home

Tancredo Continues Attempt to Justify the Unjustifiable

By Jeralyn, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Jul 27, 2005 at 10:56:50 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo was on Hannity and Colmes last night. Crooks and Liars has the video and this comment:

I always get a kick out of Hannity when his guests are so lost that he has to coach them through and supply them with the answers that they can't come up with.

In other Tancredo news, the Congressman will meet with some 'moderate' Muslim groups to discuss his remarks -- but not the big ones.

< Abu Ghraib Dog Abuse Hearing Ends | Beware Congressional Immunity for Rove and Others >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Tancredo Continues Attempt to Justify the Unjustifiable | 34 comments (34 topical)
    Re: Tancredo Continues Attempt to Justify the Unju (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    this commenter is over his four a day limit for today. Feel free to return tomorrow. See commenting rules regarding chatterers.

    Re: Tancredo Continues Attempt to Justify the Unju (none / 0) (#2)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    I watched the whole interview live, and Tancredo made perfect sense. Nothing should be off the table. Let the terrorists, and their enablers, worry about what our response would be to multiple major attacks within the US. He also noted that this is not really a MAD situation, as there are no adversary nation state per se. Perhaps another way to look at it is for all of the Moslem states to understand they have a very large stake in stopping the terrorists, since the terrorists come from all the Moslem states.

    Re: Tancredo Continues Attempt to Justify the Unju (none / 0) (#3)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    Yes, let's bomb the vatican and jerusalem for what McVeigh did on OK city and rudolph did for abortion clinics. It makes about as much sense. There are over a billion muslims. Most of them don't hate us ... yet. Threatening to blow up their holy cities will certainly convince a few that there extemist brethren are right.

    Re: Tancredo Continues Attempt to Justify the Unju (none / 0) (#4)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    Lets see, you have extremists that are willing to blow themselves up to harm the US and you are threatening to kill them. Well thats going to be a hell of a deterant. Also you would kill thousands maybe millions of innocents just because the gov wont reexamine their policies thereby making and recruiting more extremist for further attacks. Remember AQ is in over 60 countries world wide. Yep sounds like a dumba** plan to me

    Re: Tancredo Continues Attempt to Justify the Unju (none / 0) (#6)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:40 PM EST
    DA, not sure why you directed your post my direction, I agree with you. Saying, as our admin does, that 'terrists hate freedom' is a crock. We have always reaped what we sowed in the world. Iran going religiofascist and taking an embassy hostage? Well what do expect when the cia 'advisors' helped the shah keep iranians repressed. Afghans go religiofascist and sponsor terrorism? Well, who armed and helped them against the russians? Chile is brutal dictatorship? Well we helped overthrow the democratically elected leader because we disagreed with his policies, they weren't good for Coca Cola and Dole. El Salvador Cuba Vietnam It'll happen every time when we sponsor and supply arms to coups and dictatorships that are diametrically opposed to our stated ideals.

    Re: Tancredo Continues Attempt to Justify the Unju (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:41 PM EST
    Tancredos statements are not thought out and makes fence sitters pick peace or blowing themselves up to kill others.

    Re: Tancredo Continues Attempt to Justify the Unju (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:41 PM EST
    Jim: "Tancredo made perfect sense. Nothing should be off the table. Let the terrorists, and their enablers," Let Jim and Tom share their racism and willingness to commit genocide with the 99.9% of the 1.7 BILLION Muslims. Let Jim and Tom declare that they aren't racists, which is why the blame and wish to dangle the nuclear dagger over the 99.9%, on the theory of collective guilt. They express that theory along with another, which we can call "Miraculous Empowerment," the unprecedented ability for corner grocers and young moms and their 2-year olds to stop handfuls of terrorists from attacking the US, often with the help of...the US. Why didn't the 2-year olds join with their young mothers to STOP Hussein's genocide, for which Reagan/Bush ARMED him? Why didn't the corner grocers stop the Iraq-Iran war? For that matter, why didn't the old villagers stop the Hussein's planes, which were dropping the chemical weapons? They tried to run away -- the COWARDS. Why didn't the Marsh Arabs fly up into the air and smash those (US-approved attack helicopters) with the heady superpower of Sky Captains Jim and Tom, who oversee and dictate the fate of billions from their air-conditioned cabins on Mt. Olympus? Controlling populations by terror -- that does sound familiar. Jim and Tom are the Axis of Evil.

