What is the likelyhood of another terror attack in the near future?

[Animedude5555]

I notice the topic in the news isn't terrorism right now. People's minds are on other things it seems. But I've been wondering, despite the lack of coverage about terrorism on the news, how likely are we to be attacked again in the near future?

[DeathBlade/13.666]

Greatly, seeming that it's the only way pathetic fools can ever seem to make their political, religious, or social points about how things are. Because the human species is absolutely pitiful and only recognizes such issues when innocent blood is split for little to no cause other than someone's ignorance of their own self-importance.

[RainyDayMan]

With Obama Hussein in office, Attack is imminent. But his Backers want to destroy America without a War. Boston was just recently attacked by ultra-left Islamic Terrorists. It will happen again. London is the most policed City in the Western World, and they suffer MANY Terrorists and much Terrorism.

[DeathBlade/13.666]

With Obama Hussein in office, Attack is imminent. But his Backers want to destroy America without a War. Boston was just recently attacked by ultra-left Islamic Terrorists. It will happen again. London is the most policed City in the Western World, and they suffer MANY Terrorists and much Terrorism.Oh yay... Another It's Obama's fault. Because he has everything to do with anything. The fact that most of these "terrorists" became such because of the way they or their ancestors where treated by the hypocritical Western Civilization simply goes unnoticed, because of a few idiots that run with them and do it without any connection to what the West has done. Plus the majority of folks in the West try to summarize their reasons way into a short causation (Angry at American Beliefs or Freedoms, Obama's Fault, Angry at Israel), when in fact there's a plethora of reasons. It's like saying the American Revolution was fought over tea tax and the Civil War was fault over slavery. Yes those were valid reasons that were cited (In the Declaration of Independence, and in 4 of the 11 secession letters), but there were more reasons than just that! Now I don't condone their actions, and believe their logic for doing such action because of there reasons is heavily flawed, but hay George Carlin said it best. "It's also interesting to noticed who it is we assassinate. Did you ever stop to think who it is we kill? It's always people to tell us to try to life together in harmony and try to love one another. Jesus, Gandhi, Lincoln, John Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., Edgar Meavers, Malcom X, John Lennon, They all said 'Try to live together peacefully'. BAM! Right in the head. Apparently we're not ready for that!"

[aether]

Oh yay... Another It's Obama's fault. Because he has everything to do with anything. The fact that most of these "terrorists" became such because of the way they or their ancestors where treated by the hypocritical Western Civilization simply goes unnoticed, because of a few idiots that run with them and do it without any connection to what the West has done. Plus the majority of folks in the West try to summarize their reasons way into a short causation (Angry at American Beliefs or Freedoms, Obama's Fault, Angry at Israel), when in fact there's a plethora of reasons. It's like saying the American Revolution was fought over tea tax and the Civil War was fault over slavery. Yes those were valid reasons that were cited (In the Declaration of Independence, and in 4 of the 11 secession letters), but there were more reasons than just that! Now I don't condone their actions, and believe their logic for doing such action because of there reasons is heavily flawed, but hay George Carlin said it best. "It's also interesting to noticed who it is we assassinate. Did you ever stop to think who it is we kill? It's always people to tell us to try to life together in harmony and try to love one another. Jesus, Gandhi, Lincoln, John Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., Edgar Meavers, Malcom X, John Lennon, They all said 'Try to live together peacefully'. BAM! Right in the head. Apparently we're not ready for that!"

I have to agree after all you cannot just blame everything upon one man. A lot of today's problems stem back to the industrial revolution era and the rise of colonialism from that. The western world never really helped the rest of the world but only when it suited them to make sure their agenda wasn't affected in some form or manner. Truth be told I can't blame these people for striking back after what we put them through and still do to this very day we bomb areas and consequently kill innocent civilians during the process. I believe the game Fallout provides a good quote for this and that is 'War, War never changes'.
And I have to agree with that statement because if you look back at all conflicts they are either due to political, natural resources, religious beliefs or to expand the country's boarders. Look back to Ancient Greece and Persia for example Persia wanted to expand their empire to support their own needs and to keep themselves stable and so they try to invade. Move on a few hundred years to Rome and you see that war becomes a necessity to keep their treasury full and so the Emperor can retain his power. The Crusades were for Holy matters for each belief involved, and if you look to this day we can see that terrorists are in a way waging their own sort of Crusade against the west. Now to say if it's for religious purposes or political you have to look at each group individually and come to your own conclusions.
But so long as different view points exist then there will always be conflict because you will never agree with somebody 100% meaning that you may agree on some matters but with others you may be completely against them.

And so concludes my point upon said matter.

