All Hank, all the time.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You just got your NetJets card now? You fucking prole.

I've had it. Did you read my post on FB?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Strangely enough, they didn't see it that way. But I'm sure they would appreciate your attempt to have their interests represented ("represented") by a hereditary monarch from a different ethnic group.

Of course they didn't see it that way as it compromises their ability to justify the extermination of the Jews and the state of Israel.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I agree completely.

3.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I agree that I don't understand Penske, except that "terrorist" appears to be a label for bad people who he doesn't like.

Not true and you know it. EG, Hillary is not a terrorist.

eta: yet.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I was responding to Spanky, and his notion that anyone who opposes the ongoing fiasco in Iraq wants to pull back to our borders and thus serve our enemies' ends.


eta: Though how do you reach the conclusion that the Repubs "look better" this week. Did going to war in Iraq prevent the bombing of our planes? Or did it encourage that effort?

They look better any time we thwart a terrorist threat. It's undeserved, since the GOP really had nothing to do with the thwarting of this plot. My point was that a lot of the nasty stuff from Democrats this week is borne of anger at the terrorist plot. The Dems know every time there's a terrorist plot, the GOP's stock goes up, and it pisses the Dems off because the Dems view it as an undeserved bump.

BTW, the argument that supporting Iraq is supporting more attacks is a really bad one. Trust me on this. I live in a swing state. people here view that as a real non-starter. Like it or not, for purposes of getting votes, Iraq and terror are linked. The Dems' better argument is to say "We can do Iraq better." Of course, you have to staunch Deanish clown festivals like the Lamont/Liberman thing to make that argument...

Y'all have the Fall elections in your pockets, but if you keep sucking off the Dean/Move On wing of your party, you;re going to piss them away. Howard Dean's chairmanship must be ended to save your party. He and his ilk are going to fuck up a golden opp for the Dems.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Fuck you.

It was in part a civil war, asshole. And it was an oranges and computers comparison to compare what Reagan did with SAvimbi, to what every admin up until Bush II, the UN and Weurope did with Arafat. The continuing legacy of effect is quite different.

That Savimbi was supposedly fighting a civil war -- or a part one, whatever you mean by that -- doesn't mean he was using government troops, as Ty read your comment.

Arafat was certainly better at grabbing headlines with his terror. But I doubt he was responsible for more deaths and mutilations that either Unita or the Renamo bastards that Reagan, Helms, et al gleefully supported. After all, as Spanky would apparently have it, you can't be a terrorism if you are fighting communists.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
No. When the problem rears its head, deal with it. But its not realistic to ban everything that can be made a weapon. Taken to its logical conclusion, under your reasoning, we'd have to fly naked. There is a certain amount of risk in anything. You're using an unrealistic standard to try to make our govt's efforts look bad. Suppose we discover bombs can be fashioned from cotton due to some Islamist chemist's brilliant discovery of some ion that turns the fiber to an explosive. Given that info, whould we then bar cotton clothing on planes?

I don't think its the best thing since sliced bread at all. Like I said yesterday, I recognize the govt can only protect us so far. Like I said yesterday, I don't expect it to be my guardian angel, as so may of your Democrats do. Life's terminal, Ty. Uncle Sam cannot save you all the time.

But fuck all that. You understand the govt's limitations. You'll attack our GOP admin right now on anything - even if it forces you to hold it to absurd standards - because you'd rather chew shale than give up an opportunity to take shots at it, or worse, concede its doing an ok job on some fronts.

I know what you're doing, and its pretty toolish. Just drop this one. You're beginning to look like me arguing with Fringey about ERISA.

What Penske said about Israel. DHS is a mess. It's been a mess for years. I have said this for years. In particular, it drives me nuts that they can't hire smarter people who can exercise some judgment. I have said this before, and it's still true. The fact is, it's a GOP administration and a GOP Congress that have let this happen for five years since 9/11. Now we find ourselves talking about it this week, again, for obvious reasons.

If liquid explosives are a problem, then either we should have been preventing people from carrying them on for years -- Ramzi Yousef was experimenting with them in the Phillipines before 9/11, as I recall -- or we should do something else, like make people stand in a small lead-lined room and shake their baggage vigorously before they carry them on (the liquid explosives are pretty volatile). But there is simply no fucking excuse for doing nothing for years and years and then having this fire drill this week.

And you're not even trying to defend them.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Not true and you know it. EG, Hillary is not a terrorist.

eta: yet.

No, but in Penske-land she gives aid and comfort to them.


Doesn't she? Don't all Democrats?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
You are absolutely right. Ned Lamont wins a primary on Tuesday. On Wednesday, Muslims are caught planning to blow up a dozen planes.

Coincidence? I don't think so. We have emboldened our enemies.

We must all recognize: In order to stop terrorism, we must, simply must, keep pouring money and lives into Iraq. I cannot understand why members of my party fail to see that connection.

Because the leaders of the party are drunks, murders, rapists, racists and socialists with sympathetic feelings for the commies and a predilection to want to appease our enemies and in the process offer passive collaboration.

Personally, I didn't leave the Democrat Party, it left me.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Not true and you know it. EG, Hillary is not a terrorist.

eta: yet.

Sorry.

I agree that I don't understand Penske, except that "terrorist" appears to be a label for some bad people whom he doesn't like.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Nor was it a coincidence that the White House has been attacking Democrats as weak on terrorism this week, after it learned of the plot and before the news broke. "[A] senior White House official said that the British government had not launched its raid until well after Cheney held a highly unusual conference call with reporters to attack the Democrats as weak against terrorism."

The timing is irrelevant, the importance of the message is what counts. And the Rs have been making this case for years.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
A lot of the nasty stuff from Democrats this week is borne of anger at the terrorist plot. The Dems know every time there's a terrorist plot, the GOP's stock goes up, and it pisses the Dems off because the Dems view it as an undeserved bump.

It pisses me off because the Administration seems to be working harder to score political points off terrorism than to figuring out how to combat it.

It's a war on terrorism, not an election campaign.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
BTW, the argument that supporting Iraq is supporting more attacks is a really bad one. Trust me on this.

I agree with you. But the argument that being in Iraq is keeping us safe from attacks is ridiculous, and that is what I was questioning. While I think that Iraq has increased the numbers who would attack us, we would be getting attacked either way.

Note -- I also think that Afghanistan MAY have increased the number who would attack us, but that was worth it. Until we got distracted and fucked up an opportunity.

The Dems' better argument is to say "We can do Iraq better." Of course, you have to staunch Deanish clown festivals like the Lamont/Liberman thing to make that argument...

Again, I agree that "we can do Iraq better" is a better message. Lieberman, however, never sent that message. He was busy lauding Rummy, and taking the Admin tack of saying that anyone who questioned any element of the strategy was effectively a traitor (not his word, but close enough).

As for Lamont's "pull out" strategy, as I've said before -- I personally am at a loss for what to do in Iraq, or how we extricate ourselves from this quagmire. Yes, quagmire.

Y'all have the Fall elections in your pockets, but if you keep sucking off the Dean/Move On wing of your party, you;re going to piss them away. Howard Dean's chairmanship must be ended to save your party. He and his ilk are going to fuck up a golden opp for the Dems.

Jaysus. I agree with you again. This is weird.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
The timing is irrelevant, the importance of the message is what counts. And the Rs have been making this case for years.

Back on Wednesday, when Cheney was giving his briefing to reporters about how Democrats are soft on terror, were people carrying liquids onto planes?

[Penske_Account]

eta: :blush: