• Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.You can use your Twitter or Facebook account to sign up, or register directly.

General political chat

draybook

Well-Known Member
Yeah, Dicks scrapping those firearms was awesome. Dd you guys see the way it eliminated firearms homicides? Whew, crisis avoided. I especially liked the part where they were said to have scrapped "assault rifles". Did the government know that Dicks was selling class 3 firearms? I'm guessing that they scrapped them because they didn't have the proper tax stamps to show that they could legally own those assault rifles. Lol, you guys are so gullible. Them trashing their rifles helps the gun crisis as much as Kaepernick helps the police brutality issue. Sure, it got some attention but is it really helping anything?

I dunno, but now that Dicks and Walmart are almost out of the game, I have total confidence that firearms homicides should read a big fat zero on next year's crime reports.
 

DoubleJ21

Well-Known Member
Advertisement
Lol- I’m from LI. Still have a lot of family and friends there.

No it isn’t. Not close.
Hence the screenshot. It will give me a good laugh for years to come.
 

OneofThree

Well-Known Member
I wrote “international community” for a reason. The responsibility should not fall on the US alone. The entire world owes the Kurds for their inestimable role in fighting ISIS.

By the same token, the whole world—and not just the region—stands to suffer if the Kurds are attacked, because ISIS may well rebound in the ensuing chaos.
Your description of the situation concerning "fighting ISIS" is such a gross oversimplification, it borders on disingenuous.

I really don’t get what’s funny about what I wrote. The region is called Rojava (officially the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria) if you want to learn more about it.
And Syria, nonetheless. Sort of like, Texas. 👍

Ya know, I admittedly and often enough miss the obvious. Shame on me. I realized this morning what I had missed last night, which is the fact that you've got a horse in the race in respect to the discussion. Count me out from this point forward, because there's no way for you to approach this arm-length.
 

DoubleJ21

Well-Known Member
Yeah, Dicks scrapping those firearms was awesome. Dd you guys see the way it eliminated firearms homicides? Whew, crisis avoided. I especially liked the part where they were said to have scrapped "assault rifles". Did the government know that Dicks was selling class 3 firearms? I'm guessing that they scrapped them because they didn't have the proper tax stamps to show that they could legally own those assault rifles. Lol, you guys are so gullible. Them trashing their rifles helps the gun crisis as much as Kaepernick helps the police brutality issue. Sure, it got some attention but is it really helping anything?

I dunno, but now that Dicks and Walmart are almost out of the game, I have total confidence that firearms homicides should read a big fat zero on next year's crime reports.
Politically motivated moves such as this will only further segregate our society by politics, and increase polarization, which is something I consider to be detrimental to our nation.
 

21stamps

Well-Known Member
Second, you have it entirely backwards. The argument people are making is that Turkey wouldn’t dare to invade Syria to begin with if American troops weren’t withdrawing. And indeed it wouldn’t.
You want to volunteer to go?

Seriously though, look at your statement.. the same people who don’t want the us military to get involved with other nations, are the same people who are now saying they should be there to protect another nation.
You can’t have it both ways.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
Your description of the situation concerning "fighting ISIS" is such a gross oversimplification, it borders on disingenuous.
Such an accusation is meaningless without anything to back it up.

And Syria, nonetheless. Sort of like, Texas. 👍
You wrote last night that Assad has control over the region in question. He doesn’t. There’s no need to be snide just because I offered a correction to your mistake.

Ya know, I admittedly and often enough miss the obvious. Shame on me. I realized this morning what I had missed last night, which is the fact that you've got a horse in the race in respect to the discussion. Count me out from this point forward, because there's no way for you to approach this arm-length.
What horse? You make it seem as if I’m blinkered by some sort of ideological loyalty, whereas I am in fact an ethnic Turk speaking out against Turkey.
 
Last edited:

21stamps

Well-Known Member
Politically motivated moves such as this will only further segregate our society by politics, and increase polarization, which is something I consider to be detrimental to our nation.
I think some of these companies take comfort in their domination and don’t fear making such choices. They appease the SJWs, and they know that out of the rest of America- the sane people- the majority of those folks won’t actually boycott even if disagree.
I said something similar with Nike.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
You want to volunteer to go?

Seriously though, look at your statement.. the same people who don’t want the us military to get involved with other nations, are the same people who are now saying they should be there to protect another nation.
You can’t have it both ways.
I suggest you look at my statements. The bolded doesn’t reflect anything I’ve posted here. As always, you’re conflating me with others. My own view is that the international community should absolutely be involved in the fight against ISIS, and I’m very glad the US has done so much to support the Kurds in this regard.
 

Laketravis

Premium Member
@BuddyThomas, maybe you missed this. I'm still curious what your thoughts are.

Very concerned. Are the gay Trump supporters on here happy now?
Who exactly are the "gay Trump supporters on here" ?
Don’t recall the exact names but there are at least two, maybe three, one of whom I strangely actually get along with. We bonded over A Star is Born, lol.

I imagine a few will chime in. Maybe they don’t still support him but their postings reflect otherwise. Either way, they had “schooled” me in the past that this administration was doing nothing against the LGBTQ community. Wonder if they still feel that way.
Okay but I'm genuinely curious how you could lump a possibly negative outcome on Trump and his supporters? If I'm reading the article correctly, speculation is that the justices are almost evenly divided and that the controlling vote could turn out to be Neil Gorsuch (a Trump appointee) who seemed receptive to the argument that no matter what Congress had in mind in 1964, the words of the law would apply to sexual orientation, if not transgender status as well.