[DeathBlade/13.666]

I have to agree after all you cannot just blame everything upon one man. A lot of today's problems stem back to the industrial revolution era and the rise of colonialism from that. The western world never really helped the rest of the world but only when it suited them to make sure their agenda wasn't affected in some form or manner. Truth be told I can't blame these people for striking back after what we put them through and still do to this very day we bomb areas and consequently kill innocent civilians during the process. I believe the game Fallout provides a good quote for this and that is 'War, War never changes'.
And I have to agree with that statement because if you look back at all conflicts they are either due to political, natural resources, religious beliefs or to expand the country's boarders. Look back to Ancient Greece and Persia for example Persia wanted to expand their empire to support their own needs and to keep themselves stable and so they try to invade. Move on a few hundred years to Rome and you see that war becomes a necessity to keep their treasury full and so the Emperor can retain his power. The Crusades were for Holy matters for each belief involved, and if you look to this day we can see that terrorists are in a way waging their own sort of Crusade against the west. Now to say if it's for religious purposes or political you have to look at each group individually and come to your own conclusions.
But so long as different view points exist then there will always be conflict because you will never agree with somebody 100% meaning that you may agree on some matters but with others you may be completely against them.

And so concludes my point upon said matter.And to think there was once a tribe of people that thought War as a form of insanity.

[nslay]

Oh yay... Another It's Obama's fault. Because he has everything to do with anything ...

I blame farmers and water treatment. If there were no food or water, none of this would be a problem.

[RainyDayMan]

The War against the Taliban Regime in the Islamic State of Afghanistan is getting worse and worse. Pulling out of the Republic of Iraq without educating them on how to run a democratic Republic on their own with free Elections allowing universal Suffrage (Women included) was a Failure. Now we have Benghazi and Boston.

The Idiot before him had 11 September 2001. Obama and Bush are one in the same. The Choice is clear. Vote Libertarian next Election.

---------- Post added at 01:12 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:04 AM ----------


Oh yay... Another It's Obama's fault. Because he has everything to do with anything. The fact that most of these "terrorists" became such because of the way they or their ancestors where treated by the hypocritical Western Civilization simply goes unnoticed, because of a few idiots that run with them and do it without any connection to what the West has done. Plus the majority of folks in the West try to summarize their reasons way into a short causation (Angry at American Beliefs or Freedoms, Obama's Fault, Angry at Israel), when in fact there's a plethora of reasons. It's like saying the American Revolution was fought over tea tax and the Civil War was fault over slavery. Yes those were valid reasons that were cited (In the Declaration of Independence, and in 4 of the 11 secession letters), but there were more reasons than just that! Now I don't condone their actions, and believe their logic for doing such action because of there reasons is heavily flawed, but hay George Carlin said it best. "It's also interesting to noticed who it is we assassinate. Did you ever stop to think who it is we kill? It's always people to tell us to try to life together in harmony and try to love one another. Jesus, Gandhi, Lincoln, John Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., Edgar Meavers, Malcom X, John Lennon, They all said 'Try to live together peacefully'. BAM! Right in the head. Apparently we're not ready for that!"

Abraham Lincoln was a Warmonger, a War Criminal, a Despot, a Tyrant, and a Dictator. He got what he deserved for starting an unnecessary War murdering over six hundred fifty-five thousand People, leaving Millions of former African Slaves as uneducated Derelicts (the Freedman's Bureau did not start very many modern-day existing black College's), nearly bankrupted the U.S. Government, and left the Southern States in ruin just because they wanted to have their own free, sovereign, and independent Nation. Lincoln was not a peaceful Man. He was the one who invaded five States that had not even seceded yet and arrested Legislators, Congressmen, Senators, Representatives, and Judges who opposed him, threw them in Jail, and suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus so these Guys (and Newspapermen and Journalists, and Publishers and Editors) could not sue to get out of Jail. He was worse than Nero or Gaius Julius Caesar.

[DeathBlade/13.666]

The War against the Taliban Regime in the Islamic State of Afghanistan is getting worse and worse. Pulling out of the Republic of Iraq without educating them on how to run a democratic Republic on their own with free Elections allowing universal Suffrage (Women included) was a Failure. Now we have Benghazi and Boston.

The Idiot before him had 11 September 2001. Obama and Bush are one in the same. The Choice is clear. Vote Libertarian next Election.Ok, What about the 2006 embassy attack in Syria? 4 people died there as well? Where's the outrage of people wanting answers to questions that investigators are still trying to figure out? Who made and planted the bombs in the 2002 embassy bombing in Pakistan and 2004 in Uzbekistan? How about the one I really want answers for. 1998 in Keyna, 212 people died. WHERE'S YOU'RE OUTRAGE? You just want to blame Obama any way possible for it, when the truth is that it's an embassy. Getting attacked is almost a part of the job. (ie:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embassy_attacks) And instead of allowing the State Department and the FBI to do their jobs, our Congress has to create almost as much of a hassle for them as the nation of Libya just to posture themselves for 2014 and 2016. It's almost pathetic and sad that more people don't see that, and can't figure out why almost nothing is ever getting done in Washington.






