home

Rooting for the Terrorists?

I am not comfortable with this line of reasoning from Avedon Carol and Matt Yglesias:

Avedon Carol wonders if it shouldn't "concern us that Republicans are constantly talking about how people will all wise up when the next terrorist attack at home comes?" After all, they seem to really be "looking forward to it, and they take great delight in the thought that, by God, people will see things differently when it happens."

I detest it when Wingnuts accuse Democrats of "wanting the terrorists to win" when Dems speak the truth about Iraq. I think this is only marginally better than that -- a veiled insinuation that Wingnuts want terrorists to successfully attack us.

Can everybody, Wingnuts and DFHs, just drop this line of thinking? I guess I know Republicans and Wingnuts will not so is this a case of sauce for the gander? Perhaps, but I still do not like it.

< What Atrios Said | Senate Hearing on U.S. Attorney Firings >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    It's how they sound. (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Avedon on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:55:35 AM EST
    They really do seem to be jonesing for the next attack.

    You know, the wingers - after years of the left complaining about Saddam while the right continued to coddle him - had the nerve to turn around and call us Saddam supporters.

    The wingers - after years of the left complaining about how Republicans were helping extremists Muslims oppress women and others - had the nerve to turn around and claim we support "Islamofascists".

    So maybe, you know, when they say we "support the terrorists", they're just lying so no one will notice how much support they have given - and still give - the actual terrorists.

    But that doesn't mean we're doing the same thing if we take note that their behavior is, to be charitable, counterproductive.

    People will see things differently (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 10:21:51 AM EST
    if and when we get hit again.  They will see that our current methods of dealing with terrorism are not working.  They will see that we have wasted billions of dollars and are not any safer than when this whole business started.  They will see that a war in Iraq is not the solution to our terrorism issues at home.  People will see things much differently if and when we get hit again and the damned Republicans aren't going to like it one little bit what the people see!

    Tracy (1.00 / 3) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 11:03:27 AM EST
    So, can you explain what you would have done that would have prevented the extrapolated attack?

    And remember.

    You will not use aggressive privacy intervention. That would mean no NSA intercepts of voice/data transmission from terrorists to/from the US.

    And you will also not build the fence on our southern border and aggressively stop illegal aliens from coming through all borders.

    Both of the above being stated positions of the Left I believe you have previously agreed with.

    And if the successful attack were to occur 9/11/07, can you provide evidence that your methods will give us more than the methods now used.


    Parent

    Good Lord Jim (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 11:10:38 AM EST
    General Batiste and Wes Clark both talk at great length how our resources have been completely utterly wasted in Bush's war on terror and yet terror hasn't been dealt with in the least!  There are so many areas that need to be addressed in order to really be able to deal with terrorism from Islamic Extremists and now so few dollars to address them with and military manpower completely diminished if not utterly destroyed for the next ten years!  Why don't you go read them since they are the experts and you aren't?  That's what I do with my spare time instead of trying to indoctrinate the next generation into my own narrow minded avoiding new data and real experts at all costs life style.

    Parent
    Tracy (1.00 / 1) (#14)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 11:28:06 AM EST
    Retired Generals talking about wasted resources doesn't prove anything. Note that I said I see many areas that need improvement.

    Plus, even if I take your point about the army, which I don't, the army's contribution is outside the US. The issue under discussion is attacks on the US. i.e. Another "9/11."

    Now, since one of the tenets of the Left is that our retreat from Iraq, which is a de facto defeat, will not encourage the terrorists and will not follow us home, your argument is baseless.

    So, putting aside improved border security, halting illegal immigration and aggressive electronic surveillance, which you have said you don't want...

    Please give me some examples of what you actually would do.

    Parent

    You are mistaken. (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by Avedon on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 12:02:49 PM EST
    It is not necessary to break the law and violate the civil liberties of Americans to eavesdrop on suspected terrorists.

    Nor does anyone on the left object to eavesdropping on suspected terrorists.

    What we object to is spying on people when there is no reason to think they have anything at all to do with terrorism - the only circumstance that would make the wiretaps illegal and impossible to get legitimate approval from the FISA court.

    Which means, therefore, that the only reason Bush and Cheney could want to bypass the FISA court is that they want to spy on people who they know have nothing to do with terrorism.

    Which is exactly what the law exists to prevent.  With good reason.

    Parent

    Avedon (1.00 / 1) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 01:48:21 PM EST
    Which means, therefore, that the only reason Bush and Cheney could want to bypass the FISA court is that they want to spy on people who they know have nothing to do with terrorism.

    Huh? That is not an argument, but an assertion. The issue is several. First, the timing involved. Sometimes even minutes are important. Secondly, there is no reason to think a FISA judge will always be available, or that he will be reasonable. Thirdly, there is the issue of limits to the warrant on subject and time.

    If you want to believe that the evileee Bush and Cheney get their kicks from reading transcripts of peoples love giggles, be my guest.

    As to my comment that the Left is against aggressive surveillance, that is too broad. Let us just say almost all. Can you show me who the almost is??

    The issue in question can described thusly:

    When the call is from a suspected terrorist outside the US to a person within the US, or vice versa, surveillance begins immediately without a warrant.  And can continue for one year.

    When the persons are within the US a warrant is required prior to surveillance.

    The case ACLU v. NSA was dismissed on July 6, 2007 by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals on the grounds that the plaintiffs could not demonstrate that they had been targets of the program

    John Schmidt, associate attorney general of the United States in the Clinton administration, superbly explains why the NSA intercept program is legal under all authorities and precedents:

    "President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.
    In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.

    Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize wiretapping for foreign intelligence purposes without judicial warrant."

    Link

    Parent

    This is wrong: (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Avedon on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 06:55:23 PM EST
    First, the timing involved. Sometimes even minutes are important. Secondly, there is no reason to think a FISA judge will always be available, or that he will be reasonable.

