US 2008 Presidential Campaign Discussion Thread - Part 9

[purpleoscar]

Mainstream media's bias is nowhere close to Rush's bias. If you are honestly suggesting that Rush's bias is comparable to the bias at NBC, ABC etc, you have lost all credibility on this one.

If you are a fair minded and you understand politics you can't tell me what is happening to Palin is not over the top? ABC edited her transcripts to try to make her look bad, they allowed left-wing bloggers to question Palin's son's paternity. Isn't it obvious who's kid it was? MSNBC had to fire staff who were overly biased. The New York Times did so too. What about Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas? What about 90% of the artist community using their celebrity status on TV?

Rush Limbaugh is supplying a demand for news and opinions of a conservative nature. He's not trying to make an ABC. It's the "Rush Limbaugh show for Advanced Conservative studies." He's a pundit. If the major networks were so fair people would feel their opinions were given equal say and Rush would be out of a job. He's popular and wealthy because there is a HUGE demand for what he does. He's not indoctrinating conservatives. Conservatives are rising him up because they get what they need from him. Conservatives don't agree with him on everything, but they at least have a platform to respond to attacks in the other venues.

Certainly immigration and the war were sticking points for his show and he had to ride that one out. The overspending the Republicans were doing was a huge irritant for conservatives and they are trying to go back to the basics with Palin. McCain has also pushed for vetoing bad spending.

This push for Conservative media has been going on for sometime and it's now in the past 10 years showing up more openly. Especially on Fox news.

I know socialists. I've been to university and seen teachers give conservatives low marks simply for their opinions, including myself. They should be marking for knowledge of the subject, not political views. Some left wing professors weren't so bad but that was under threats from parents and students.

Socialists don't like equal opportunity for ideas because they don't believe it. They know that having only one point of view enmasse will convince most people just from saturation. It makes sense they would want to dominate media. Not all people are influenced by it, but the more people are uneducated of the issues the more they will rely on mainstream media as a fast food way of getting their knowledge. People can be misled easily this way. The left knows that and is ruthless with it.

It would be nice to have an unbiased media but the left and the right have different views on the world and it shows in their priorities. These priorities conflict and lead to confrontation and defensiveness. This leads to left wing media vs. right wing media. I don't see this changing at all. With jobs we can't always keep up to date so reporters end up with that task. It's up to us to weigh both sides and then make a decision. By all means look at other points of view. I did. In fact it will help you make your decisions easier. Especially if you read classic books on economics, politics, history, and philosophy. If your education is better than media people you can see bias even easier and sometimes guess what people will say next.

 

[purpleoscar]

I just think Rush is an irritating blowhard, is all.

Obviously, you disagree.

Yes he's not subtle. He also makes fun of his enemies. There are more subtilties with National Review if that's what you're looking for.

 

[purpleoscar]

I find this a curious statement. Socialists are rather good on military. China invests heavily in their military, as did the USSR. North Korea invests in its military while its people starve.

True conservatives realise that an excessive big government milit-ind complex is yet another threat to freedom.

YouTube - Eisenhower warns us of the military industrial complex.

Strongbow, a socialist contributor to FYM, is obsessed with having a huge military.

Most socialists today want to decrease spending on military and increase spending on domestic social policies. The area that makes them militaristic is that enemies look at them as weak and altercations start from that perceived weakness.

Usually leftists decry overspending more on military. They tend to be mum on other areas. Just look at Barack Obama, or even Bill Clinton.

 

[purpleoscar]

Even more curious is, again there comes this BS that left/liberal equals socialist.

They are socialists. Or more accurate. Fabian Socialists. They want to change society slowly. Make no mistake. The liberals in university do read Karl Marx and gloat over him. If you don't like Marx then you probably are more moderate and there are some liberals that don't agree on everything of the left. Nobody has made a party called the "Moderate party" yet.

What liberals do in university now is to try and change terms like "social justice" to "Civic virtue". They also adopted Clinton's idea of government expenditure as "investments". An investment is an investment and an expenditure is an expenditure. You can't fool this accountant.

 

[financeguy]

Make no mistake. The liberals in university do read Karl Marx and gloat over him. If you don't like Marx then you probably are more moderate and there are some liberals that don't agree on everything of the left. Nobody has made a party called the "Moderate party" yet.