    Re: Tancredo Continues Attempt to Justify the Unju (none / 0) (#9)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:42 PM EST
    SD writes:
    Lets see, you have extremists that are willing to blow themselves up to harm the US and you are threatening to kill them.
    No, that is not what Tancredo proposed. He proposed a variation of the Mutually Assured Destruction scenario, except instead of being directed at one country, it says they are all equally responsible for the actions of terrorists from their country. It is an obvious attempt to focus the so-called moderates on the fact that if they do not control their terrorists, they may very well suffer. He also made the point that is stupid to tell your enemy what you will, or won’t do, in various situations. DA – I agree that it would be helpful if we could reduce our dependence on oil. Especially imported oil. There are various solutions. Nuclear, wind, sun. alcohol, more coal as well as drilling in the Artic and off shore.. The problem is that all of these have trade offs; chief among them is increased pollution, as well as waste storage problems (pollution). Wind and sun are also very expensive and the technology is not there, yet. Would you be willing to accept these problems to use these alternative fuels? If not, what is your solution? PIL - The focus is on "government" actions. But I think you knew that.

    Re: Tancredo Continues Attempt to Justify the Unju (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:42 PM EST
    Oh, the focus is on government actions! That's why threatening to nuke M & M is such a crime against a decent strategy. The 'government' of those two cities is not involved in our troubles. However, the country that those cities are in IS. Indeed, what have the Saud princes, who fund the madrasas, who suckled Osama Bin Laden, who have a tyrannical society with few parallels in the domain of rich nations -- what have they suffered? Why don't you threaten to nuke the Saud royal palace, instead? You might even win some friends among Muslims. But Bush don't make money off them. He needs the Saud satraps for his bottom line. And that's why the war on terror doesn't work. It profits the few, at the expense of the many, many.

    Re: Tancredo Continues Attempt to Justify the Unju (none / 0) (#11)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:42 PM EST
    Oh, and nuclear power is dead. The amount of fossil fuels that have to be burned to MINE and PROCESS uranium into nuclear fuel factored in, the fission nuclear solution is no solution at all. It's just the other half of the problem.

    Re: Tancredo Continues Attempt to Justify the Unju (none / 0) (#12)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:42 PM EST
    Ahhh yes, MAD, except against a state that can't strike back! That's as an oxymoronic statement as could be assembled. Did the secretaries in the WTC bear responsibility for AQ's attack? Tancredo advocates killing millions of innocent people who have no say in their gov'ts policies, and those gov'ts have no say in terrorist's actions!? Not to mention the folks downwind. Sheesh, what a maroon!

    Re: Tancredo Continues Attempt to Justify the Unju (none / 0) (#13)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:42 PM EST
    PIL – Be sure and tell England and France that nuclear power is dead. For some reason they think it works well. Sailor – His projection of using retaliatory strikes was not on just two cities, but on other sites as well. One of the side effects of MAD is that you don’t define how much, where and when you will strike. And of course civilians will be killed. But try to remember. This would happen only after US civilians have been killed. Try to keep that in mind.

    Re: Tancredo Continues Attempt to Justify the Unju (none / 0) (#14)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:42 PM EST
    Aren't we better than terrorists? I mean as a people, not the current gov't. Killing millions of innocents, because someone totally unrelated to them kiilled millions of innocents is insane!

    Re: Tancredo Continues Attempt to Justify the Unju (none / 0) (#15)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:42 PM EST
    sailor - Of course MAD is insane, but it worked for what, 40 years? Are we better? Yes. But where do the terrorists come from? They come from the ME. Where are the calls for jihad, fatwah, etc. coming from? The ME. When would MAD be triggered? Only in response to a massive attack on the US. BTW - What would you in response to a massive attack? BTW - What this really does is tell the ME government's in question... Don't let the terrorists get WMD's.

    Re: Tancredo Continues Attempt to Justify the Unju (none / 0) (#16)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:42 PM EST
    It seems that PPJ is more than a reactionary...he seems to have gone off the deep end and become one of those Rapturist psychos (that are calling the shots on our foreign policy these days).

    Re: Tancredo Continues Attempt to Justify the Unju (none / 0) (#17)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:42 PM EST
    Ernie - I'll ask you the same question I asked sailor. What would you do in the event of a massive attack on the US? If my mine is wrong, what's your plan?

    Re: Tancredo Continues Attempt to Justify the Unju (none / 0) (#18)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:42 PM EST
    Golly, a massive attack on American soil!? As if 3,000 new yorkers and 2 skyscrapers isn't massive enough! I think the first thing anybody would/should have done is find OBL!!!