    Under FISA, you don't have to get prior approval for a wiretap; you have about three days to get one.  And you can get hold of the judge on the fly, anyway.

    Parent

    Avedon (1.00 / 1) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 08:28:08 PM EST
    You ignore the rulings of the appeals court.

    And you can get hold of the judge on the fly, anyway.

    Yes. Cellphones and cellphone service never breakdown.

    After 48 hours the FISA judge says no. Later it is shown that he was wrong.

    Who tells the widows and children?

    You?? Or will you join the chorus from the Left who will be blaming the President? It is not like that hasn't happened, eh??

    Given that this is about only international to domestic or domestic to international traffic I truly don't understand your reluctance to want to do anything that might hamper our efforts.

    I suspect you believe that it is also being used for domestic to domestic traffic.

    Prove it.


    Parent

    Assertion? (none / 0) (#38)
    by Edger on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 02:28:02 PM EST
    No. It's called a logical inference.

    Look it up. Try it sometime. It will help you.

    Parent

    edger (1.00 / 0) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 06:21:14 PM EST
    Logical inference??

    Double speak for:

    Words mean what I want them to and how dare you ask for proof.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Living in the fourth dimension (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Al on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 12:09:32 PM EST
    So, can you explain what you would have done that would have prevented the extrapolated attack?

    Obviously, you would have to be able to travel freely in the fourth dimension in order to know the answer to that.

    The question is, what have you done to prevent an attack? With all your "aggressive privacy intervention", all you have produced legally is the Jose Padilla fiasco.

    What did you do to prevent 9-11? It happened on your watch.

    Why hasn't Al Qaeda been dismantled? What does it take, do you think, to dismantle a terrorist organization? Why can't a military superpower dismantle a group of bomb-throwers?

    Why do the armed forces lack the ability to follow Al Qaeda into Pakistan? Why are they wasting all their resources in Iraq? This has happened on your watch, and against the better judgement of all reasonable people.

    I see much room for improvement.

    I'll say.

    Parent
    Cheney and the Fourth Dimension (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by squeaky on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 12:28:04 PM EST
    Obviously, you would have to be able to travel freely in the fourth dimension in order to know the answer to that.
    It is not unreasonable to assume that Cheney does have information about the attacks that have not been made public.

    Hiding out in the fourth dimension does seem to make him not only unimpeachable but unreachable. Wise choice for such a villian.


    Parent

    Squeaky (1.00 / 1) (#31)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 02:16:22 PM EST
    Sadly, I truly believe you are not joking.

    Parent
    Al (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 02:09:03 PM EST
    What did you do to prevent 9-11? It happened on your watch

    First, your assumpation that I am a Repub is incorrect. But thanks for the question.

    RICHARD CLARKE: Actually, I've got about seven points, let me just go through them quickly. Um, the first point, I think the overall point is, there was no plan on Al Qaeda that was passed from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration

    Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office

    ..The second thing the administration decided to do is to initiate a process to look at those issues which had been on the table for a couple of years and get them decided... (out of sequene)

    And the third point is the Bush administration decided then, you know, in late January, (2001) to do two things. One, vigorously pursue the existing policy, including all of the lethal covert action findings, which we've now made public to some extent

    So, point five, that process which was initiated in the first week in February, uh, decided in principle, uh in the spring to add to the existing Clinton strategy and to increase CIA resources, for example, for covert action, five-fold, to go after Al Qaeda.

    And then changed the strategy from one of rollback with Al Qaeda over the course of five years, which it had been, to a new strategy that called for the rapid elimination of Al Qaeda. That is in fact the timeline.

    Link

    So here we have a Clinton holdover pointing out that there were issues on the table dating from 1998 that had not solved, and the Bush admin kept the Clinton "strategy" while starting to become more aggressive... "five fold..."

    It was the Clinton plan that failed. But even with the inadequate Clinton plan, we have this showing Rice giving everyone ample warning.

    At the special meeting on July 5 (2001) were the FBI, Secret Service, FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, and Immigration. We told them that we thought a spectacular al Qaeda terrorist attack was coming in the near future." That had been had been George Tenet's language. "We asked that they take special measures to increase security and surveillance. Thus, the White House did ensure that domestic law enforcement including the FAA knew that the CSG believed that a major al Qaeda attack was coming, and it could be in the U.S., and did ask that special measures be taken."

    Outside of telling them the location, date, time and method, what else did they need?

    Parent

    What else did they need? (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by Edger on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 02:22:28 PM EST
    That special measures be taken.

    Even you could have figured this one out.

    Parent

    edger (1.00 / 1) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 08:29:35 PM EST
    Since you believe that the government was involved in a conspiracy, it is hard to know what you mean.

    Parent
    I'm not surprised you can't understand it. (none / 0) (#75)
    by Edger on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 08:34:01 PM EST
    edger (1.00 / 1) (#78)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 08:48:02 PM EST
    If you were interested in making a point you could do so. You didn't, trying to place yourself in position to claim to not mean what I assume you meant.

    Game's over. You want to make a comment, do so. Ask a question, do so.

    Speak in riddles?? See ya.

    Parent

    Al (1.00 / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 02:14:09 PM EST
    Why do the armed forces lack the ability to follow Al Qaeda into Pakistan?

    As you know the issue is not ability or lack of. There are two issues.

    1. Pakistan is fragile at best. If we went in to any large effect we could cause the overthrow of a shaky ally.

    2. Pursuing OBL into the southern mountains of Afghanistan along the Pakistan border would cause us to lose most of the technological advantages we have, and place our trips in an exposed position.

    OBL's capture isn't worth the cost in troops.

    Parent
    OBL is worth (5.00 / 0) (#35)
    by Edger on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 02:24:02 PM EST
    anywhere close to what Iraq's oil is worth, IOW.

    Parent
    :::isn't worth::: (none / 0) (#36)
    by Edger on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 02:24:31 PM EST
    Right, ppj?