Abraham Lincoln was a Warmonger, a War Criminal, a Despot, a Tyrant, and a Dictator. He got what he deserved for starting an unnecessary War murdering over six hundred fifty-five thousand People, leaving Millions of former African Slaves as uneducated Derelicts (the Freedman's Bureau did not start very many modern-day existing black College's), nearly bankrupted the U.S. Government, and left the Southern States in ruin just because they wanted to have their own free, sovereign, and independent Nation. Lincoln was not a peaceful Man. He was the one who invaded five States that had not even seceded yet and arrested Legislators, Congressmen, Senators, Representatives, and Judges who opposed him, threw them in Jail, and suspended the Writ of Habeas Corpus so these Guys (and Newspapermen and Journalists, and Publishers and Editors) could not sue to get out of Jail. He was worse than Nero or Gaius Julius Caesar.Yes, He started the war. Simply by being elected and trying to work towards freedom and dignity for all. All 11 states seceded because of Lincoln. Not like the Railroad Companies pissed anyone off in the South by not expanding the number of railroads in the South, the businesses and corporations in the North pushing for a modernized West while forgetting the South existed, or the Hypocritical North demanding to free slaves while constantly bringing more slaves in. Now to be fair, Lincoln was a prick and a very mean one at that; Arlington Cemetery is a great example of that. But like most people in that time, they did what they thought was need to be done. He wasn't the only one, nor was the South innocent of such claims either. Those same words you chose to describe Lincoln also describes Jefferson Davis (Though Jeff Davis was also racist), Robert E. Lee, Grant, Sherman, Longstreet, and a plethora more of others. The fact that things had been brewing up since 1845, until 4 states seceded (late 1860) and attacked Fort Sumter (7 of the states joined after that forming the Confederate States of America) in 1861 seems to escape you. Sure Lincoln wasn't the nicest person around, and was a prick when it came to war and policy (just at the Emancipation Proclamation and what it covered), but he did truly believe that people of color should have the same rights as people of non-color. Hence the 13, 14, 15 Amendments (That Johnson pretty much had to push forward and sign, because of the assassination).

[Kaleohano]

Well, we're at threat PCON Alpha on base here. so Theres very little expected to happen. But, theres no doubt that something will happen eventually.

[RainyDayMan]

Ok, What about the 2006 embassy attack in Syria? 4 people died there as well? Where's the outrage of people wanting answers to questions that investigators are still trying to figure out? Who made and planted the bombs in the 2002 embassy bombing in Pakistan and 2004 in Uzbekistan? How about the one I really want answers for. 1998 in Keyna, 212 people died. WHERE'S YOU'RE OUTRAGE? You just want to blame Obama any way possible for it, when the truth is that it's an embassy. Getting attacked is almost a part of the job. (ie:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embassy_attacks) And instead of allowing the State Department and the FBI to do their jobs, our Congress has to create almost as much of a hassle for them as the nation of Libya just to posture themselves for 2014 and 2016. It's almost pathetic and sad that more people don't see that, and can't figure out why almost nothing is ever getting done in Washington.





Yes, He started the war. Simply by being elected and trying to work towards freedom and dignity for all. All 11 states seceded because of Lincoln. Not like the Railroad Companies pissed anyone off in the South by not expanding the number of railroads in the South, the businesses and corporations in the North pushing for a modernized West while forgetting the South existed, or the Hypocritical North demanding to free slaves while constantly bringing more slaves in. Now to be fair, Lincoln was a prick and a very mean one at that; Arlington Cemetery is a great example of that. But like most people in that time, they did what they thought was need to be done. He wasn't the only one, nor was the South innocent of such claims either. Those same words you chose to describe Lincoln also describes Jefferson Davis (Though Jeff Davis was also racist), Robert E. Lee, Grant, Sherman, Longstreet, and a plethora more of others. The fact that things had been brewing up since 1845, until 4 states seceded (late 1860) and attacked Fort Sumter (7 of the states joined after that forming the Confederate States of America) in 1861 seems to escape you. Sure Lincoln wasn't the nicest person around, and was a prick when it came to war and policy (just at the Emancipation Proclamation and what it covered), but he did truly believe that people of color should have the same rights as people of non-color. Hence the 13, 14, 15 Amendments (That Johnson pretty much had to push forward and sign, because of the assassination).