    Re: Tancredo Continues Attempt to Justify the Unju (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:42 PM EST
    There was a massive attack on the U.S. in the recent past and we invaded a couple countries. That didn't seem to make us safer did it? So is nuking the "Moslems" gonna make us safer? In the words of "Mister Rourke" from Fantasy Island: I don't think so, Tattoo. Look, the Tim McVeigh analogy works here. Terrorist attacks are criminal acts that need to be prosecuted as such. This includes such things as infiltrating the organization and shutting off funding. We set up al-CIAda in the first place, remember? So we should know a thing or two about how terrorist cells operate. If we had bombed and invaded Elohim City after the Murrah Building was bombed, it wouldn't have furthered the cause of public safety that much since a lot of civilians would have been killed needlessly. Ditto for the testosterone-laden brain-free rants from the Rapturists. Get off the imperial viagra, old man.

    Re: Tancredo Continues Attempt to Justify the Unju (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:42 PM EST
    Jim: "Be sure and tell England and France that nuclear power is dead. For some reason they think it works well." Works well? What does that matter? It's a TOTAL terrorism risk, AND ALWAYS WILL BE.. More evidence that you lot, Jim, don't give a damn about national security or terrorism. Those 'cooling ponds' CANNOT be secured. Indian Point nuke plant is a constant danger to well over 20 million people. Forget a few planes and two buildings. Indian Point easily could have been the target, and may still be. That's a risk we can no longer take, in order to fail to reduce our WASTING of energy, in order to feel macho and superior to the FACTS.

    Re: Tancredo Continues Attempt to Justify the Unju (none / 0) (#22)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:42 PM EST
    PPJ is the perfect neocon. He is trying to fight a 21 century problem with techniques that are 60 years old. And of course he refuses to acknowledge the role of the US in promoting terrorism by its actions in the ME. He holds everyone accoutable except the US.(typical for a bully) The US can do whatever it wants and when they respond its still al their fault. Of course the individual action is their fault and it is our fault that our illegal and inhumane actions in the name of "national interests", read oil, provoke more and more people to extreme acts. MAD deterred other nation states from launching their missiles. What possible deterrance does this have on indiivdual terrorists? None. But once again PPJ shifts the blame to others saying the moderates should stop them as if the moderates in this country could hvae stopped the Oklahoma bombing or the abuse in Iraq. So we continue with our illegal activities in Iraq and the ME, the terrorists strike here, we strike back, they strike back.... where does it end. AQ is in 60 countries do we level all 60 countries? Pakistan has some real weapons, do you fight them too. I know lets address the root causes of terrorism. Nah it wouldn't allow us to rule the world as the last lone superpower. PPJ when you go to sleep at night do you wear your PNAC jammies?

    Re: Tancredo Continues Attempt to Justify the Unju (none / 0) (#23)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:42 PM EST
    Consider the following:
    The terrorists don't have a social background in common. They aren't lumpen proletariat or working class or middle class or bourgeois. Or rather, they have in their ranks persons from all these backgrounds. The terrorists don't have an ethnicity in common. Richard Reid and Lindsey Germaine were Caribbean. Others are Arabs. Some have been Somali or Eritrean or Tanzanian. Others have been South Asia (India/Pakistan/Bangladesh). Still others have been African-American or white Americans. They don't even have to start out Muslim. Ayman al-Zawahiri was particularly proud of an al-Qaeda operative in Afghanistan who had been an American Jew in a previous life. Ziad Jarrah, one of the September 11 hijackers, appears to have been a relatively secular young man right to the end. It isn't about religion, except insofar as religion is a basis on which the recruiter can approach his victim. Islam as a religion forbids terrorism. But then so does Christianity, and that doesn't stop there being Christian terrorists. They are a fringe in both religions.
    Link 1. Not all the terrorists are from the ME. 2. not all terrorists are devote Muslims. 3. The only thing they have in common is their political beliefs that the US is out to kill and punish all Muslims, and rule their countries. [note: it doesn't matter whether this is strictly true, but our actions in Iraq will continue to foster their beliefs]