    Parent
    edger (1.00 / 1) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 08:33:46 PM EST
    I find it remarkable that someone who claims to support the troops is so willing to place them in harms way, with no advantage, for a goal that is not worth the cost.

    Kinda spells out your beliefs, eh??

    Parent

    Now you have told us what the Repubs (1.00 / 1) (#32)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 02:18:05 PM EST
    are doing wrong.

    Tell us what you would do??

    Parent

    a wrongwing euphemism (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Sailor on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 12:34:10 PM EST
    aggressive privacy intervention.
    = illegal, unconstitutional wiretapping of citizens

    That would mean no NSA intercepts of voice/data transmission from terrorists to/from the US.
    No, it just means they have to follow the law.

    Parent
    Sailor (1.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 02:15:14 PM EST
    Did you bother to read the legal summaries?

    Or did you just decide another "Sailors Law?"

    Parent

    his own DoJ (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Sailor on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 03:20:57 PM EST
    said they were illegal and refused to sign off on them.

    Parent
    In the next few weeks Congress will decide whether (1.00 / 1) (#55)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 06:37:53 PM EST
    And that's why all those appeals courts said otherwise...?

    Wow. Who knew??


    Parent

    Remind the wingnuts (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Al on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 10:30:30 AM EST
    of their miserable track record when it comes to defending from terrorist attacks. 9-11 happened on their watch, and Osama bin Laden is still at large and Al Qaeda apparently quite functional. And what about those anthrax attacks? Whatever happened with that?

    We are used to reject completely the whole wingnut discourse - and rightly so - but it is good to consider that they are a failure even on their terms. They would like people to think that they are the ones to turn to when a terrorist attack happens, when in fact this is demonstrably false. They didn't come to power yesterday. They have had several years for their true incompetence to shine.

    The wingnut response of course (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Edger on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 10:41:10 AM EST
    will be that their record of success is very good since there have been no major terror attacks in the US since 9/11.

    In spite of the wingnuts... but they wont admit that part.

    Parent

    Success speaks for itself (1.00 / 2) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 11:04:46 AM EST
    Having said that, I see much room for improvement.

    Parent
    Yes, let's see..... (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 11:23:25 AM EST
    broken military, broken Iraq, broken military equipment that'll take at least three years to replace, broken New Orleans, broken healthcare system, fiscal responsibility broke all to hell, terrorist laughing so hard at us they decided to take a vacation and are all in the Bahamas right now......you're right Jim, suckexcess does speak for itself.

    Parent
    Tracy (1.00 / 1) (#39)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 02:30:06 PM EST
    broken healthcare system,

    As usual you over extend, and then, if you do answer it is with an another misstatement.

    I have already called your hand on the broken military, and you haven't answered.

    Now, tell me about how Bush broke the healthcare system??

    Remember, he got the Medicare Rx Insurance plan passed Tracy. Without it millions of senior citizens would still be choosing between their prescriptions and food and heat.


    Parent

    The Medicare Privatization Scam (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Edger on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 02:37:40 PM EST
    Trudy Lieberman
    The Nation: June 27, 2007 (July 16, 2007 issue)
    In the next few weeks Congress will decide whether to cut $54 billion in overpayments to Medicare insurers, igniting a battle that may well determine whether the program survives. On one side are Medicare supporters, who want it to continue as a successful social insurance program. On the other is the insurance industry, which is spending millions and lobbying hard to put Medicare on a fast track to privatization, a goal long sought by fiscal conservatives and their allies in right-wing think tanks.


    Parent
    edger Is this the best you can do?? (1.00 / 1) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 06:34:49 PM EST
    In the next few weeks Congress will decide whether to cut $54 billion in overpayments to Medicare insurers

    In the first place this doesn't make sense. You can't cut an "overpayment." You can demand it back, or you can subtract it from current and/or future payments.

    If there has been over payments we should get them back. We should also have a congressional oversight committee determine why this has happened, and propose laws to prevent it from happening again.

    As for taking medicare private, that is a ghost rolled out by the Demos as they do Social Security. Aint gonna happen. Wouldn't be prudent.

    BTW - Don't you want the over payments back??

    BTW - Are you saying that the Demos can't defeat any such bill???? After all, you have a majority in both Houses....


    Parent

    You obviously (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by Edger on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 06:40:46 PM EST
    didn't read the article. Hope you don't need any meds after this year...

    Parent
    So now you are gonna Gupta me to death? (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 06:46:45 PM EST
    No time for it my friend.  You're gonna have to go Gupta in someone else's face.  I'm busy living a real life and real Americans living real lives know the truth ;).  See ya at the ballot box.  I am an Indy now but you have done like nothing to earn my vote Jimbo.  More pander less slander ;) CIAO

    Parent
    Tracy (1.00 / 1) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 08:57:05 PM EST
    What is "Gupta?"

    Anyway, quit writing rants full of inaccurate claims and I'll stop nailing you.

    And if you think I believe you would ever vote for anybody but a Demo... please.. LOL.

    Parent

    Cool it Jim (none / 0) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 08:41:24 AM EST
    Do we have to ask you to not reply to Tracy?

    You are crossing the line.

    Parent

    DA (1.00 / 1) (#94)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 09:11:30 AM EST
    Yes, I do. I made a note and wrote them down after you so graciously pointed them out.

    I am always happy to learn things, or be reminded of things I have forgot, and I always try to acknowledge them.

    Now, what that has to do with me pointing out that Tracy in her comment at 11:23 was wrong in her comments about:

    a. The military.

    b. Healthcare

    Parent

    DA - BTW (1.00 / 0) (#100)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 09:48:58 AM EST
    BTW - Does your comment mean that if I accept all inaccurate comments made by others, you will also accept mine??

    lol

    The concept boggles the mind.

    Parent

    DA (1.00 / 1) (#115)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:15:54 PM EST
    Hmmm

    Your logic continues foggy.

    You might tell me that you are the actual Dark Avenher, and I would disbelieve you.