Jefferson Davis was not a Racist. Only one percent of the white Population back then believed in Equality among the Races. And Racism is NOT a nineteenth Century social Norm. It is a twenty-first Century social Norm. You can not take the Standards of today and surgically transplant them on a different Society and different time Period. That is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. Besides, Abraham Lincoln wanted to keep Slavery legal in the fifteen Southern States/Commonwealths permanently by supporting the original Thirteenth Amendment (Corwin Amendment) because he hated the Blacks. He did not want Blacks moving to the West, so by preventing Slavery from expanding, he could keep his all-white Western U.S. Bloc. He was a vicious white Supremacist who as a Lawyer assisted Slave-owners to get their runaway Slaves back if they left their State. He was a flaming Hypocrite. I do not believe in Hell, but if it existed, Lincoln would be there for all the Pain and Suffering he caused. That is why I do not run as a Republican; because it is the Party of Lincoln. I run as a Democrat or Libertarian. And Jefferson Davis was an honourable Man who only wanted his People to be left alone. He did not even want to be President. He was hoping William Loundes Yancey would be elected.

[Kaleohano]

Jefferson Davis was not a Racist. Only one percent of the white Population back then believed in Equality among the Races. And Racism is NOT a nineteenth Century social Norm. It is a twenty-first Century social Norm. You can not take the Standards of today and surgically transplant them on a different Society and different time Period.

Ummm, yes I can. The social norm does not change whether or not they were racist. Racism may not have been viewed the same way back then, but that doesn't change what it is. Just because something is the social norm, does not mean its a good thing that should be accepted. The social norm in parts of the US is that eating fast food regularly is a perfectly fine thing to do. But you tell me, would obesity be reduced if people ate McD's, Burger King, Taco Bell, and Jack in the Box less, and home cooked meals more?

so sorry, Jefferson Davis was racist.

---------- Post added at 02:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:45 PM ----------


With Obama Hussein in office, Attack is imminent.

if anything, we're less likely to be attacked with him in office. As much as the country dislikes him, the rest of the world loves his arse. Internationally he is very good at raising the image of the US.

[RainyDayMan]

Ummm, yes I can. The social norm does not change whether or not they were racist. Racism may not have been viewed the same way back then, but that doesn't change what it is. Just because something is the social norm, does not mean its a good thing that should be accepted. The social norm in parts of the US is that eating fast food regularly is a perfectly fine thing to do. But you tell me, would obesity be reduced if people ate McD's, Burger King, Taco Bell, and Jack in the Box less, and home cooked meals more?

so sorry, Jefferson Davis was racist.

---------- Post added at 02:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:45 PM ----------



if anything, we're less likely to be attacked with him in office. As much as the country dislikes him, the rest of the world loves his arse. Internationally he is very good at raising the image of the US.

Jefferson Davis was not a Racist. Your Argument is fallacious. And if Obama Hussein is so well-liked, why was it in the Russian Federation, he walked with Vladimir Putin to shake the Hands of everyone in the Russian presidential Cabinet, and everyone shook Putin's Hand, but none of them shook Obama's Hand. Obama just looked like a Retard in the Video with an ugly Look on his Face.

Why was Jefferson Davis a Racist and not Lincoln when Lincoln hated the Blacks? Neither one was a Racist since Discrimination was universal in all Parts of the U.S.A. and C.S.A. The only Difference was that the Confederate Army was integrated, and the United States Army and Navy was segregated until Truman's Administration. You have a very selective Memory. At least Davis wanted to eliminate Slavery in all Parts of the C.S.A. in exchange for Military Service for an Army of an estimated 2.2. million. Lincoln protected Slavery in Maryland, Delaware, Washington City, West Virginia, Tennessee, parts of Louisiana and Virginia, Missouri, and Kentucky. Lincoln was a white Supremacist, but so was ninety-five percent of the white Population in both American Republics at the time. White Supremacy was the social Norm, not Racism which was not a social Norm until the 1950's when the Civil Rights Era began in Montgomery, Alabama with the Bus Boycott when four African-American Legends were arrested for not giving up their Bus Seats to Caucasians in the front of the Bus. Jefferson Davis was a just Man who tried to get the invading Foes out of his Nation and tried protecting his Nation as best he could and even wanted to eliminate Slavery universally. Even if President Davis was racist, Lincoln was worse. You have a selective Memory.

As for the current President, he wants to support arming the Rebels in the Syrian Arab Republic who have Ties to Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood in their civil War against Bashar Assad. It is too little too late. We failed the first time in the Islamic State of Afghanistan when we gave Money to Osama bin Laden to fight the Soviets. We failed when we ousted Colonel Muamar al-Quadafi in the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahirya and we had four Americans dead by the People we supported. We failed in almost every way possible in the Middle East, because everyone we train and give Money and Arms to (like Hussein in the Republic of Iraq's War against the Islamic Republic of Iran according to recent unclassified Documents released that I read in Newsweek and the Wall Street Journal in recent Years, and yes, I have a Subscription), they turn on us.