No, Vincent is actually a committed socialist.

On account of him gloating over Marx at university, as all liberals are wont to do.

I happen to know that all the liberals on this forum gloat over Marx in a most despicable and un-American fashion.

Sorry, but I just can't take your posts seriously. You have a very simplistic take on things.

 

[Diemen]

They are socialists. Or more accurate. Fabian Socialists. They want to change society slowly. Make no mistake. The liberals in university do read Karl Marx and gloat over him. If you don't like Marx then you probably are more moderate and there are some liberals that don't agree on everything of the left.

If you're actually seriously making this argument then, like financeguy said, it's hard to take you seriously.

 

[Harry Vest]

Where has this "Purpleoscar" person been. I might not agree with everything he says but at least he seems passionate about it. Adds a little spice around here. Keep em' coming.

 

[phillyfan26]

Maybe it's just me, but I prefer substance to spice.

 

[U2DMfan]

Where has this "Purpleoscar" person been. I might not agree with everything he says but at least he seems passionate about it. Adds a little spice around here. Keep em' coming.

I totally agree with you. I disagree with a lot of what purpleoscar has said about OUR media, and I am glad to explain why. That's not the point.

Let's bring some fucking different views in around here.
That's the point.

NBCrusader was one who was ran off by the Christian haters around here, he was a GREAT conservative voice. Diamond, FG and Sting have the balls, give it up to them. 2861 and others are hanging in there as well. 85% for Obama in the recent FYM poll is just...pitiful. The choir preaching to the choir. C'mon, folks.

Speaking of, Mr. Harry Vest, since Hillary dropped out of the race, you have been among the most even minded posters I've seen on the whole of FYM. Astonishing.

Perhaps you should reevaluate your irrational, conspiratorial, distaste for her.

Especially considering the campaign we've seen from Obama since he got his nose bloodied. Thankfully, he's gotten tougher in recent weeks. She'd be cleaning McCain's clock right now with the advent of this economic disaster.
That's what politics are about. It's not the image you hold yourself up as, it's the image that's left after you've been savaged.

 

[Strongbow]

I find this a curious statement. Socialists are rather good on military. China invests heavily in their military, as did the USSR. North Korea invests in its military while its people starve.

True conservatives realise that an excessive big government milit-ind complex is yet another threat to freedom.

YouTube - Eisenhower warns us of the military industrial complex.

Strongbow, a socialist contributor to FYM, is obsessed with having a huge military.

The most important job the President has is protecting the country and its interest. Failure to do that makes any other national policy goals impossible. In order to protect the country, you don't necessarily need to have a large military, but you must have one that can meet the country's national security requirements.

The United States along with its NATO allies attempted to build an alliance that shared the burdens of defending Europe from a Soviet/Warsaw Pact invasion. The Soviets spent much of the Cold War attempting to have and offensive capability in which they could overrun Western Europe in a matter of weeks. Such an offensive capability requires many times the money and resources it would take to simply maintain a defensive capability and went well beyond the Soviet Unions basic requirements for its national security.


As for Ike, while he was a good General, as President he was rather poor when it came to the proper level of defense spending and overall Cold War strategy. He wrongly believed that the United States could exclusively depend on Nuclear Weapons for most of its national security needs and could reduce spending on the conventional military which took up the majority of the defense budget. The budget cuts were opposed by the military under Ike and hurt the country's conventional defense capability. Once Kennedy became President, he correctly took the country away from a reliance on nuclear weapons and massive nuclear retaliation to a policy of "flexible response", which meant the country would rely on all aspects of its military structure(conventional and nuclear) to deter war in Europe and elsewhere instead of simply the incredible and increasingly not credible threat of full scale nuclear retaliation for any type of conflict in Europe.

By the late 1960s, the Soviets had developed a survivable second strike capability making the first use of nuclear weapons by the United States in response to a conventional invasion of Europe essentially suicide. The only way to credibly deter a conventional invasion of Europe by the Soviet/Warsaw Pact forces was by maintaining a sufficient conventional military capability in Europe. Once the Soviets reached Nuclear Parity with the United States, Nuclear weapons really only become effective at detering the Soviets use of such weapons.

