Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is from Cheney today:



http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040907/D84V15AG0.html

This is the first thing I have seen on the GOP side that has crossed the line, but I think what he is saying implicitly is ridiculous.

Club,

We appreciate the callout of Cheney and all, but did you WATCH the RNC? This was the subtext of about 4 days of speeches.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is from Cheney today:



http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040907/D84V15AG0.html

This is the first thing I have seen on the GOP side that has crossed the line, but I think what he is saying implicitly is ridiculous.

I'm not sure I see this as being as offensive as you do, oddly enough. I could see the other side saying the same thing. Using the exact same words.

What would differ is the underlying assumption: for Cheney, it is (I suppose) the fear that we will be weak and subject to attack. For Dems, it's that the policies of the current administration, if continued, will subject us to ever increasing motive for reprisal, on the one hand, while doing nothing to combat the actual means of attackers, on the other. I'm not sure either fear is well founded, but if either prediction turns out to be true for the side who wins, we're screwed.

So Cheney's right: the wrong choice has the potential to have a devastating impact on America.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Club,

We appreciate the callout of Cheney and all, but did you WATCH the RNC? This was the subtext of about 4 days of speeches.

I watched all the main speakers, with the exception of Cheney. I find him to stoic and boring.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Neither.

Yeah, I waivered back and forth on that one. It's tricky whether that construction is objective or nominative.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I'm not sure I see this as being as offensive as you do, oddly enough. I could see the other side saying the same thing. Using the exact same words.

What would differ is the underlying assumption: for Cheney, it is (I suppose) the fear that we will be weak and subject to attack. For Dems, it's that the policies of the current administration, if continued, will subject us to ever increasing motive for reprisal, on the one hand, while doing nothing to combat the actual means of attackers, on the other. I'm not sure either fear is well founded, but if either prediction turns out to be true for the side who wins, we're screwed.

So Cheney's right: the wrong choice has the potential to have a devastating impact on America.

He's basically saying that unless you elect Bush there will be another attack. That is ass. I think it is fair game to disagree with policies or to believe that Bush will prosecute the war more effectively, etc., but to say what he said is a scare tactic that crosses the line in my book. The administration should get credit for there being no attacks since 9/11, but a good portion of this is just plain luck and that luck will run out at some point, regardless of who is president.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by sgtclub
He's basically saying that unless you elect Bush there will be another attack. That is ass. I think it is fair game to disagree with policies or to believe that Bush will prosecute the war more effectively, etc., but to say what he said is a scare tactic that crosses the line in my book. The administration should get credit for there being no attacks since 9/11, but a good portion of this is just plain luck and that luck will run out at some point, regardless of who is president.

Wow, its true. The board really does break if you criticize your own side.

What the hell is wrong with McCain - he looks like he has an alien about to pop out of his left cheek. I couldn't find a better picture from today, but on the telly, it looked pretty damn freaky.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Wow, its true. The board really does break if you criticize your own side.

Its not you Club. With AG and Ty gone, arguing here is like taking my kids to a stocked trout farm. It takes a very small amount of time for my daily catch. Sure, I could stay and take more but there's little sport in it.

Of course when AG and Ty are here its like fishing in Lake Erie where you keep seeing things with 3 heads, but still, trying to take the hook out of one with the other 2 snapping at you, at least keeps you on guard as you move it towards your kreel.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by TexLex
What the hell is wrong with McCain - he looks like he has an alien about to pop out of his left cheek. I couldn't find a better picture from today, but on the telly, it looked pretty damn freaky.

If you think his jaw is clenched, you should see his sphincter.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
Call me when the Baptists start blowing up airplanes. Until then, your point is . . . lacking.

Dude, terrorism is the warfare of the powerless. We've let the Baptists run the fucking government. If you were a fundamentalist Christian, would you be blowing things up between 2000-2004? Fuck, no. You'd take a vacay, hide in the woods for a while. Let the fact you've shot MDs at 100 yards be used by your larger political movement as proof that the country was "hopelessly divided" by a 1973 Supreme Court decision.

It's the same reason we Episcopalians didn't blow up fuck-all during the Washington, Madison, Monroe, Harrison, Tyler, Taylor, Pierce, Arthur, Roosevelt, Roosevelt, Ford, or Bush Senior administrations, and why the Catholics laid down their shillelaghs between 1960 and 1963.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
If you think his jaw is clenched, you should see his sphincter.

Club, just for the record, this crosses the line in my book.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Dude, terrorism is the warfare of the powerless.