    You might tell me that it is winter in the southern hemisphere and I would believe you.

    Flexibility appears to be something that the Left in general is missing. As an examople, I have often noted that it is possible to support the troops and also be a social liberal..

    BTW - I proved you wrong on your misleading link regarding the mid terms... Will you admit that and apologize?? No?? I thought not.

    Parent

    Heh! (none / 0) (#126)
    by Edger on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 06:45:29 PM EST
    Nicely put, DA. I don't know about it "breaking through" though. It's like arguing with a fireplug. Nothing goes in. Everything bounces off. ;-)

    Parent
    Big Tent (1.00 / 1) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 09:46:18 AM EST
    I don't think your comment is worthy of a reply, but I can't ignore it.

    1. At 10:41 I wrote a comment saying success spoke for itself and noted that we still need improvements.

    2. At 11:23 Tracy came forth with what I can only describe as a rant in which, among other things, she described the military as broken and healthcare as broken.

    3. At 2:30 I noted that I had already refuted the military claim (re homeland security) and pointed out that Bush had signed Medicare RX.

    4. At 6:45 Tracy decided I was "Gupta" her, whatever that is, and decided that she would see me at the ballot box.

    5. At 8:57 I responded that I didn't know what a Gupta was, and if she would quit writing inaccurate rants I would quit nailing her about them.

    Note there are no vulgar remarks, no slurs, no personal attacks.

    BTW - I invite you to comment on Edger's comment at 7:34 and Tracy's at 7:38. Both are direct personal attacks.

    And if you like those I am sure you will enjoy the comments starting at 6:40 in which Edger and Tracy discuss eating "Tender Preborn Wingnuts."

    Have a nice day.

    Parent

    Well, that's all true... BUT (none / 0) (#15)
    by Edger on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 11:30:43 AM EST
    So is the reverse. <cough, retch>

    From his side of the mirror: "I got mine - screw everyone else. Ain't life grand?"

    Parent

    Edger is wrong again. (1.00 / 1) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:03:13 PM EST
    Actually I have written numerous comments re NHC, why I believe in it, and what I see are the problems in getting the job done.

    They are all in the archives. If you are too lazy to look them up I will be happy to do so. One for every $20. you donate to TL.

    Hint: For a freebee go to the thread re Moore on CNN

    BTW - I have never seen you place a detailed comment on NHC. Do you have any actual detailed thoughts on it you could share??

    I mean really. Why bore me with just attack, attack?? Say something!

    Parent

    Fallacy of false cause (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 07:51:04 PM EST
    You are being illogical. We have been over this a 100 times Jim. I would have hoped you would have sharpened your reasoning skills by now



    Parent

    MB (1.00 / 1) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 08:54:17 PM EST
    Then success doesn't speak for itself??

    Try again later.

    I see you don't want to discuss, or you would have asked about my writing I see need for improvement.

    No surprise.

    Parent

    Whether success does or does not speak for itself (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Molly Bloom on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:16:30 PM EST
    is immaterial to whether or not you are comitting the fallacy of false cause. There could be a 100 reasons Al Qaida has not attack as valid or more valid than anything the Bushies have done or not done.

    We don't know why, you don't know why, only OBL knows why.

    You are being illogical.



    Parent

    MB (1.00 / 1) (#93)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 09:05:20 AM EST
    There could be a 100 reasons

    And there could be 100 reasons that what Bush has done has prevented the attack.

    If you are going to talk logic, using the words "could be" detracts greatly from your point.

    "If we had some ham we'd have some ham and eggs if we had some eggs."

    As I tried to note in my original comment, in a calm reasonable tone, success speaks or itself.

    But there is much that needs to be done.

    Apparently, based on the responses in this thread, the Left is not concerned with improving security, but:

    a. complaining that Bush let 911 happen.

    b. complaining that Bush caused 911.

    c. complaining about the WOT.

    etc., etc.

    Parent

    and again it is not logical. (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 11:40:42 AM EST
    If you want to be illogicai, that is your right. Don't expect us to take you seriously though.

    Your illogic is made worse by linking Bush's actions to a non-event.

    Here is the structural form of you logic mistake.  Fill in the X & Y's with anything you want- repeat exercise until you understand the fallacy.

    Event x is related to (or is followed by) event y.
    Event x caused event y.
    or

    Events of kind x are followed by events of kind y.
    Events of kind x cause events of kind y.

    In the meantime, here is the challenge: PROVE TO US, other than by the use of post hoc ergo prompter hoc, that Bush's actions have kept us from being attacked.  Good luck.

     

    Parent

    MB (1.00 / 1) (#111)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 11:51:02 AM EST
    You have made a claim that Bush's actions haven't prevented us from suffering another attack.

    Prove your own claim.

    I rest on:

    Success speaks for itself.

    In the meantime, rather than inept arguments, what could be done to improve??

    I'll give you one.

    Close the borders. Stop the flow of illegals.

    Parent

    Actually I ave not made a claim (none / 0) (#112)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 12:25:33 PM EST
    That any action or non action by Bush has kept us from being attacked. The only claims I have made is:

    1. You cannot prove that causal link; and
    2.  You are not being logical.

    I have proven both claims. Ball is in your court to prove Bush has kept Al Qaida from attacking us again in the US.

    Resting on "success speaks for itself does not prove your claim. You are seeking to show a cause and effect relationship.  

    The use of  post hoc, ergo prompter hoc illogic is rejected as proving the claim. We are all waiting for you to show us the causal link.  (though none of us are holding our breath).

    Good Luck!



    Parent

    MB (none / 0) (#116)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:18:00 PM EST
    I have said only that:

    Success speaks for itself.

    I repeat that obvious fact.

    I also said we need improvements....

    Care to do some constructive rather than make false claims about what I said?