Ike failed to see the need to maintain a credible conventional defensive structure in Europe and mistakenly believed that NATO could continue to primarily rely on a nuclear weapons and would not need the more expensive conventional military force structure to deter an invasion. Kennedy, much to the relief of the US military and prior to the Soviets achieving Nuclear parity with the United States, started to correct this mistake.

 

[U2democrat]

In a couple hours I'll be leaving to see Obama-Biden in Fredericksburg...last Saturday it was Madeleine Albright at my school, Wednesday it was the Today Show because we're a battleground state, now today we get Obama and Biden the day after the first debate. Wow. I like swing state status

 

[U2Fanatic4ever]

you lucky gal!^ have fun and report back cuz I wanna hear how it went..

 

[Irvine511]

Rush Limbaugh + Fox news

vs

CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, PBS

It's good to get another point of view.

this is a totally false equivocation. totally false. these are not equivalents. you have to unabashedly biased outfits versus very mainstream news organizations. if we are to say that 1= very liberal and 10 = very conservative, it's not like you have a 9 vs a 2, it's that you have an 8 versus a 4, and the entire conversation is dragged to the right.

if anything, the MSM is thusly unduly influenced by the right and if it reflects any bias at all, it's a corporate bias.

except for PBS and NPR. because they are government funded, there's no one they have to please.

 

[Irvine511]

Hardly anyone knows what the fuckin "Bush Doctrine" is - it's actually many things rolled into one. I would completely give up on that one. Nobody cares, specifically the average voter. Stick with the Katie interview - now THAT was something else!!!

i knew. so did all the GOP candidates when Charlie Gibson asked them about it in NH during one of the debates.

stick what what YOU know, Harry.

 

[Irvine511]

If you are a fair minded and you understand politics you can't tell me what is happening to Palin is not over the top? ABC edited her transcripts to try to make her look bad, they allowed left-wing bloggers to question Palin's son's paternity. Isn't it obvious who's kid it was? MSNBC had to fire staff who were overly biased. The New York Times did so too. What about Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas? What about 90% of the artist community using their celebrity status on TV?

what is happening to Palin is to be expected when you pluck an unknown with a small but alarming track record and suddenly thrust her on the national stage and then NOT LET HER SPEAK TO THE PRESS and when she does it's in the most tightly scripted, controlled environment possible. that's positively Russian in it's lack off freedom. ABC edited. that's what happens. there's always editing in any sort of interview like that. i saw the transcripts. there was NOTHING that was edited that would have made her look any better. left wing bloggers are allowed to ask ANYTHING they want. you'll notice that the paternity of her son was never picked up by the MSM except for McCain surrogates who were crying sexism (when the truly sexist thing happening is that they don't trust her enough to answer questions and speak for herself). MSNBC didn't fire anybody, they shifted anchors. Olbermann and Matthews still have jobs. what are you talking about with the NYT? the last issue i can think of was Judy Miller who was shilling for the administration and being fed false stories by Scooter Libby and Ahmed Chalabi about the WMDs in Iraq that were never found revealing herself to be a total patsy for the Bush administration. what about Clarence Thomas? and aren't celebrities citizens? they have money and exposure, they can use it however they please.

Rush Limbaugh is supplying a demand for news and opinions of a conservative nature. He's not trying to make an ABC. It's the "Rush Limbaugh show for Advanced Conservative studies." He's a pundit. If the major networks were so fair people would feel their opinions were given equal say and Rush would be out of a job. He's popular and wealthy because there is a HUGE demand for what he does. He's not indoctrinating conservatives. Conservatives are rising him up because they get what they need from him. Conservatives don't agree with him on everything, but they at least have a platform to respond to attacks in the other venues.

for a conservative, you don't know too much about marketing and branding.

 

[purpleoscar]

If you're actually seriously making this argument then, like financeguy said, it's hard to take you seriously.

I can't ignore my experiences in University which are not uncommon. Other students were targeted in a similar style that you see in that movie "The Lives of Others." What they do is ask questions that will lead you to admit your opinion and then they know who you are. You will never get full marks on your assignments even if you change your mind and write socialist style. Once you're targeted, that's it. It's the course Business Ethics. Except the teachers aren't ethical. I boggles the mind.

Because I fashioned my point of view from then on to an anti-corporation, anti-capitalist point of view he passed me, barely. If he failed me I would have protested to the principal. It's really hard to write in a point of view you don't believe in. It's like wading in shit and holding your nose.