Trump has only appointed two justices. Gorsuch seems tilted in your favor (unless I'm reading it incorrectly?) and the only other Trump appointee hasn't given many clues as to what his position is. So for the court to be almost evenly divided it would require mostly non-Trump appointees for such dissension.

Again, I'm not supporting or defending Trump, I'm simply trying to figure out how you would equate a negative outcome as being primarily due to Trump?
 

Willmark

Well-Known Member
See Woodrow Wilson.
Indeed.

The problems of the Middle East currently can be traced back to the end of WWI. It didn’t just “suddenly” happen as the result of the last 20 years of American foreign policy. There is plenty of blame to go around.

One could even argue it’s centuries (or more) in the making given the geographical crossroads between east and west.
 

Grimley1968

Well-Known Member
Just checking in to remind everyone how amused I get when no-service civs get mad about troops not being deployed all over the place. I guess armchair soldiering is easier than the real thing...
This is a good point.

I never served myself, but I think the US would be better off (and possibly the rest of the world) if we were more discriminating about where in the world our national interest is most at stake and worth the potential loss of life of our military personnel. Even if there is a significant national interest, is even that national interest worth losing even one of our young people?

Even though I have been supportive of some of our activities overseas (strongly supported the first Gulf War and Bush 41's adherence to the stated mission of ending the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait even when given opportunities to take out Saddam), even I will admit that some of our activities over the past couple of generations have not satisfactorily answered the question in the last paragraph.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
Just checking in to remind everyone how amused I get when no-service civs get mad about troops not being deployed all over the place. I guess armchair soldiering is easier than the real thing...
From Brexit to jury sentences, there are many topics on which we all offer our own non-expert “armchair” opinions. That’s the nature of a discussion forum.
 

Slpy3270

Active Member
The whole Turkey-Syria thing is bad but it's even worse when you consider that, should the next president be a Dem, he/she will not be able to push forward his/her domestic priorities because the foreign crises will consume everything in their agenda.

Given that 2020 Dems' foreign policy (with exceptions to Warren and Sanders) seems to be "undo everything Trump does but leave most of the status quo in place," I'm not optimistic.
 

OneofThree

Well-Known Member
Dems' foreign policy. . .
Dem foreign policy created ISIS -fact. Now where discussing cleaning up yet another problem with proxy combatants we've created and funded? Shocker. But even this doesn't tell the whole story. Unfortunately, some process this as some sort of purely humanitarian engagement. :hilarious: We don't care any more about the Kurds in Syria than we did Albanians in Kosovo.
 

Slpy3270

Active Member
I wrote “international community” for a reason. The responsibility should not fall on the US alone. The entire world owes the Kurds for their inestimable role in fighting ISIS.

By the same token, the whole world—and not just the region—stands to suffer if the Kurds are attacked, because ISIS may well rebound in the ensuing chaos.
Hate to be pessimistic here but ISIS was going to rebound anyhow. Most of their wicked ideology is in fact mainstream in many governments of our Middle Eastern "allies" (i.e. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc.). They just don't have the barbarism associated with it.

If you really think that Turkey wouldn't have the guts to shoot US troops to get into NE Syria, then you really need to look at Erdoğan's religious views, which are almost indistinguishable from those held by Middle Eastern leaders and ISIS. He would have no qualms using nuclear weapons against us or our troops even if it gets himself and his people killed, because he would've morally "won".

If we had any guts to prevent this calamity, we would've shot Erdogan and his supporters there and then, but because Turkey's a NATO ally (somehow) that was a nonstarter.
 

21stamps

Well-Known Member
I suggest you look at my statements. The bolded doesn’t reflect anything I’ve posted here. As always, you’re conflating me with others. My own view is that the international community should absolutely be involved in the fight against ISIS, and I’m very glad the US has done so much to support the Kurds in this regard.
Are you upset with Trump, or with european countries?

From your posts last night, you appear to be putting a lot of weight on the shoulders of the US.. and quite willing to let Americans die, because they “owe” the people there.

I have not given my thoughts on what I think should or shouldn’t be done... but, I am chuckling and sickened simultaneously at the way people want to use (or not use) our troops based on how it fits their Anti-Trump narrative.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
Hate to be pessimistic here but ISIS was going to rebound anyhow. Most of their wicked ideology is in fact mainstream in many governments of our Middle Eastern "allies" (i.e. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, etc.). They just don't have the barbarism associated with it.

If you really think that Turkey wouldn't have the guts to shoot US troops to get into NE Syria, then you really need to look at Erdoğan's religious views, which are almost indistinguishable from those held by Middle Eastern leaders and ISIS. He would have no qualms using nuclear weapons against us or our troops even if it gets himself and his people killed, because he would've morally "won".

If we had any guts to prevent this calamity, we would've shot Erdogan and his supporters there and then, but because Turkey's a NATO ally (somehow) that was a nonstarter.
You're being incredibly reductive and inaccurate. Anyone who's been to Jordan, Qatar, or Turkey can tell you how wildly far-fetched your comparison to IS is. Even Saudi Arabia doesn't merit being equated with the hellish and apocalyptic polity that IS created. That the majority of IS's victims are Muslims underscores the fallacy of conflating the region's various expressions of Islam.
 
Top Bottom