    Parent

    Its not a false claim (none / 0) (#123)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:03:35 PM EST
    You are made the following 2 premises

    1. Bush has done something in an attempt to protect us from an Al Qaida attack since 9-11
    2. Al Qaida has not attacked since 9-11

    For which you try to draw the following inference-

         Therefore Bush has been successful in his efforts.  



    Parent

    MB (1.00 / 1) (#143)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 11:51:38 PM EST
    Nope... I have made no such claim..

    I have merely noted that it is as logical to assume that Bush has done X number of things that has prevented it as it is to assume he has not.

    Both are assumpations, which is spelled "ass u me."


    Parent

    Given Bush's record of incompetance (none / 0) (#146)
    by Molly Bloom on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 08:52:45 AM EST
    its not logical to assume anything.... and I am not about to touch the assumption part.

    Parent
    Who the hell knows? (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Peaches on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 12:45:26 PM EST
    I see no reason to reject the idea that there are people in power who benefit greatly from the war on Terror - who, not only might be rooting for a terrorist attack, but they might also be orchestrating it.

    I don't know if that is true, but there is no reason to reject the possibility, given the amount of wealth transfer from the poor to the rich that has occurred since the beginning of the WOT and also the continual positioning and maneuvering that has taken place placing greater powers in fewer hands as our democratic liberties are slowly fading away (not only here in the US, but around the world.). The only reason to reject the possibility out of hand is  because of an inherent FAITH most of us have in the American system we have been indoctrinated with. It just couldn't be that our President would be working for someone other than our interests. He and the rest of them (congress) are working for the money interests and so far, the war on Terror and the War in Iraq has been a great source of new revenue for the money interests.

     

    Peaches (1.00 / 0) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 02:31:59 PM EST
    But he will be gone.

    Our system throws each President out after two terms.

    Too bad it doesn't do the same to the members of Congress...

    Parent

    I'm one of those (none / 0) (#42)
    by Peaches on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 02:48:03 PM EST
    who sees more similarities than differences between the two parties. I''d rather have a democrat, but WJC and GWB both represent the money-interests in the world and not the people's interest in the US. I am sure the next President will do the same as will the next congress. It'll be that way 'till the revolution. I'm hoping States, given enough of this , States begin to secede from the Empire.

    Parent
    Peaches (1.00 / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:04:46 PM EST
    Interesting artice... How much foreign aid do you think Vermont will demand???

    ;-)

    Parent

    Good Question (none / 0) (#95)
    by Peaches on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 09:14:40 AM EST
    How many of Vermont's natural resources will the Empire attempt to exploit and will the Empire ever respect Vermont's Sovereignty? are a couple of other ones.

    ;)

    Parent

    Peaches (1.00 / 0) (#117)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:20:02 PM EST
    That will depend on Vermont's political relationships to other countries, and the supposed value of Vermont's friendship...

    Right now that would a rather low figure...

    ;-)

    Parent

    Orion is a great magazine (none / 0) (#96)
    by Peaches on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 09:17:24 AM EST
    with a lot of interesting articles. Worth checking out online monthly when you get a chance. Great stuff on gardening and homestead food production at times.

    Parent
    It is strange isn't it that they warn us (none / 0) (#58)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 06:52:30 PM EST
    about this coming attack but I live in this soldier's house and nothing else has changed.  He's still going to Iraq in a few months and nobody has been holding any emergency briefings, no SWAT teams preparing, no plans happening, no soldiers getting ready for anything except more of the same old same old.  Sort of wierd huh?  Like we're all just sitting here waiting for the attack to show up while everybody else goes to attack Iraq for still no apparent reason ;)

    Parent
    Tracy loves strawmen (1.00 / 1) (#79)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 08:51:16 PM EST
    If he isn't involved in the defense needed, why would they be telling him?

    And the answer is, they wouldn't.

    Parent

    How can this be the defense needed (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 10:42:13 AM EST
    when it obviously isn't providing us any safety or keeping any of us safe?  My prime argument lives on and on and on.

    Parent
    Tracy (1.00 / 0) (#118)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:24:43 PM EST
    Two examples:

    The stopping of the Ft Dix planned attacks and the stopping of the JFK attacks come immediately to mind.

    A negative can never be proven, which is why I merely say:

    Success speaks for itself.

    Having said that, I see room for improvement. I ask again. Rather than claim that nothing has been done when it is obvious that it has, why not do something constructive and suggest some improvements??

    The floor is yours.


    Parent

    The floor was yours (1.00 / 0) (#136)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 08:18:46 PM EST
    Can't dance, eh??

    Parent
    Heh! (none / 0) (#137)
    by Edger on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 08:20:43 PM EST
    Now you're talking to yourself.

    Is anyone listening? ;-)

    Parent

    That you Tracy?? (1.00 / 0) (#142)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 11:47:23 PM EST
    NPR Morning Edition reported today (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by oculus on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 01:29:26 PM EST
    Chertoff's statements that there is increased activity in El Queda training camps.  If U.S. knows this, why doesn't U.S. go in and stop it?  Because Pakistan's military dictatorship, our ally, won't let us.  What a mess.

    I didn't know (none / 0) (#45)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 03:21:58 PM EST
    they spoke Spanish.  Must be from the Moors.

    Parent
    DA (1.00 / 1) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 11:16:32 AM EST
    it will be because, I think, of some unfortunate events, that like we're seeing unfold in the UK.

    Nope. All he is doing is saying that he thinks there will be an attack, and that it will effect the public.

    That is not anyway close to "wanting" an attack.

    Milligan's comment says what it says, but if you want to claim that he wants an attack you are dreaming.

    he's predicting an attack ... (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Sailor on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 12:29:36 PM EST
    ... and saying it will be good for republicans

    Parent
    Sailor (1.00 / 2) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 01:51:19 PM EST
    If you are saying that he believes that the Demos demands that we surrender, leave Iraq, no aggressive surveillance, no increase in border security, no sending illegal aliens home, etc., will be called into question....you're right.

