"We're planting the flag on constitutional ground, and if you try to take our freedoms, we will fight back."
----Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty at the CPAC conference yesterday.
"I have a message for President Obama and my message is this: Mr. President, no more apology tours and no more giving Miranda rights to terrorists in our country."
----Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty at the CPAC conference yesterday.
Tim?
I'm fighting back.
24 comments:
"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face,"
—Barak Obama
"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun"
—Barak Obama
That last quote refers to The Chicago Way
Just where did you expect the rhetoric to go when The Won has been using such rhetoric for almost two years?
Apparently, reading the underwear bomber his rights and bringing his relatives in to help interrogate him has produced results. He's given the authorities plenty of intel, the result of which has the arrest of other terrorists.
Since the whole "war on terror" is an ideological jihad by Muslims who insist that we're Satan, the best way to fight back is to show that we're not Satan. Torturing people only serves to recruit more terrorists.
That's not to say that we shouldn't bomb the hell out of the terrorists in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Which is exactly what we've been doing since Obama took office. I can't remember the exact numbers, but in less than two years under Obama we've launched more attacks against Taliban and Al Qaeda than we did during the entire seven years the Bush administration (mis)managed the war.
The Republicans have been leery about actually defeating terrorists because they lose their biggest "advantage" if we're not fighting a war. That's partly why they dropped the ball in Afghanistan and started a second war in Iraq. And why Bush insisted that we could never leave Iraq, and that deadlines were totally unacceptable.
The Republicans need an eternal war against someone, otherwise they can't really justify why they're better than Democrats. Even though they manage wars terribly. The whole thing stinks.
You'll never hear how much intel we did get from folks like Tim Pawlenty. They will never admit to any success that the Obama administration has with our extremist struggle.
The CPAC audience wants to hear the hits, not the deep tracks on the album, right Mark?
"Apparently, reading the underwear bomber his rights and bringing his relatives in to help interrogate him has produced results. He's given the authorities plenty of intel, the result of which has the arrest of other terrorists."
ROTFL!!!
You missed the word "prevented".
Also here:
"This is a massive intelligence failure on a number of levels. It cost us invaluable time-sensitive intelligence. From al-Qaeda’s vantage point, Abdulmutallab was supposed to be dead — vaporized with the plane that he was planning to explode. As soon as they learned that he was in custody, they began scrambling to cover his tracks — closing their e-mail accounts, cell-phone numbers, and bank accounts; putting terrorist leaders and operatives he knew about into hiding; and shutting down other trails of intelligence he might give us to follow. Every minute, every hour, every day that passed while Abdulmutallab exercised his “right to remain silent” cost us invaluable counterterrorism opportunities. Obama officials have said that they can still get information from him in the plea-bargaining process. Putting aside the question of why we should reduce his punishment in exchange for information, by the time we reach a plea deal it will be too late — the information will be useless....."
"Since the whole "war on terror" is an ideological jihad by Muslims who insist that we're Satan, the best way to fight back is to show that we're not Satan. Torturing people only serves to recruit more terrorists."
Which explains why Muslim pirates were attacking our ships back in Thomas Jefferson's administration… :::rolls eyes:::
Read the Koran sometime. They attack us because we're NOT Muslims. Absolutely NOTHING we do—short of rolling over and exposing our throats to them—will cause them to stop. Period.
(And if you look at what goes on in Muslim countries such as Afghanastan, it apparently won't even stop then.)
Furthermore:
"According to the Justice Department memos released by the Obama administration, Zubaydah explained that “brothers who are captured and interrogated are permitted by Allah to provide information when they believe they have reached the limit of their ability to withhold it in the face of psychological and physical hardship.” In other words, the terrorists are called by their religious ideology to resist as far as they can — and once they have done so, they are free to tell everything they know.
"Several senior officials told me that, after undergoing waterboarding, Zubaydah actually thanked his interrogators and said, “You must do this for all the brothers.” The enhanced interrogation techniques were a relief for Zubaydah, they said, because they lifted a moral burden from his shoulders — the responsibility to continue resisting."
the best way to fight back is to show that we're not Satan.
blk, funny how much more tolerant you are to people of a religion that wants to subjugate you as much, if not more, than the most wild-eyed, right-wing Christian fundamentalist in this country.
I don't like Christian fundamentalist bible-thumpers, but I can tolerate them in this country as long as they don't have anything more than the power of persuasion. But I damn sure know that Muslim fundamentalism is much worse than anything the Christians are likely to throw at me.