This arming of the Rebels in the Syrian Arab Republic will turn the Russian Federation against us even worse, because Putin supports Bashar Assad in crushing the Rebels.

This is going to turn into an international Quagmire.

I agree that I have been unfair to Bush and Obama, but neither of them I voted for, because they were not qualified and did not do a very good Job internationally. We are headed into the wrong Direction by getting involved in the Syrian Arab Republic. Neither Side likes the U.S.A.

[Kaleohano]

Jefferson Davis was not a Racist. Your Argument is fallacious. And if Obama Hussein is so well-liked, why was it in the Russian Federation, he walked with Vladimir Putin to shake the Hands of everyone in the Russian presidential Cabinet, and everyone shook Putin's Hand, but none of them shook Obama's Hand. Obama just looked like a Retard in the Video with an ugly Look on his Face.

Acts of terrorism are usually not committed by foreign governments. I'm talking about foreign civilians. Those are the ones that tend to make up terrorist organizations. Not sure why you think i give a damn about foreign government opinions of the US or obama.
Jefferson Davis is most definitely racist.


Why was Jefferson Davis a Racist and not Lincoln when Lincoln hated the Blacks? ...
...
...You have a selective Memory.

Umm...you seem to have hallucinogenic reading. I never said a word about Lincoln.

[RainyDayMan]

Acts of terrorism are usually not committed by foreign governments. I'm talking about foreign civilians. Those are the ones that tend to make up terrorist organizations. Not sure why you think i give a damn about foreign government opinions of the US or obama.
Jefferson Davis is most definitely racist.



Umm...you seem to have hallucinogenic reading. I never said a word about Lincoln.

While it is very true that foreign Governments do not sponsor Terrorism unless it is on their own People (Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, the U.S.A., imperial Japan, the Republic of Vietnam, the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Iraq, the Syrian Arab Republic, the Islamic Republic of Iran, the French Empire under Maximillian Robespierre, Wallachia under Vlad Tepes II, Transylvania, Macedonia under Alexander, the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia under Slobodan Milosevic and a million others), you are correct that foreign Governments usually sponsor Terrorism NOT in other Countries ... except for the British Empire in India.

I agree with you there ... for the most part.


And Jefferson Davis was no more a Racist than ninety-nine percent of the U.S. and C.S.A. Population in the 1860's. You have a selective Memory. I do not know why you have to pick on a Christian with Morals and Ethics that backed up his Treatment of People under him.

[Kumagawa]

its the jews fault, trust me.

[RainyDayMan]

Lincoln and Grant were anti-Semitic, but Jefferson Davis appointed Jews for the Secretary of State, Secretary of War, and Attorney-General in his presidential Cabinet. What did the Jews do? They have been victimised for five thousand Years. Grant expelled them from the United States Army.

Why tie in blaming the Jews when discussing Terrorism? The State of Israel has only protected itself from other harassing Nation-States in the Middle East who deny the Holocaust and want the Jews wiped off the Map.

Or is your Argument on the War for Southern Independence just because most Jews in America sided with the Confederacy and are automatically to blame for that particular War? Your Accusation is racist unless you are making a Joke ... and I would not make racist Jokes here.

[Kaleohano]

And Jefferson Davis was no more a Racist than ninety-nine percent of the U.S. and C.S.A. Population in the 1860's. You have a selective Memory.

Did i ever say that the other people were not racist? That he stood out as a lone, racist bastard? No. Once again, you reading things that simply are not there. How exactly is my memory selective?

[RainyDayMan]

Because you are placing sole Blame on one Person that most everyone was guilty of. Why pick on President Davis? Racism was NOT a social Norm of the 1860's. You are a hundred Years off. Slavery was okay back then. It is wrong now. And it still exists now. No one wants to do anything about it, but it happens in this Nation today with illegal Aliens.

I do not know what you have against a great Man like Jefferson Finnis Davis. He held Honour, Duty, and Judeo-Christian Morals above anything else. He loved his People and both his Nations trying his best to avert a War he did not want and avert Secession until it became a Necessity. And even WHEN Mississippi seceded, he initially refused to resign from the U.S. Senate. Just because he owned Slaves, he was a Racist? Was Thomas Jefferson a Racist because he believed there were inherent Differences between Blacks and Whites? At least his Slaves loved him like Davis' Slaves loved him. George Washington once had one of his Slave's seven front Teeth extracted without Morphine and implanted into Washington's Mouth. Was Washington a Racist?

Even the Abolitionist's did not all want Equality amongst the Races. Even they believed there were inherent Differences between Blacks and Whites. It is only in this Century that this is wrong and racist.