I like how people respond "I can't take you seriously". Maybe I should do that more often but I think people wouldn't take me seriously no matter how I fashion my conservative arguments.

The other way people don't engage in arguments is by saying "you're drinking the Kool-Aid. Am I supposed to feel embarrased with comments like that? I'm on to you guys.

Oh well if liberals don't want to know why they don't win elections then it's because they don't take conservative arguments seriously.

I end up writing lots and only get one sentence responses. I guess that is to tire me out.

"Hey man, you're drinking the Kool-Aid. You can't be serious."

When people defend the leader of Iran I should respond the same way.

 

[purpleoscar]

No, Vincent is actually a committed socialist.

On account of him gloating over Marx at university, as all liberals are wont to do.

I happen to know that all the liberals on this forum gloat over Marx in a most despicable and un-American fashion.

Sorry, but I just can't take your posts seriously. You have a very simplistic take on things.

That's because some liberals are liberals without actually looking at the literature that espouses it. It's not simplistic to look at reality. If liberals want socialist solutions then that's what they are. Even conservatives do so if they feel public pressure.

Do you think that most liberal voters actually read economics and try to consolidate their point of view to something consistent? Most of them are confused with agenda setting professors, mainstream media, and the artist community repeating their propaganda all the time. If I didn't study on my own I would be confused too. The way an advertising jingle can stay in your mind, or a melody is like points of view blasted from all angles trying to get you to believe a certain way. It's hard for people to work and keep up on what's going on so when they actually have the time to study in school they get major left-wing bias up the ying yang. No wonder they are confused. At least in the U.S. there is some competition. If people think socialists have gone away after the fall of the Soviet Union then think again. They never give up. Just look at the U.N. and their salivating over carbon taxes.

 

[phillyfan26]

You and Harry seem to type in a similar "conspiracy theory" type of manner, which doesn't usually go too well in FYM. Paranoia just doesn't look legitimate if it's posted almost constantly, even if some of the time it's well placed.

 

[phillyfan26]

That's because some liberals are liberals without actually looking at the literature that espouses it. It's not simplistic to look at reality. If liberals want socialist solutions then that's what they are. Even conservatives do so if they feel public pressure.

Do you think that most liberal voters actually read economics and try to consolidate their point of view to something consistent? Most of them are confused with agenda setting professors, mainstream media, and the artist community repeating their propaganda all the time. If I didn't study on my own I would be confused too. The way an advertising jingle can stay in your mind, or a melody is like points of view blasted from all angles trying to get you to believe a certain way. It's hard for people to work and keep up on what's going on so when they actually have the time to study in school they get major left-wing bias up the ying yang. No wonder they are confused. At least in the U.S. there is some competition. If people think socialists have gone away after the fall of the Soviet Union then think again. They never give up. Just look at the U.N. and their salivating over carbon taxes.

I used to be conservative, and then I became liberal because their viewpoints were preferable to those of conservatives. Did something just click inside of me that suddenly made me stop caring about anything and just act like a liberal? Because "liberals are liberals?"

Your argument of "liberals being liberals" just doesn't make sense, for that reason.

 

[VintagePunk]

I used to be conservative, and then I became liberal because their viewpoints were preferable to those of conservatives. Did something just click inside of me that suddenly made me stop caring about anything and just act like a liberal? Because "liberals are liberals?"

Your argument of "liberals being liberals" just doesn't make sense, for that reason.

You drank the Kool-aid, Pfan. That's the only explanation. It couldn't be that you spent time informing yourself about the issues and putting thought into it. No. We're all sheep. You merely became one of the flock.

 

[anitram]

Do you think that most liberal voters actually read economics and try to consolidate their point of view to something consistent?

Do you think most conservative voters are reading economic papers?

I would consider myself left of the Canadian Liberal party. You might be surprised, though, to find out what I do for a living. But that's because you seem to think that you can put people into neat little boxes and categorize them on a black/white basis.

 

[purpleoscar]

The most important job the President has is protecting the country and its interest. Failure to do that makes any other national policy goals impossible. In order to protect the country, you don't necessarily need to have a large military, but you must have one that can meet the country's national security requirements.