    Parent
    an obvious slur doesn't deserve a reply (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Sailor on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 03:19:50 PM EST
    but I'm a bit bored at the moment:
    I'm saying that bush et al have decreased the safety of the US by starting a war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, no WMDs and no ability to attack the US. AQ now in iraq is a very small part of the trouble, the civil war we ignited is the problem to which there isnt a military solution.

    I'm also saying that bush et al have illegally wiretapped Americans and lied repeatedly to congress while trashing our Constitution and freedoms, in addition bush has not increased border security because DHS still hasn't implemented the legal checks that were mandated by studies and congress.

    Further you are mistaken about dems not sending illegal aliens home, that bill was defeated by wrongwing hate radio and the republicans.

    Obviously from all the actions, bush and his supporters, including you, side with the terrorists. As indicated by your support for the taliban and saddam.

    Parent

    Sailor (1.00 / 2) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 06:18:49 PM EST
    the civil war we ignited is the problem to which there isnt a military solution.

    Of course there is a military solution. The question is will the Demos succeed in convincing the country otherwise.

    If the Demos had complained just 10% as much about the illegal alien problem, no fence, etc., as they have about the need to fund the troops you might have a point.

    Since they didn't, you do not. BTW - 80% of the American people supported the position of the Repub presidental candidates. That should scare you. That it evidently doesn't shows you haven't been paying attention.

    Your claim re wiretap is unsupported by any facts and/or evidence. Did you not read this?

    Schmidt, associate attorney general of the United States in the Clinton administration, superbly explains why the NSA intercept program is legal under all authorities and precedents:

    "President Bush's post- Sept. 11, 2001, authorization to the National Security Agency to carry out electronic surveillance into private phone calls and e-mails is consistent with court decisions and with the positions of the Justice Department under prior presidents.
    In the Supreme Court's 1972 Keith decision holding that the president does not have inherent authority to order wiretapping without warrants to combat domestic threats, the court said explicitly that it was not questioning the president's authority to take such action in response to threats from abroad.

    Four federal courts of appeal subsequently faced the issue squarely and held that the president has inherent authority to authorize"



    Parent
    Of course there is a military solution (5.00 / 0) (#54)
    by Edger on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 06:34:55 PM EST
    You'd better produce a plan pretty fast then, ppj.

    So far in four years all Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Gates/Rice/Powell/yadda/yadda/Yadda/YADDA/YADDA have managed to accomplish is making the Iraqis want to have a word with you, ppj:

    ...a word that means to utterly defeat and humiliate someone by dragging his corpse through the streets.

    The word is "sahel,"... Listen to Iraqis engaged in the fight, and you realize they are far from exhausted by the war. Many say this is only the beginning.
    ...
    The belief of the Shiites that they must consolidate power through force of arms is tethered to ever-present suspicions of an impending betrayal by the Americans. Though the Americans have helped institute the representative system of government that the Shiites now dominate, they have failed to eliminate memories of how the first President Bush allowed Saddam Hussein to slaughter rebelling Shiites in 1991. Shiite leaders are all too aware, as well, of America's hostility toward Iran, the seat of Shiite power, and of its close alliances with Sunni Arab nations, especially Saudi Arabia.

    Pray, ppj. And keep rooting for the terrorists. Nothing else can save you now.

    Parent
    edger (1.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 08:07:50 PM EST
    Digital transmission is 1's and 0's. Only in your case 0's.

    What is the point of your comment? Does it refute anything I wrote to Sailor?

    No.

    Does it prove that there is no military solution?

    No.

    Does it prove that the appeals courts didn't rule re  NSA as they did?

    No.

    It actually makes no points at all, just some outlandisg comments about rooting for the terrorists.

    sigh....

    Parent

    What's your plan, ppj? (none / 0) (#69)
    by Edger on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 08:21:16 PM EST
    all the generals, studies and diplomats agree ... (none / 0) (#104)
    by Sailor on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 11:14:48 AM EST
    What's the military solution? (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 07:24:15 PM EST
    I can barely contain myself because we have all this military right there in the middle of this problem and the solution is right at our military finger tips so tell Jim, release the magic spell please please please please.

    Parent
    It must have (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Edger on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 07:34:09 PM EST
    something to do with Naval Aviators saving the day.

    Parent
    Now that's an airborne navel (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 07:38:01 PM EST
    if I've ever seen one ;).

    Parent
    Edger and everyone. (1.00 / 1) (#68)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 08:20:31 PM EST
    Shame on you. Not for me, but for these brave men who gave their lives so that you may snigger and make snide remarks about them.

    American carrier aircraft began attacking the Japanese carrier fleet at 09:20, with first Torpedo Squadron 8 (VT-8), followed by VT-6 (at 09:40).[38] Every TBD Devastator of VT-8 was shot down, with only one of the aircrew surviving. VT-6 met nearly the same fate, with no hits against the enemy to show for their efforts. The Japanese CAP, flying the much faster Mitsubishi Zero fighter, made short work of the Americans who not only had no fighter support of their own but were flying the slow, under-armed TBD Devastator torpedo bomber planes. However, despite their terrible sacrifices, the American torpedo planes indirectly achieved three important results.

    I ask you all. Is insulting the dead heros of a brave service what you have arrived at??

    Parent

    Don't try to put words in my mouth again, ppj. (5.00 / 0) (#72)
    by Edger on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 08:29:31 PM EST
    You'll be called on it. Every time.

    Parent
    Get at it. (1.00 / 1) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 08:43:57 PM EST
    Pulling out your flag and waving it in (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 01:01:07 PM EST
    my face fails to distract me and everyone else from facts Jimbo.  Shame on you for killing your own soldiers in vain, shame on you for demanding them to die for a lie when America was always supposed to be about truth and justice.  SHAME ON YOU JIM!  SHAME ON YOU!  YOU SHOULDN'T EVEN BE ALLOWED TO OWN AN AMERICAN FLAG YOU FLAG ABUSER!