[DeathBlade/13.666]

Jefferson Davis was not a Racist. Only one percent of the white Population back then believed in Equality among the Races. And Racism is NOT a nineteenth Century social Norm. It is a twenty-first Century social Norm. You can not take the Standards of today and surgically transplant them on a different Society and different time Period. That is the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. Besides, Abraham Lincoln wanted to keep Slavery legal in the fifteen Southern States/Commonwealths permanently by supporting the original Thirteenth Amendment (Corwin Amendment) because he hated the Blacks. He did not want Blacks moving to the West, so by preventing Slavery from expanding, he could keep his all-white Western U.S. Bloc. He was a vicious white Supremacist who as a Lawyer assisted Slave-owners to get their runaway Slaves back if they left their State. He was a flaming Hypocrite. I do not believe in Hell, but if it existed, Lincoln would be there for all the Pain and Suffering he caused. That is why I do not run as a Republican; because it is the Party of Lincoln. I run as a Democrat or Libertarian. And Jefferson Davis was an honourable Man who only wanted his People to be left alone. He did not even want to be President. He was hoping William Loundes Yancey would be elected.
Oh? What about the words of Jefferson himself from his memoirs? http://www.confederatepastpresent.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=131:jefferson-daviss-white-supremacy-and-pro-slavery-in-his-memoirs-published-in-1881&catid=38:reconstruction-and-fusion Has for Lincoln, first you have to understand that issue of Slavery was a big political issue at the time. With that being said, he stated wouldn't opposed the Corwin Amendment should it be ratified, because the subject goes beyond what the then-current Constitution covered. Here's his inaugral address that explains that. http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html Now if he hated blacks as you stated, then why on earth would he bother setting forth on the 13th amendment? After all, he only did the Emancipation Proclamation to get back at the South, and free their slaves. Where's your proof that Lincoln was racist, btw?

EITHER way, This topic's about terrorist attacks and we're getting off-topic. So Let's continue our discussion elsewhere.

[Albear]

---------- Post added at 02:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:45 PM ----------

[/COLOR]

if anything, we're less likely to be attacked with him in office. As much as the country dislikes him, the rest of the world loves his arse. Internationally he is very good at raising the image of the US.

No, most of the country likes Obama. He was re-elected last year after all. And there is no way most of the votes were from Americans from other countries. Though I do agree with our image improving in the views of other countries.

[Wio]

No, most of the country likes Obama. He was re-elected last year after all. And there is no way most of the votes were from Americans from other countries. Though I do agree with our image improving in the views of other countries.
Bush was re-elected too. A lot of people simply don't vote. You win an election if about 25% prefer you over the next most viable guy.

As far as security goes, Obama basically gets to utilize all the freedom infringing security measures that Bush put in place, and get no crap for it simply because he didn't put them in place--he's only maintaining them. Obama has only improved our popularity among countries which have no desire to mess with us to begin with. We had an embassy attacked under Obama's watch and this happened long after he went around praising Islam. Also, the people who orchestrated the 9/11 attacks and their sympathizers are not happy with America killing Bin Laden without a trial and then dumping his body in the ocean.

[Albear]

Bush was re-elected too. A lot of people simply don't vote. You win an election if about 25% prefer you over the next most viable candidate.

I know that. People that don't vote don't want anything to do with politics, or dislike the two mains. Most of Merica likes Obama.. Alot are young people.

[Wio]

I know that. People that don't vote don't want anything to do with politics, or dislike the two mains. Most of Merica likes Obama.. Alot are young people.
Anyone in a school that receives government funding (i.e. just about all schools) is going to have teachers who are part of a teachers union that makes donations the democratic party with union dues. Young people are more exposed to pro-democrat/anti-republican opinions for obvious reasons. Obama is a democrat.

[DeathBlade/13.666]

Anyone in a school that receives government funding (i.e. just about all schools) is going to have teachers who are part of a teachers union that makes donations the democratic party with union dues. Young people are more exposed to pro-democrat/anti-republican opinions for obvious reasons. Obama is a democrat.You know, you really should generalize so much. It really defines the term "assume" (In it's joking manner) pretty well when you do. Unless you have proof that every teacher in all 50 states are members of a teachers union, and that every teachers union and teachers association in the U.S. donates to the Democratic Party. And when I say every one. I do mean it.

[Wio]

Unless you have proof that every teacher
It doesn't have to be every teacher. Young people will go through multiple teachers and multiple schools. It's no secret that the teaching community is going to be more welcoming of Democrat teachers and less so of Republican ones.

[DeathBlade/13.666]

It doesn't have to be every teacher. Young people will go through multiple teachers and multiple schools. It's no secret that the teaching community is going to be more welcoming of Democrat teachers and less so of Republican ones.
So then what you're saying is purely anecdotal and circumstantial.

[z3y2x1]

And it also depends on the politics of the region.

[Wio]

So then what you're saying is purely anecdotal and circumstantial.
I didn't give any anecdotes, though I could if you want me to do so.

Circumstantial doesn't really make sense in this context, because we're not talking about an incident.


