Jump to content

Home

Cat Stevens barred from US


toms
 Share

Recommended Posts

You accuse me of not having facts to back up my claims where as all of your posts are simply bull **** from my point of view as well? The media is entirely on the liberals (your) side in any occasion in which they can.

 

The patriot act is a step in the right direction for weeding out terrorist, and if somebody told you that the NSA is going around arresting because of you saying or buying something, then you and them have serious problems.

 

If the NSA wanted to arrest you, they could make up a reason. The only reason there is a patriot act now is to scare terrorists.

 

Neoconservatives? so you are talking like ronald reagan who reduced social programs and thus reduced the government. Just because george bush is religious does not mean the entire republican party feels the same way. I am not religious and never have been, if you search for some of my older posts you will see i am not. (way older, they might not exist)

 

Just because you convert to islam doesnt make you a terrorist, that is true, but did the websites that told you that even clearly state why they were arrested besides that? There is always atleast 2 sides to a story.

 

The patriot act was probably more than likely pushed by the CIA or FBI, there is no proof that either political party had control over its passing.

 

Also, neoconservitive is a new word for liberal anyway. I have stated multiple times that george bush is a liberal. Although john kerry is more liberal than the liberal level vomit meter even holds.

but thats a different thread.

 

Do you truly believe that president bush reads through a description of every single person who is banned from this country? In fact, i garauntee that he had absolutly nothing to do with cat stephens being banned from the united states. He probably heard about it at the same time or after you did, which hardly justifies the statement that its poor diplomacy on his part.

 

 

Also on your statement about ted kennedy getting flagged, he probably donated money to a muslim group believed to be funding fundamentalism. There is also the possibility that it was a joke or a prank, politicians are people too

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by CagedCrado

The patriot act was probably more than likely pushed by the CIA or FBI, there is no proof that either political party had control over its passing.

 

It was openly advocated by Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and, I think, Ashcroft, among others.

 

Originally posted by CagedCrado

Also, neoconservitive is a new word for liberal anyway.

 

No, it isn't. There are distinct differences between conservatives, neo-conservatives and those with liberal agendas.

 

Originally posted by CagedCrado

I have stated multiple times that george bush is a liberal.

 

I don't think you have a grasp of the terminology, therefore you simply toss the term "liberal" out as a form of insult.

 

Originally posted by CagedCrado

Do you truly believe that president bush reads through a description of every single person who is banned from this country? In fact, i garauntee that he had absolutly nothing to do with cat stephens being banned from the united states.

 

I never suggested that he did.

 

Originally posted by CagedCrado

He probably heard about it at the same time or after you did, which hardly justifies the statement that its poor diplomacy on his part.

 

I never suggested that Bush engaged in poor diplomatic practice with regard to Yusef Islam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion of what a neo conservative is, a liberal, and a conservative are comparitively is whatever i say it is first of all. My view of the world is just as viable as yours, period.

 

Liberal = socialist, george bush = mostly socialist.

 

Simply because he does not agree with your viewpoint does not mean that he cant be generally the same politcal group as you. Liberal may be too harsh a term for george bush, possibly he is a progressive but none the less a socialist. His no child left behind act that he forced through congress is about as liberal as you get. Republican, but still liberal. There is no truly conservative party in the united states anymore, and the last mostly conservative was ronald reagan.

The patriot act is also liberal, but was mostly lobbied by military/intelligence groups which

It was openly advocated by Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and, I think, Ashcroft, among others.
these people are apart of and not the political groups that voted on it for fear of their own protection. At this time senator tom daschle and other top democrats had been victims of alleged anthrax attacks, which leaves me to believe that after these attacks they also supported the bill.

 

Bull. Sure, it may have always been legal, but why present ourselves to the rest of the world as a bunch of assholes. Our nation depends upon foreign relations on all levels and this type of crap only adds to the problem rather than the solution. Even in-country, people are flying less just so they don't have to go through the hassle.

