Inside look at the communist protesters at the DNC

[Virtus]

You gotta love the people who actually go undercover to interview those protesters. I don't think I could keep from punching someone.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/25/hot-air-tv-at-the-dnc-marxists-unite/

[4sarge]

Thanks, Good Videos, got to love the 2nd one though and all I could think of was Dave, Dave, Dave

[Bill of Rights]

I have to agree with one point. The "war on terror" doesn't really exist. One, it's not a war until Congress declares it as such, and two, like the "war on poverty", the "war on drugs", etc., they're fighting an idea, a nebulous concept that in and of itself can never be wholly defeated. There's no one to surrender, no objective to attain to "win". In no way do I say this to besmirch our brave military who are fighting. Their leadership, if it can be called that, sucks, though.

The only thing I can see in this that's a problem is that the people to whom he was talking were actually encouraged, thinking they had found a kindred spirit, and unfortunately, yes, they do vote. It seemed like the interviewer was trying to educate them, but they just weren't getting it.

Does the word DUH! occur to anyone else out there?

Blessings,
B

[epsylum]

Originally Posted by Bill of Rights

I have to agree with one point. The "war on terror" doesn't really exist. One, it's not a war until Congress declares it as such, and two, like the "war on poverty", the "war on drugs", etc., they're fighting an idea, a nebulous concept that in and of itself can never be wholly defeated. There's no one to surrender, no objective to attain to "win". In no way do I say this to besmirch our brave military who are fighting. Their leadership, if it can be called that, sucks, though.

The War on Terror is just a more PC term for what it actually is, the War on Radical Islam. It i just that if we called it what it really is, more people will be beheaded and the like just for calling a spade a spade. So we wind up with a pretty watered down "War on Terror" name.

Secondly, no you may not be able to kill an idea, but it can be beaten back. We fought against nazi-ism (again, an idea). Is it dead? No, but it is FAR from what it once was. We fought communism (another idea), is it dead? Not by a long shot, but we got a decade or two of not having to worry about nukes falling on our heads so much.

We may not be able to kill an idea, but you can kill or convert those that support it.

[TRWXXA]

What I find very insightful is the fact that this guy starts saying the dumbest stuff he can pull out of his @ss, and the morons AGREE WITH HIM!!!

After watching that video, I suddenly have the urge to take a shower.

[full-auto]

Originally Posted by Bill of Rights

I have to agree with one point. The "war on terror" doesn't really exist. One, it's not a war until Congress declares it as such, and two, like the "war on poverty", the "war on drugs", etc., they're fighting an idea, a nebulous concept that in and of itself can never be wholly defeated. There's no one to surrender, no objective to attain to "win". In no way do I say this to besmirch our brave military who are fighting. Their leadership, if it can be called that, sucks, though.

The "war on terror" is in fact a war, if by that you're talking about the commitment of forces to combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

From the dictionary:

1.a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air. 2.a state or period of armed hostility or active military operations: The two nations were at war with each other.

The practice of Congress declaring war faded with the adoption of the War Power Resolution (War Power Act) of 1973. Under the resolution, the President has the ability to commit US forces to war without a formal declaration of Congress. It does require that Congress, after 60 calendar days, vote to continue the war or else the President must cease hostilities.

Since Congress has voted to continue the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and to fund the war, it supports the war and therefore it is a "war" by all definitions.

Just say'n.

[finity]

Yes indeed there is a war in Iraq & Afghanistan. No doubt about it. I would hope that everyone by now (if your being honest with yourself) would know that the war in those places really has very little to do with "islamo-fascism" or the "war on terror".

Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11. Bin Laden didn't work with, or even like, Hussein. Iraq never attacked us or had the means to do so if they wanted to. Saddam was a great guy as far as we were concerned until Kuwait (who just happened to sell us lots of oil).

Afghanistan...As soon as we toppled the Taliban & put in a puppet government friendly to our interests (as in, they agreed to build a trans-country natural gas pipe-line from Turkmenistan that could not be built until the Taliban were out of power), we were pretty much out of there. Very few terrorists caught/killed. Bin Laden not caught. Look at the mess it's in now. Taliban resurging, heroine trade back up. Wonderful.

As was said, you can't fight a military war on an idea.

We didn't fight Nazism in WWII, we fought Hitlers German invading army. Nazism was alive & well for many years before the war. Many people didn't like it but it was there nonetheless. Germany even hosted the Olympics which we participated in. We did not even declare war when Hitler started invading other countries. It took the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor to get us into the war.

If we are fighting a "war on communism" then why haven't we invaded China or Russia like we did Iraq of Afghanistan? We fight those ideas with better ideas, then those other bad ideas lose support.

The conservatives complain to no end about the so-called "war on poverty" but what of the so-called "war on drugs"? It's just as much BS as any other "war on..". Are we winning?