And it also depends on the politics of the region.
There are lots of different factors. For primary education there just isn't enough room in the curriculum for propaganda, while in University is going to classes dedicated to it. Urban areas are more likely to have stronger unions than rural areas. However even in more conservative regions, you're not going to have Republican donating unions. So it's varying degrees of bias, but mainly in one direction.

[KyouFalls]

This thread... holy ****.. This is why I hate political arguments and Politics in general, Let's all be friends :)

[DeathBlade/13.666]

I didn't give any anecdotes, though I could if you want me to do so.

Circumstantial doesn't really make sense in this context, because we're not talking about an incident.Ok then, so I used the wrong words here. Either way, you can't properly support your claim of generalizing teacher, unions, and democrats all supporting each other and thus creating a general bias with youngsters in politics in every school in the nation.

[Wio]

Ok then, so I used the wrong words here. Either way, you can't properly support your claim of generalizing teacher, unions, and democrats all supporting each other and thus creating a general bias with youngsters in politics in every school in the nation.
I'm not unable to support my claim. I'm not very concerned about finding empirical evidence for things that are obvious to me, nor am I very motivated to spend hours digging up studies and statistics that you'll probably ignore or dismiss for a trivial reason anyway.

But even keeping things on a theoretical level, you haven't really pointed out any single part of my claim which is not logically sound. Instead you're just saying that I'm not proving it property and insisting that my claim has to be universally true when it is admittedly a generalization.

[DeathBlade/13.666]

I'm not unable to support my claim. I'm not very concerned about finding empirical evidence for things that are obvious to me, nor am I very motivated to spend hours digging up studies and statistics that you'll probably ignore or dismiss for a trivial reason anyway.

But even keeping things on a theoretical level, you haven't really pointed out any single part of my claim which is not logically sound. Instead you're just saying that I'm not proving it property and insisting that my claim has to be universally true when it is admittedly a generalization.
Ok then, So you want me to show you a plethora of students that are still republicans and many die-hard republicans at that even though they have had a number of teachers with varying political ideologies. Come to Prattville, Alabama then; I'll show you the high school, and you can see and question the students and staff yourself. The reason I know your generalization is false is because of my heavily Republican state, where the normal current political views are practically everything RainyDayMan just stated earlier in this thread. Now I can only cover the ideology portion of your claims. I don't have the ability to examine the spending and donations of the teacher's unions/associations in my state, nor can I infer to whether the donations are going to Democrats, Republicans, or any political group, party, or issue. But I can definitely tell you that being a Democrat in Alabama is a pain in the rear, especially when Obama was elected and re-elected. Thus I can theorize myself that if they have given any donations to any political groups/parties, it's must likely the Republican Party seeming that in the last election Democrats barely won anything in the state, and as far as political campaigning went there was very little democrats I could even vote for on the ballot. (I believe it was about a 1 Democrat - 3 Republican average statewide. Thus my Democrat only ballot had very little to choose from as opposed to the Republican only ballot) If fact the only Democratic ads I recall seeing was one for Bob Vance and one for Lucy Baxley, whereas the Republicans had ads everywhere. I'd even go so far to submit to you that in other "Red" or "Republican" states, especially in the Southeast, things aren't too far different from what you'd find here.

[RainyDayMan]

Oh? What about the words of Jefferson himself from his memoirs? http://www.confederatepastpresent.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=131:jefferson-daviss-white-supremacy-and-pro-slavery-in-his-memoirs-published-in-1881&catid=38:reconstruction-and-fusion Has for Lincoln, first you have to understand that issue of Slavery was a big political issue at the time. With that being said, he stated wouldn't opposed the Corwin Amendment should it be ratified, because the subject goes beyond what the then-current Constitution covered. Here's his inaugral address that explains that. http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html Now if he hated blacks as you stated, then why on earth would he bother setting forth on the 13th amendment? After all, he only did the Emancipation Proclamation to get back at the South, and free their slaves. Where's your proof that Lincoln was racist, btw?

EITHER way, This topic's about terrorist attacks and we're getting off-topic. So Let's continue our discussion elsewhere.

Where's his Proof that Jefferson Davis was racist? You seem intent on going off only on me for some Reason. I am sick of arguing with his Butt. You handle it.

And I never called Lincoln a Racist not in Sarcasm. I only said he was a vicious white Supremacist. Just read "Lincoln Reconsidered", "The Real Lincoln", or "America's Caesar" and see what Lincoln himself said about Blacks.

I do not believe that Lincoln was a Racist because Racism is not a nineteenth-century social Norm. Racism of today was not what it was in a past Millenium.