When we've won the war on terrorism -- our leader's current position is that the war is winnable, right? -- can we have a war on war? I'm not saying terrorism isn't nasty, but war is no walk in the park, either, unless your local parks and rec dep't owes something troubling to Ypres. Wouldn't it be nice to say goodbye to all that? I'm just saying.

eta:

Meet my new favorite blog. Blog, everyone; everyone, blog. A sample:

• Ailing Heart Upstages Codpiece President
  
  With the transparent, calculating cynicism that marked his two terms in office, Bill Clinton chose to burglarize the majesty of President Bush's Churchillian convention address by conveniently entering the hospital for heart surgery. Unable to yield the spotlight, Clinton clutched his chest like Fred Sanford and called 911 in a desperate bid to deny Bush the "big mo" he was beginning to enjoy after addressing the nation last night from a mound of skulls at Madison Square Garden, each skull beautifully handcrafted by Thai sweatshop workers.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
When we've won the war on terrorism -- our leader's current position is that the war is winnable, right? -- can we have a war on war? I'm not saying terrorism isn't nasty, but war is no walk in the park, either, unless your local parks and rec dep't owes something troubling to Ypres. Wouldn't it be nice to say goodbye to all that? I'm just saying.

eta:

Meet my new favorite blog. Blog, everyone; everyone, blog. A sample:

• Ailing Heart Upstages Codpiece President
  
  With the transparent, calculating cynicism that marked his two terms in office, Bill Clinton chose to burglarize the majesty of President Bush's Churchillian convention address by conveniently entering the hospital for heart surgery. Unable to yield the spotlight, Clinton clutched his chest like Fred Sanford and called 911 in a desperate bid to deny Bush the "big mo" he was beginning to enjoy after addressing the nation last night from a mound of skulls at Madison Square Garden, each skull beautifully handcrafted by Thai sweatshop workers.

Club, for the record, this sort of teeters on the line, but it's pretty funny so I'll give it the benefit of the doubt.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Dude, terrorism is the warfare of the powerless.

Exactly. "Terrorism" is a semantic repckaging of the never ending struggle between the haves and have-nots. The have-nots change their tune from time to time, alternatively grabbing the banners of righteous political change or religion when either suits their ends, but in the end, its always the same battle... The disenfranchised seeking power through force. The war on terror is absolutely unwinnable because there is never going to be any system everywhere where everyone is happy. Even in the progressive Scandanavian countries you find militants assassinating politicians. Perhaps the only system that effectively minimizes terrorism is Chinese Communism, where they execute just about everyone who even thinks about fucking with the state. But their day of reckoning with Islam is coming soon. Its only a matter of time until one of these waterheads decides to fuck with the Godless Communist Infidels.

In the end, there are three options:

1. Stalemate. Small skirmishes between organized societies and Islamis radicals. Constatnt state of "when will the other shoe drop" - where we are presently.

2. Wholesale persecution/elimination of radical Islam everywhere. Pretty tough gig. They breed like locusts. Maybe you can get the Pakistanis to shut down the madrases and you can splinter militants into cells so small their capacity for damage is minimal, but I don't think you can get them all.

3. Isolationism. Give up the Arabian Peninsula and shore up the defenses here. Let Europe deal with the Islamists. Not likely to happen for a variety of obvious reasons.

We're stuck with #1. For the rest of your natural life, we will wonder when, if at all, Islamists will "drop the big one." The really shitty thing is its a Cold War we can't even win - Radical Islam can't be collapsed like the Soviets.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
The Attackers in No Way Represent True Islam and We Must Disown Them

Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, former editor of the London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, wrote in the daily under the title "The Painful Truth is that All of the Terrorists are Muslims:"

" Obviously not all Muslims are terrorists but, regrettably, the majority of the terrorists in the world are Muslims. The kidnappers of the students in Ossetia are Muslims. The kidnappers and killers of the Nepalese workers and cooks are also Muslims. Those who rape and murder in Darfour are Muslims, and their victims are Muslims as well. Those who blew up the residential complexes in Riyadh and Al-Khobar are Muslims. Those who kidnapped the two French journalists are Muslims. The two [women] who blew up the two planes [over Russia] a week ago are Muslims. Bin Laden is a Muslim and Al-Houthi [the head of a terrorist group in Yemen] is a Muslim. The majority of those who carried out suicide operations against buses, schools, houses, and buildings around the world in the last ten years are also Muslims.

"What a terrible record. Does this not say something about us, about our society and our culture? If we put all of these pictures together in one day, we will see that these pictures are difficult, embarrassing, and humiliating for us. However, instead of avoiding them and justifying them it is incumbent upon us first of all to recognize their authenticity rather than to compose eloquent articles and speeches proclaiming our innocence…

"Islam has suffered an injustice at the hands of the new Muslims… We will only be able to clear our reputation once we have admitted the clear and shameful fact that most of the terrorist acts in the world today are carried out by Muslims. We have to realize that we cannot correct the condition of our youth who carry out these disgraceful operations until we have treated the minds of our sheikhs who have turned themselves into pulpit revolutionaries who send the children of others to fight while they send their own children to European schools."

I can't argue with a call to action. But that doesn't mean I would compel one as proof of innocence.

But add one to your list of non-enemies and let's move on. I think we've expended enough enrgy on what you have suggested was a misinterpretation of your sentiments.

Namaste