The United States along with its NATO allies attempted to build an alliance that shared the burdens of defending Europe from a Soviet/Warsaw Pact invasion. The Soviets spent much of the Cold War attempting to have and offensive capability in which they could overrun Western Europe in a matter of weeks. Such an offensive capability requires many times the money and resources it would take to simply maintain a defensive capability and went well beyond the Soviet Unions basic requirements for its national security.

As for Ike, while he was a good General, as President he was rather poor when it came to the proper level of defense spending and overall Cold War strategy. He wrongly believed that the United States could exclusively depend on Nuclear Weapons for most of its national security needs and could reduce spending on the conventional military which took up the majority of the defense budget. The budget cuts were opposed by the military under Ike and hurt the country's conventional defense capability. Once Kennedy became President, he correctly took the country away from a reliance on nuclear weapons and massive nuclear retaliation to a policy of "flexible response", which meant the country would rely on all aspects of its military structure(conventional and nuclear) to deter war in Europe and elsewhere instead of simply the incredible and increasingly not credible threat of full scale nuclear retaliation for any type of conflict in Europe.

By the late 1960s, the Soviets had developed a survivable second strike capability making the first use of nuclear weapons by the United States in response to a conventional invasion of Europe essentially suicide. The only way to credibly deter a conventional invasion of Europe by the Soviet/Warsaw Pact forces was by maintaining a sufficient conventional military capability in Europe. Once the Soviets reached Nuclear Parity with the United States, Nuclear weapons really only become effective at detering the Soviets use of such weapons.

Ike failed to see the need to maintain a credible conventional defensive structure in Europe and mistakenly believed that NATO could continue to primarily rely on a nuclear weapons and would not need the more expensive conventional military force structure to deter an invasion. Kennedy, much to the relief of the US military and prior to the Soviets achieving Nuclear parity with the United States, started to correct this mistake.

Well I agree with some of what you are saying but because of technology it will always be expensive. Americans do rely on technology a little too much and they are learning in Iraq and Afghanistan that there needs to be more persuasiveness involved. Bush looked at Iraq like another Japan. A former enemy that becomes a friend. The culture in the Middle East is more tribal and developing trust there is much more diffcult. Look at McCain's point of view of Pakistan vs. Obama. Petraeus understands this as well.

 

[purpleoscar]

Do you think most conservative voters are reading economic papers?

I would consider myself left of the Canadian Liberal party. You might be surprised, though, to find out what I do for a living. But that's because you seem to think that you can put people into neat little boxes and categorize them on a black/white basis.

Yes. More than socialists do. Marx was proven wrong by Menger a long time ago. The labour theory of value is wrong. If you're left of the liberal party (NDP, Green) then what economic books do you read. The left believes in the finite pie and the labour theory of value. The liberals are half/half on that subject but love lots of distribution policies even if it hurts the economy.

Please tell me what you do. I'd laugh if you were a banker and an NDP supporter. Talk about confusion.

 

[purpleoscar]

I used to be conservative, and then I became liberal because their viewpoints were preferable to those of conservatives. Did something just click inside of me that suddenly made me stop caring about anything and just act like a liberal? Because "liberals are liberals?"

Your argument of "liberals being liberals" just doesn't make sense, for that reason.

My point is that you need to delve deep and READ more from different points of view and study where they came from. Most politicians (including conservative ones) often use simplistic slogans and shorten their points of view for TV and Radio consumption. I hope you made your change because you did this effort and not from basic TV, Radio, newspaper. If you did remember that Books > Newspapers > Radio > TV. Why? Because there is more content and less emotion is involved.

 

[anitram]

Right, I'm sure that rural Albertans are reading Paul Krugman's columns on a daily basis, the paragons of economic intellect that they are.

Your paranoia about "socialists" is actually quite funny, I think you'd feel more at home if this was the 1950s or 60s.

There is nothing confused about my political views. I am in corporate law, and I don't happen to think that the bottom 95% needs to carry the water for me because I've been financially successful in life. I grew up in extreme poverty and have done very well for myself but I have not forgotten where I came from and who I was and I would only hope that I can contribute to the opportunities of others who were in my position to achieve the same success rather than sneering at them from the top with a "I got mine, fuck you!" attitude.

 

[anitram]

Most politicians (including conservative ones) often use simplistic slogans and shorten their points of view for TV and Radio consumption.

Says a RUSH LIMBAUGH fan.