    Re: Tancredo Continues Attempt to Justify the Unju (none / 0) (#24)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:42 PM EST
    sailor writes:
    Golly, a massive attack on American soil!? As if 3,000 new yorkers and 2 skyscrapers isn't massive enough!
    Let' say massive enough that multiple cities are hit with nuclear weapons. And your answer is? Ernesto - I gather from your response that you think a criminal justice response would the thing to do. If you will refer to the Common Era time frame of late 1979 until 9/11/01 you will note how wonderful the results of that strategy were. PIL – Okay, I accept your point that we need better security on nuclear plants. That can be accomplished. But let’s take nuclear plants off the table. How about the others? Specifically, what can be done to reduce our foreign oil dependence? BTW – OBL’s statements say we must not bother Moslems through out the whole world. After the have withdrawn into the US, at what point do we allow the establishment of an Islamic state within our borders? Or should we just give them the right to ignore our secular law while we observe their Islamic laws? SD writes:
    “PPJ is the perfect neocon. He is trying to fight a 21 century problem with techniques that are 60 years old.”
    Actually I think MAD is centuries old. I seem to remember various countries destroying each other’s cities, sowing salt, etc.
    “MAD deterred other nation states from launching their missiles. What possible deterrance does this have on indiivdual terrorists?”
    If you would bother to read my previous comments, the point is to force the governments to put great pressure into controlling their own terrorists. That would be the deterrence. Would it be successful? Well, it is obvious that we need a stick to show along with the carrot of support, trade, etc. We also need something to make these governments unsure to what our response will be. At present they know that we’ll just spend a lot of airtime talking about the “buzz on the Arab street.” And yes, there is not a common ethnic theme, but there is a common religious theme, and that religion, in its radicals, is an expansionist religion willing to use force. How do you get them to change? We tried ignoring them. We tried trading with them. We tried helping them. (Egypt, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Kuwait) Hasn’t worked. Time to get serious. DA – So, you don’t have a plan beyond conservation?

    Re: Tancredo Continues Attempt to Justify the Unju (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:43 PM EST
    And another common-thug tactic infests the GOP: Hostage taking. Shorter neo-con view: "I don't care if they committed terrorist acts or not, we have to kill the residents of the holy sites in an act of revenge for those that did". Typical. Yellow. Not at all Different.

    Re: Tancredo Continues Attempt to Justify the Unju (none / 0) (#26)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:43 PM EST
    PPJ Cant you read there is no single religious motivation although you want there to be one

    Re: Tancredo Continues Attempt to Justify the Unju (none / 0) (#28)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:43 PM EST
    SD - I agree. But there is a common theme. They are all Moslem. They are all radicals. You know, you always speak of the faults of the US, how must we respond? Perhaps TL will give us a thread to discuss that issue. Adept - The issue of civilian death has always been an issue in warfare, and always will be. In ancient times prisoners were killed, cities sacked, slaves taken, women raped, etc. Civilian killed indirectly by weapons used in battle probably reached a low in the 18th and 19th century, and a high in WWII with its bombing of cities by both sides. Our modern technology has reduced that number, but it is still terrible. The question also becomes one of responsibility. Could blacks have been lynched with almost impunity if not for the indifference of the white majority? Could slavery have existed? It took a social upheaval in one case, and a bloody war in another. The question must also be asked, is my culture/civilization better than the other? And if it is, and if the “other” is attacking me, what should I do? Terrorists represent radical members of a world wide religion. They move easily, in many cases freely, through the general population of identifiable nations, and receive, if not support from the general population, certainly they are not being condemned and attacked by the population and the government. This is not exact, but someone once wrote: Hard men do hard things so that you can lie safely in your bed. It is time for the Moslem culture as a whole to understand that the terrorist is their problem, and that they are the ones that can, and must, solve it. If they do not, someone else will solve it for them.

    Re: Tancredo Continues Attempt to Justify the Unju (none / 0) (#29)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:43 PM EST
    All very fine and good but what are you going to address the actions of the US which make the situation worse. You continue to link the terrorist to religion, even the Pentagon through its Defence Science Board argues this is not correct. But you continue with your self rightous, hypocritical nonsense. You and people like you are making the US less safe by supporting those illegal and immoral policies that promote terrorism. But in your book the US should be able to invade on lies kill tens of thousands of innocent people, torture people without consequence without a response. You are in la-la land and just a hypocritical apologist, but we all knew that.

    Re: Tancredo Continues Attempt to Justify the Unju (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:43 PM EST
    If you will refer to the Common Era time frame of late 1979 until 9/11/01 you will note how wonderful the results of that strategy were.
    Ah yes, the golden era of U.S. meddling in the Mid-east. Let's see, isn't that when Uncle Sam and Bin Laden were all kissy face? And when we were selling Saddam Hussein some WMD to use on Iranians? Not to mention our awesome experience in Lebanon after Ariel Sharon's little pogrom there. But I digress... So PLEASE tell me how our policy since 9/11/01 has been an improvement in stopping terrorism. Looks to me like it's just been throwing gasoline on the fire. Not to mention establishing a theocracy where there was none. And if you think Islam is the enemy then why do you support the replacement of a secular government in Iraq with a religious one?