[Wio]

Ok then, So you want me to show you a plethora of students that are still republicans and many die-hard republicans at that even though they have had a number of teachers with varying political ideologies. Come to Prattville, Alabama then; I'll show you the high school, and you can see and question the students and staff yourself. The reason I know your generalization is false is because of my heavily Republican state, where the normal current political views are practically everything RainyDayMan just stated earlier in this thread. Now I can only cover the ideology portion of your claims. I don't have the ability to examine the spending and donations of the teacher's unions/associations in my state, nor can I infer to whether the donations are going to Democrats, Republicans, or any political group, party, or issue. But I can definitely tell you that being a Democrat in Alabama is a pain in the rear, especially when Obama was elected and re-elected. Thus I can theorize myself that if they have given any donations to any political groups/parties, it's must likely the Republican Party seeming that in the last election Democrats barely won anything in the state, and as far as political campaigning went there was very little democrats I could even vote for on the ballot. (I believe it was about a 1 Democrat - 3 Republican average statewide. Thus my Democrat only ballot had very little to choose from as opposed to the Republican only ballot) If fact the only Democratic ads I recall seeing was one for Bob Vance and one for Lucy Baxley, whereas the Republicans had ads everywhere. I'd even go so far to submit to you that in other "Red" or "Republican" states, especially in the Southeast, things aren't too far different from what you'd find here.

I'm not going to disagree with you that there are red states exist, that Republican students exist, or that a young people aren't capable of thinking for themselves. I acknowledge that some schools are going to be a lot less liberal than others. I didn't phrase things right if that is what you took from my original claim.

The claim I was getting at originally is that young people are going more likely to be Democrats rather than Republican, and this is largely due to educational institutions being more left leaning. There are various reasons why the educational system is left leaning besides "Democrats are always right" and "the truth has a liberal bias". Such reasons would be things like teachers unions and the fact that public schools are funded by the government, and democrats are always advocating for more educational funding.

Interestingly enough, red states like Alabama don't create unions which donate to Republicans, instead they simply have much lower unionization rates in general. The teachers are more likely to be a Republican than they would in a state like California. Even so, the Republican ideology in red states is perpetuated by the parents and the churches, but not so much through the schools.

Democrats take pride in the fact that there is a correlation between education (i.e. being in an educational institution) and being progressive. There is also a well known correlation between income and begin conservative. When you are younger, you're highly likely to be in an educational institution and have a low income, where as the older you get the less likely you'll be in an educational institution and the more likely you have a good salary.

[dragoninja]

`fear causes suffering. it also makes us more aware and observant but dulls our ability to make sound judgments. we are quick to judge. is war stupid? did war bring a world economy? ya in a bloody kinda way it did. war makes us a race weak and hollow and no better than the terrorists that get off on conrtoling a entire mass of people who belive they have to lock there doors all the time to be safe. its insanity and sadly enough it works. people live in fear

[Albear]

Anyone in a school that receives government funding (i.e. just about all schools) is going to have teachers who are part of a teachers union that makes donations the democratic party with union dues. Young people are more exposed to pro-democrat/anti-republican opinions for obvious reasons. Obama is a democrat.
Yeah, I am mostly a republican.. though I like Obama.

[Acid-Fang]

Yeah, I am mostly a republican.. though I like Obama.It's not hard when most of what he's actually done is expound upon what his predecessors have done, even though his speeches are more liberal then his actions. Personally, I'm waiting until 2016 when I can truly say I called his presidency right and he's done absolutely nothing to change the way things are.

[RainyDayMan]

Ok then, So you want me to show you a plethora of students that are still republicans and many die-hard republicans at that even though they have had a number of teachers with varying political ideologies. Come to Prattville, Alabama then; I'll show you the high school, and you can see and question the students and staff yourself. The reason I know your generalization is false is because of my heavily Republican state, where the normal current political views are practically everything RainyDayMan just stated earlier in this thread. Now I can only cover the ideology portion of your claims. I don't have the ability to examine the spending and donations of the teacher's unions/associations in my state, nor can I infer to whether the donations are going to Democrats, Republicans, or any political group, party, or issue. But I can definitely tell you that being a Democrat in Alabama is a pain in the rear, especially when Obama was elected and re-elected. Thus I can theorize myself that if they have given any donations to any political groups/parties, it's must likely the Republican Party seeming that in the last election Democrats barely won anything in the state, and as far as political campaigning went there was very little democrats I could even vote for on the ballot. (I believe it was about a 1 Democrat - 3 Republican average statewide. Thus my Democrat only ballot had very little to choose from as opposed to the Republican only ballot) If fact the only Democratic ads I recall seeing was one for Bob Vance and one for Lucy Baxley, whereas the Republicans had ads everywhere. I'd even go so far to submit to you that in other "Red" or "Republican" states, especially in the Southeast, things aren't too far different from what you'd find here.

Alabama and South Carolina are very similar in those Regards. I remember going to Prattville High School.