    Parent
    You missed the point again. Intentionally. (none / 0) (#70)
    by Edger on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 08:25:40 PM EST
    I guess it was the only way, besides trying pretend  a meaning that wasn't there, to deny to yourself that the picture is a caricature of you.

    YOU, ppj.

    Parent

    edger (1.00 / 1) (#76)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 08:43:16 PM EST
    Of course it was of me.

    It was, by your own words, one of what you think of Naval Aviation because I have self identified as being part of Naval Aviation for ten years.

    You said what you said edger. No one can misunderstand.

    Again. Shame on you. May you someday understand what you have done and feel the pain you have caused the families of those who have died defending you.

    If you did not exist the Right would have to invent you.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#85)
    by Edger on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:13:40 PM EST
    It was a caricature of you, ppj.

    Parent
    Well... (none / 0) (#86)
    by Edger on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:15:19 PM EST
    Maybe a little more than just a caricature. Obviously it touched a nerve. A little to close to the reality?

    Parent
    Keep digging (1.00 / 1) (#88)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:54:36 PM EST
    That you are incapable of understanding what you have done speaks volumes about you.

    Please continue such insults.

    Parent

    Keep trying? (none / 0) (#90)
    by Edger on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 10:28:36 PM EST
    Is this one a little closer to the reality?

    Parent
    edger (1.00 / 1) (#97)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 09:21:59 AM EST
    Having never been a part of anything larger than yourself you are apparently incapable of understanding the sacrifice that millions of military people have made.

    Attack me over my politics all you want.

    But when you include those great and wonderful people who see that you are safe in your bed every night you show everyone what you are.

    Parent

    You're (none / 0) (#99)
    by Edger on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 09:48:32 AM EST
    soaring, ppj.

    Keep going. You're almost there. But you'll never make it. The edge is above you. To high for you to reach.

    Parent

    edger (1.00 / 1) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 10:02:11 AM EST
    Your attitude toward the US Military is plain to see.

    Tell us how you support them by making fun of them.

    Again. Attack  me over my politics..

    But have the decency to leave the military out.

    They have done nothing but serve and protect you.

    Parent

    You'll have to take the rest of the trip yourself (none / 0) (#102)
    by Edger on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 10:21:45 AM EST
    from here on, ppj. Enjoy the ride.

    Parent
    DA (1.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 02:21:38 PM EST
    Feel free to correct you??

    Correct what?

    Hewitt is obviously agreeing with he said, and hoping that IF it happens the results will be as stated.

    Ta Ta Da. Your argument is unrealistic and unworthy.

    Parent

    I completely agree (none / 0) (#1)
    by aj12754 on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:44:39 AM EST
    ...demonizing the opposition could not be more counterproductive.

    They do a pretty good job of it by themselves. (none / 0) (#6)
    by Edger on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 10:29:26 AM EST
    But they DO... (none / 0) (#3)
    by JHFarr on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 10:03:21 AM EST
    The right wing is aching for a major terror attack. Chertoff is practically drooling. So WTF???

    I think yours is a very strange post, and the first comment is equally bizarre -- or perhaps it's satire. For that matter, maybe the post is too.

    Just read it again: yep, has to be. If not, maybe you could start a blog called "Can Everybody Just..." :-) Think of all the blood and treasure we could save.

    Yes, there is a visceral instinct... (none / 0) (#23)
    by Dadler on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 01:46:53 PM EST
    ...to best the other side.  To deny that f*cked up aspect of our human psyches is folly.  But to accept it and mitigate it with that most precious of human gifts, rationality, is to rise above the rabble and put freedom to actual use.

    And by "best the other side" I mean... (none / 0) (#25)
    by Dadler on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 01:48:33 PM EST
    ...that we all have thoughts and feelings that are reprehensible.  Vengeance is a powerful instinct, even more so when one is unaware of the implications of its existence in oneself.

    Parent
    It's not that we want a terrorist attack... (none / 0) (#46)
    by jonswift on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 03:39:56 PM EST
    It's not that we conservatives want a terrorist attack exactly in so many words, it's just that we are forced to admit, reluctantly, that there might be an upside to it.

    I imagine (none / 0) (#47)
    by Edger on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 04:07:47 PM EST
    there would be an upside.

    Maybe the Presidential Prayer Team should get right on it.

    Sumpthin's gotta work. Yer boy needs help.

    Parent

    if you see an 'upside' ... (none / 0) (#49)
    by Sailor on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 06:08:08 PM EST
    ... then you must think eating children is a solution to famine.

    Parent
    Skewered (none / 0) (#50)
    by Edger on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 06:14:39 PM EST
    baby wingnuts roasted over a hot open fire?

    Parent
    Tender Preborn Baby Wingnuts? (none / 0) (#60)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 07:19:20 PM EST
    Christ.! (none / 0) (#61)
    by Edger on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 07:20:49 PM EST
    Don't do that while I'm drinking coffee please!

    Parent
    Sorry, it's hard to pass up certain (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 07:43:01 PM EST
    opportunities.

    Parent
    What a lovely thread (1.00 / 1) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 09:06:56 PM EST
    eating babies gets you off??

    Parent
    irony impaired (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Sailor on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 11:18:25 AM EST
    The original post in this thread was by Jon Swift.

    Parent
    Satire (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Peaches on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 11:25:40 AM EST
    I do hope that we all recognized what Jon Swift was doing.

    Sometimes I can't tell.

    Parent

    Sailor (1.00 / 1) (#108)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 11:45:31 AM EST
    You brought the subject up, and I see it as a valid comment re the inaccurate claim that the Repubs want the country attacked for political reasons....

    But I see no irony in edger's and Tracy's following comments. They are just snarks. Like two children in middleschool laughing and joking about some unspeakable imaginary harm to be done to someone else.

    They may mean no physical harm, but don't you think it explains a certain mental state? A certain position they automatically take against those who are not in their click??