 

There are many countries in the world that nobody can come into without explicity approval of high ranking officials in the government. Its like if i broke into your house without permission then claimed its wrong you keep me out since i was just dropping off something for you, but you dont know what that something and nor do you know me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by CagedCrado

My opinion of what a neo conservative is, a liberal, and a conservative are comparitively is whatever i say it is first of all. My view of the world is just as viable as yours, period.

 

Sure it is. But if you create your own definitions rather than rely on those of the rest of the scholarly world, don't expect anyone to understand (or care) what your worldview is. In which case, you would do best to keep it in your own head.

 

Originally posted by CagedCrado

Liberal = socialist, george bush = mostly socialist.

 

Only according to you. But I suspect that isn't really the case, since I remember your tendency to incite other posters with bold statements like that. Your "Liberal = socialist" claim doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Many liberal politicians or those with liberal worldviews also believe in free market and capitalism. Therefore, your false dichotomy doesn't work.

 

Simply put:

 

Liberal = one who believes in progress and reform within governmental and societal institutions in order to keep up with the progress of technology. This person usually also believes in maintaining civil liberties.

 

conservative = one who is resistant to change, reform or liberal ideas. One who wishes to maintain the status quo. (in my opinion, this is the more illogical of the two, since it fails to address advancements in technology and the need to improve how technology is applied to or within society).

 

neo-conservatives = are characterized by an aggressive stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, and lesser dedication to a policy of minimal government. The "newness" refers either to being new to American conservatism (often coming from liberal or socialist backgrounds) or to being part of a "new wave" of conservative thought and political organization (taken from WordIQ.com)

 

Originally posted by CagedCrado

The patriot act is also liberal,

 

Which is where you are distinctly wrong. As noted above, liberals generally seek to preserve civil liberties. The "Patriot" Act (better named as the "traitorous act") does the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Liberal = one who believes in progress and reform within governmental and societal institutions in order to keep up with the progress of technology. This person usually also believes in maintaining civil liberties.

 

conservative = one who is resistant to change, reform or liberal ideas. One who wishes to maintain the status quo. (in my opinion, this is the more illogical of the two, since it fails to address advancements in technology and the need to improve how technology is applied to or within society).

 

neo-conservatives = are characterized by an aggressive stance on foreign policy, a lesser social conservatism, and lesser dedication to a policy of minimal government. The "newness" refers either to being new to American conservatism (often coming from liberal or socialist backgrounds) or to being part of a "new wave" of conservative thought and political organization (taken from WordIQ.com)

Important to take the history and actual political personality of the ideologies into account too though.

 

Liberal = left, therefore characterised by enforced equality for all, regardless of intelligence or skill level, reverse discriminatory policies, the pooling of resources, taxation directly proportionate to income etc. Tends to be more ideology-based than vanilla conservative administrations.

 

Conservative = right, therefore characterised by mercenary sensibilities, environment made comfortable for those with existing social advantages, environment conducive to the advancement of those with greater intelligence, greater guile, greater capital or greater skill. (Esp. greater capital.) Ostensibly low tolerance for sexual deviancy, support for racial and class-based profiling in law enforcement etc. More effectiveness-based than ideology-based.

 

Neo-Conservative = far right, recent form of a recurring ideology characterised by the (self-professed) desire to use deception of the populace to inspire greater loyalty to the government and greater xenophobia in order to provide drive and purpose to what they view as a diffuse, selfish and directionless modern society. Very close to Nazi ideology in many respects, not limited to the incredibly large focus on spin and propaganda, and little or no focus on (or interest in) the truth. Represented currently by the bulk of the Bush administration's decision-making team, e.g. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz. Totally ideology-based.

 

And as regards technology, conservative ideology leans more towards the development of new weapons systems and innovative items to export, so arguably has a positive effect on scientific advancement from that standpoint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since this seems to have become the political factions thread...