 

[phillyfan26]

My point is that you need to delve deep and READ more from different points of view and study where they came from. Most politicians (including conservative ones) often use simplistic slogans and shorten their points of view for TV and Radio consumption. I hope you made your change because you did this effort and not from basic TV, Radio, newspaper. If you did remember that Books > Newspapers > Radio > TV. Why? Because there is more content and less emotion is involved.

And my point is that I did that and changed my views. Frankly, I'm insulted you think that someone would change their entire outlook on politics because of simplistic slogans and media consumption points. Those two things are for one thing: rallying a base.

The ultimate thing that changed for me was a realization. I used to have the attitude of wiretaps being OK because "if you weren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to worry about?" But what changed? A realization that the system isn't perfect. Ultimately, that's a big part of what splits Republicans and Democrats. Republicans are for the death penalty, are for torture, are for increased power of the government. Why? Because they're sure that the legal system will find the right people guilty. They're sure every captured suspect must be guilty and must have information. They're sure a Republican president would never misuse his power when issuing orders for wiretapping his own citizens. That's what changed for me: I realized that the system had to work with human error and account for it.

Certainly, this isn't the case for everyone, but it's enough of a trend that my views changed.

 

[purpleoscar]

except for PBS and NPR. because they are government funded, there's no one they have to please.

I know who they have to please.

I don't think I made a false equivocation. People are pushing up Fox News over CNN and Rush has almost as many listeners as Oprah has viewers. There is a demand for a reason. People are hungry to see their point of view out there. How come Al Franken failed at radio? Because we don't need another left wing point of view. It's everywhere. We know what it is.

Why do you think An American Carol is out there? Because conservatives are trying to get into the domination of Hollywood. They know that media influences people and they are trying to compete.

This competition is going to help America. The left will have to engage in the right's ideas whether the like it or not.

 

[phillyfan26]

MSNBC is liberal, CNN is left-leaning but more moderate than most give them credit for, and PBS and NPR are unbiased.

 

[purpleoscar]

And my point is that I did that and changed my views. Frankly, I'm insulted you think that someone would change their entire outlook on politics because of simplistic slogans and media consumption points. Those two things are for one thing: rallying a base.

The ultimate thing that changed for me was a realization. I used to have the attitude of wiretaps being OK because "if you weren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to worry about?" But what changed? A realization that the system isn't perfect. Ultimately, that's a big part of what splits Republicans and Democrats. Republicans are for the death penalty, are for torture, are for increased power of the government. Why? Because they're sure that the legal system will find the right people guilty. They're sure ever captured suspect must be guilty and must have information. They're sure a Republican president would never misuse his power when issuing orders for wiretapping his own citizens. That's what changed for me: I realized that the system had to work with human error and account for it.

Well my assumption is often correct. Most people do rely on slogans. Why do you think they are used so often? That's why I asked you the question to be sure where you're coming from. I can't read your mind.

I understand your opinion on wiretaps but I hope there is much more deviation from conservatives then that. BTW not all conservatives agree with torture (McCain).

The reason for the wiretaps is because war has changed since the 1800's. Guerilla warfare is different. When people dress in plain clothes, infiltrate your free society and then attack how do you catch them? Attacking before we get attacked becomes more important because of the damage one attack can do. The wiretapping is to check on people who communicate with known terrorists so we can do something about it. Thanks to Bush there hasn't been a successful attack in the U.S. since 9 11. Wiretapping is a part of spying. I hope you don't think the U.S. should dismantle it's spy agency because of wiretapping. You can't be much of a spy without wiretapping.

When it comes to torture I don't think plain clothes enemies should be treated the same as our citizens. This is something the left introduced recently. In WWII if there was a NAZI dressed in plain clothes and caught he would be shot. The Geneva convention was for people in uniform. We can't be chivalrous against an enemy that pretends to be a civilian and stabs us in the back.

Now I'm against the torture that the U.S. is doing mainly because it's not harsh enough to get information out of them. If we are not prepared to get violent with them waterboarding is not going to do it. It's better to avoid it in that case. At minimum they need to be detained. Despite what lawyers say in regards to Guantanemo Bay and the supposed innocent people. A lot of those so called "innocent" people aren't that innocent and are at minimum affiliated with terrorist groups even if they haven't successfully killed anyone. If we let them all go we are endangering our soldiers and citizens in the name of political correctness.