    Re: Tancredo Continues Attempt to Justify the Unju (none / 0) (#31)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:43 PM EST
    Jim, showing his Alzheimers: "PIL – Okay, I accept your point that we need better security on nuclear plants. That can be accomplished." It's a TOTAL terrorism risk, AND ALWAYS WILL BE. "But let’s take nuclear plants off the table." YOU put it on the table, and then tried to defend it. Even this LIE about what my point was that you were 'accepting' is further flogging of what is now a DEAD industry, on enhanced (OBVIOUS) safety concerns alone. If only we could take our terrorist RISKS off the table. Wouldn't that be great? But rather than deal with the real risks, you prefer to indulge in predatory genocide as a method of supposed control. The primary value of that method? It gratifies your RACISM. • Allowing tens of thousands of uninspected 70 ton payload semi-trucks to roam the entire US is INSANE. Since you don't address the issue, either here or politically with YOUR leaders, you don't care about terrorism. • Allowing radioactive cooling ponds and plant locations next to major cosmopolitan areas that CANNOT be evacuated is INSANE. Since you don't address the issue, either here or politically with YOUR leaders, you don't care about terrorism. Instead, you want to nuke Mecca, or threaten to. Well, that's going to help a lot. Bush and his pal Bin Laden just shot the nuclear industry in the heart. It's dead. And Walmart's leaky commercial border could get millions of us killed. Thanks, Walmart, and thanks to the R Congress that approved this latest profitable scandal you, Jim, won't talk about. La-la-la, la-la-la.

    Re: Tancredo Continues Attempt to Justify the Unju (none / 0) (#32)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:43 PM EST
    Ahhh, now I get it DA; I try to do the same, just like I try to become a better person. I may fail, but the struggle continues;-) You're welcome to direct comments my way anytime.

    Re: Tancredo Continues Attempt to Justify the Unju (none / 0) (#33)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:43 PM EST
    PIL writes:
    "But let’s take nuclear plants off the table." YOU put it on the table, and then tried to defend it. Even this LIE about what my point was that you were 'accepting' is further flogging of what is now a DEAD industry, on enhanced (OBVIOUS) safety concerns alone.
    PIL, you are almost impossible. The comments were about alternative energy sources to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I merely said, okay, we’ll leave nuclear out of the mix if you want to, and then you come back with the above. Let’s try again. What do you think we can do to reduce our dependence on foreign oil? You know, something that might reduce the violence. And avoid MAD type actions... Ernesto – So I guess the attacks, increasing in frequency and size, over that time frame are of no consequence. They just “happened.” No connection to lack of effective action against them. SD – Please refer to the above response to Ernesto.

    Re: Tancredo Continues Attempt to Justify the Unju (none / 0) (#34)
    by soccerdad on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:43 PM EST
    increased meddling no change in policy continued backing of Israel no matter what they do leads to more and bigger attacks. They will contine, since the factors motivating the terrorist have gotten worse not better But you'll never admit it.

    Re: Tancredo Continues Attempt to Justify the Unju (none / 0) (#35)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:43 PM EST
    So I guess the attacks, increasing in frequency and size, over that time frame are of no consequence. They just “happened.” No connection to lack of effective action against them.
    Again, tell me how post our 9/11 policy has been "effective action". Your old excuse was "it's better to fight them there than here", but that reasoning seems a little shaky lately.

    Re: Tancredo Continues Attempt to Justify the Unju (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:44 PM EST
    Jim, We're straying well off-topic here, but the single most effective tool to reduce the USA's dependence on oil was not on your list: Energy Efficiency. Not glamorous (no exciting new Nukular power stations), not popular (who ever got elected by saying that Americans aren't entitled to consume all they want?), and not profitable for the energy companies. It's therefore unlikely we will hear much about it, but to me it seems like it's the only choice. I spent several years in the States and was always shocked at how people would walk out of the house with the A/C on full power, the TV on, the computer running and all the lights blazing. The thought of turning things off just didn't seem to be there in the minds of the people I knew. Sadly, things are now going the same direction in the UK as kids are brought up in the "consumption = good", "economising = bad" world. For my part I was inculcated with the kind of frugality that my parents gained from living through rationing, post-WWII. I am an obsessive turner-off of lights and have a deep suspicion of air-conditioning (even though I love it sometimes. That's leftie-guilt for you).

    Re: Tancredo Continues Attempt to Justify the Unju (none / 0) (#37)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:01:44 PM EST
    thread hijacked and closed.

    Tancredo Continues Attempt to Justify the Unjustifiable | 34 comments (34 topical)