 

Did anyone in the UK (Al?) see the 2nd Power of Nightmares on tv last night. I missed the first few minutes, but the rest was very interesting.

 

They basically compared the rise of the islamst factions with the rise of the neo-conservative factions.

 

Both started from a belief that their own society was degraded and needed to be "saved" and made more like they wanted. Both started out using similar tactics of deception, money and so on.

Then, around 96 (can't remember exact dates) both nearly disappeared entirely.

 

The islamist factions had become deeply unpopular at home for their hardline stances, there were mas demos AGAINST fundamentalism, and they eventually nearly wiped each other out as each thought the others weren't "true believers".

 

At the same time the neo-conservative's plans to get rid of clinton came to nothing whent hey discovered that the US population didn't really care about his private life that they had worked so hard to expose (confirming their beliefs about the corruption of society).

 

Both were basically spent forces. Then came the world trade centre attacks.

 

Suddenly each had an enemy that they could paint as a massive threat and use to scare people onto their side. Both fed off each other.

 

to be continued next week.... :(

 

Of course, it is only a tv programme, but it seems quite well researched and fairly balanced... and it gives some interesting and unheard insights into how these group came to be, what they believe, and how scary (or not) they actually are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Spider AL

ShadowTemplar, being a religious convert is a bad thing why?

 

The answer to this question really belongs in another thread. But the short version is that coverts take an active interest in their religion - in other words they are, on average, a whole lot more zealous than 'ordinary' religious people.

 

And Mankind has had a few runs of bad luck with overly zealous people.

 

It certainly wasnt right wing people who supposedly took away civil liberties, look at roosevelt and the new deal. Liberals have tried to hide that for years. He obviously wanted communism.

 

:rolleyes:

 

Even in-country, people are flying less just so they don't have to go through the hassle.

 

Not to mention sailing. Dubya's admin proposed a bill to forbid the docking of foreign vessels in american dockyards unless they came from a harbor that had been terrorist-proofed and subsequently inspected by US government goons.

 

I don't know what that's called 'over there', but on this side of the Pond we call it protectionism, technical hindrance of trade, and industrial espionage. And we *don't* like it.

 

This merely serves to confirm my idea that dubya's vaunted 'war on terror' is one third restriction of civil rights, one third religious fanaticism and one third selfish, counterproductive, and hypocritical protectionism.

 

The media is entirely on the liberals (your) side in any occasion in which they can.

 

You've never seen liberal media. I made an offer to another guy the other day, but he never seemed to reply to it, so I'll make it to you as well:

 

Try going to a different church for a few months. Stop watching Fux Newts for a change. Take out a subscription on the New York Times, BBC World, and - if you can read German - Der Spiegel. And if you can prove to me that you're actually reading any of the above two publications, I'll pay for your subscription.

 

The patriot act was probably more than likely pushed by the CIA or FBI, there is no proof that either political party had control over its passing.

 

In all probability no. Since Vietnam the agencies and the generals have generally been the brick wall that warmongering and extremist legislation hit its head against... Only dubya is so thick skulled that even a brick wall wasn't enough.

 

Liberal = socialist, george bush = mostly socialist

 

:nut:

 

The patriot act is also liberal, but was mostly lobbied by military/intelligence groups which

 

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It was openly advocated by Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and, I think, Ashcroft, among others.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

these people are apart of

 

'Sceuse me, but are we talking about the same people here? These guys have never even seen a live magazine - much less been in a war. They are hardly military lobbyists - they are more like military industry lobbyists. As for their part in the Intelligence lobby... Well you'd think that they lack a certain prerequisite (OK, that was cheap, but very tempting).

 

Liberal = left, therefore characterised by enforced equality for all, regardless of intelligence or skill level, reverse discriminatory policies, the pooling of resources, taxation directly proportionate to income etc. Tends to be more ideology-based than vanilla conservative administrations.

 

:drop2:

 

Would you please back that statement with some sort of historical reference? I kinda figure that you've got it mixed up with 'social democrat'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...