    Do you think a democracy can function if this becomes the baseline of our discussions??

    If they want to disclaim their intent and explain what it was, I am certainly willing to listen.

    Parent

    Apparently you're the only one (5.00 / 0) (#122)
    by jondee on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:56:40 PM EST
    Which also explains a certain mental state and a certain postion -- over and above the one "assumed" for Bush -- automatically taken to those not in your clique.

    Parent
    Jondee (1.00 / 1) (#129)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 08:09:05 PM EST
    You know, I am just happy to see you, Tracy and Edger doing these comments.

    There is absolutely, postively nothing that I could write that would hurt your creditability more than these comments.

    So laugh and giggle. I wish you could put'em on CBS news.

    Of course you'll get to see'em again.

    Parent

    Hah hahahahaha. (none / 0) (#131)
    by Edger on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 08:11:19 PM EST
    Time to wake up now, ppj. You're dreaming again.

    Parent
    Edger (1.00 / 1) (#134)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 08:15:18 PM EST
    If I had, then your comments, as representative of certain US citizens would be a nightmare.

    Parent
    All my comments are intended to be (5.00 / 0) (#139)
    by Edger on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 08:24:14 PM EST
    a nightmare for you, ppj. You hadn't figured that out by now?

    Well... I suppose I'm not surprised. Or are you just pretending to have not figured that out by now?

    Parent

    edger (1.00 / 0) (#141)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 11:46:29 PM EST
    I understand.

    Thanks for explaining yourself to everyone else.

    Parent

    You're (5.00 / 0) (#144)
    by Edger on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 12:20:32 AM EST
    welcome. But actually, most of my comments are to highlight wingnut nightmares for everyone else while hoping, in vain I know, that you might learn something.

    Parent
    Unlike flag burning (none / 0) (#110)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 11:49:38 AM EST
    and flag bikinis and flag mudroom mats.

    Parent
    Tracy (1.00 / 1) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:27:14 PM EST
    I think flag burning has been declared free speach.

    Do you have a problem with people protesting??

    Parent

    I don't think she does, ppj. (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Edger on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:40:44 PM EST
    And I know you don't.

    A few bullets will take care of protesters, right ppj?

    You're just projecting again here today, I suppose.

    Parent

    edger (1.00 / 0) (#130)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 08:10:19 PM EST
    Hmmm

    Do you think Tracy is all grown up enough to answer for herself??

    Parent

    I have no doubt of Tracy's intelligence. (5.00 / 0) (#140)
    by Edger on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 10:20:36 PM EST
    It has nothing to do with you wanting to kill protesters, ppj, so I'm not surprised you'd desperately try to divert away from you wanting to do that.

    Parent
    DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM STAYING ON TOPIC? (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Sailor on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 03:47:33 PM EST
    sailor (1.00 / 0) (#132)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 08:12:49 PM EST
    Gee, I didn't know Naval Aviation was on topic.

    Now I understand why Edger brought it up..

    Wow. Here I was thinking he just did it to insult the folks who had been or are in the service.

    Thanks for pointing that out.

    Parent

    DA (none / 0) (#135)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 08:16:37 PM EST
    There is always someone to excuse the actions.

    Parent
    OFF TOPIC PERSONAL ATTACKS (none / 0) (#113)
    by Sailor on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 12:45:17 PM EST
    Sailor (1.00 / 1) (#133)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 08:14:15 PM EST
    And I didn't know eating preborn wingnuts, whether skewered or not, was on topic.

    Again thanks for pointing that out.

    You've been a lot of help today. Please come back tomorrow.

    Parent

    I have a hard time staying on topic too (none / 0) (#147)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Jul 13, 2007 at 11:25:18 AM EST
    sometimes Jim.  Sorry.

    Parent
    Eating Preborn isn't baby eating! (none / 0) (#109)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 11:47:52 AM EST
    I know, I'm sorry, but it was just one more opportunity that was soooo tempting.

    Parent
    Besides (none / 0) (#124)
    by Edger on Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 04:08:17 PM EST
    Wingnuts aren't humans. Even preborn ones. So there are no moral issues. </sarcasm>

    Probably not good to eat though. I imagine they're a little rancid and foul tasting.

    Parent

    Body English (none / 0) (#48)
    by chemoelectric on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 05:22:20 PM EST
    The righties are just using 'body English'. Perhaps that's an adequate retort.

    Partisanship (none / 0) (#89)
    by Alien Abductee on Wed Jul 11, 2007 at 10:07:20 PM EST
    When it escapes its proper sphere -  the game arena of political posturing and political combat - and infects the normal functioning of the Republic it becomes something utterly toxic:

    You've heard, of course, of the Special Olympics, the sporting event that provides an opportunity for developmentally disabled youngsters to experience the highs and lows of athletic competition.

    Founded in 1962 by Eunice Kennedy Shriver in part as tribute to her developmentally disabled sister, Rosemary, the Special Olympics has grown to an event now held in 150 countries, with some two million athletes participating.

    They're about as controversial as motherhood. So who could possibly be against them?

    A "senior person" in George Bush's White House, that's who...

    Carmona was due to attend the Special Olympics one year - today's New York Times, which reported the anecdote, didn't say which - when the White House stepped in to say nyet.

    Why couldn't he attend? Because of the games' association with a certain "prominent family."

    Carmona: "I was specifically told by a senior person, 'Why would you want to help those people?'" (Let's be charitable and assume that by "those people," the official meant the family and not the disabled children.) When asked after the hearing whether that "prominent family" was the Kennedys, Carmona replied, "You said it. I didn't."

    We all have to find it in our hearts to get beyond this kind of utterly destructive distrust and hatred on the basis of political affiliation or it will rip the fabric of the country apart and plunge us into the kind of blatant politicization and corruption that afflicts every aspect of society in, say, Italy or now Iraq. It's so difficult, but we need examples of where NOT doing this produces a positive result and shows us that it's even still possible.