick you said “neither”…Woody only gave 1 example, so where was the other you were referring to, if it wasn’t mine.

And my comment contributed a hell of a lot more than your “yea yea…vision is right”. (which I see you had to say again...even after being told it was a valid point...lol)

My comment points out that there are people at risk that do not reside in the US all of the time…such as journalists…aid workers…embassy personnel…business people…etc.

It’s a valid point, just like his…

Spidey wrote:Slick you said “neither”…Woody only gave 1 example, so where was the other you were referring to, if it wasn’t mine.

it was, but I was directly responding to him. Yours was shaky, his was laughable. Journalists in the US haven't been attacked, but, I suppose could be. The Coptic Christians who were killed in Libya is completely irrelevant to US soil. Both were weak examples to counteract visions point that we are not under some sort of major threat from ISIS in this nation, if we remain vigilant.

How many times do I have to point out his point was a valid one.

Here I'll say it one more time...visions point was a valid one.

But it’s not the entire DAMN picture.

callmeslick wrote:

Spidey wrote:Slick you said “neither”…Woody only gave 1 example, so where was the other you were referring to, if it wasn’t mine.

it was, but I was directly responding to him. Yours was shaky, his was laughable. Journalists in the US haven't been attacked, but, I suppose could be. The Coptic Christians who were killed in Libya is completely irrelevant to US soil. Both were weak examples to counteract visions point that we are not under some sort of major threat from ISIS in this nation, if we remain vigilant.

The only thing laughable was your totally predictable "It's Bush's fault" response.