And blk, good luck convincing ANY true believer that you, an unbeliever, aren't an agent of Satan.
Anyone know why the Dali Lama was ushered out the back door with the trash? That looks BAD.
Pawlenty: "We're planting the flag on constitutional ground, and if you try to take our freedoms, we will fight back."
Marxaphasia: "I'm fighting back."
Fighting "back" against what? You're on the side that's undermining the Constitution! You can't fight "back" when you're the one starting the fight in the first place.
First, pick the fight:
"I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face,"
—Barak Obama
And if they fight back, crank it up:
"If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun"
—Barak Obama
Nice fill someone in on and this post helped me alot in my college assignement. Thank you seeking your information.
I'm fighting back against the cult, Ed...the one that believes they defend the Constitution as they bemoan people having rights.
I find it amusing that Barack Obama is portrayed as a Chicago mobster in the same breath that he is ridiculed for being "weak." It's almost as if you are just randomly spewing out criticisms that make no sense...
Hmm....
"I'm fighting back against the cult, Ed...the one that believes they defend the Constitution as they bemoan people having rights."
You are doing no such thing. Ignorance is your torch and you attempt to light the world with it. There is nothing the right wants more than to be left alone and stop the government from meddling/spending/dictating life. The left is attempting to use the government to dictate its vision like a hammer. Fundamentally different. You are fighting on the side of oppression and you don't even recognize it.
"I find it amusing that Barack Obama is portrayed as a Chicago mobster in the same breath that he is ridiculed for being "weak." It's almost as if you are just randomly spewing out criticisms that make no sense..."
It makes no sense to you because you seem to be trying to condense arguments down to simple descriptions and broad brushes for complex and multi-faceted issues. Obama (more his administration) is weak on foreign policy - not specifically in Afghanistan which is a single facet, but overall. He is a simpleton, clueless, and very ignorant of world politics. That is why his is considered weak and very inept. His actions have reinforced the perception, especially to people much more educated and experienced in this realm.
His domestic policy is very different, using the proverbial "club" against any opposition and refusing to let resistance sway his policies even when they are vastly unpopular. It is easy to beat down opposition that plays by the rules than attempt the same against an enemy with real "teeth".
Why this even has to be explained to you is puzzling. Are you not educated enough to pull these ideas together or are you just being blinded by your rhetoric?
Nothing I can add to that. Very well stated, 6Kings!
"The left is attempting to use the government to dictate its vision like a hammer."
Yeah, a nerf hammer. How are those new banking regulations working out, 6kings?
"His actions have reinforced the perception, especially to people much more educated and experienced in this realm."
Who would that be? Dick Cheney? Explain to me how allowing Al Qaeda to nest in an unstable country with nuclear weapons was a smart thing to do.
"using the proverbial "club" against any opposition"
Where? How? How's health care coming these days? How about the "club" that "beat down" Goldman Sachs into record profits? Your assertions don't resemble reality at all.
"Are you not educated enough to pull these ideas together or are you just being blinded by your rhetoric?"
Well, that's the problem, 6kings. I am educated and I don't belong to a cult like you do. I'm going to be talking about this over the next few days so stick around. I doubt I'm going to be able to de-program you but it will be amusing to see your complete delusion in display here.
Why don't we start with a simple example for you and Ed?
Explain briefly where the leadership of Al Qaeda (the group that attacked us on 9-11) is currently located and compare our military involvement there in the last year (including the drone missions) to our involvement during the totality of the Bush Administration. Facts only, please.
Well, from someone who found Manzi's work so enlightening you sure crawled back into the deepest, darkest spot in the cave.
I did, juris. Manzi was fantastic. Please show me, though, how someone like Ed or 6Kings found it to be enlightening. Or Kevin who is convinced of a Marxist plot in our nation's schools.
This statement
"His domestic policy is very different, using the proverbial "club" against any opposition and refusing to let resistance sway his policies even when they are vastly unpopular. It is easy to beat down opposition that plays by the rules than attempt the same against an enemy with real "teeth"."
is evidence of that. Talk about batshit insane. We are NOT going to get anywhere with Manzi's excellent ideas until the cult is de-programmed. To be honest, I'm sick of being nice about it. Horseshit like this:
"His actions have reinforced the perception, especially to people much more educated and experienced in this realm."
bears no resemblance to reality. I'll be talking about this more in the next few days.
"Please show me, though, how someone like Ed or 6Kings found it to be enlightening."
I didn't find it enlightening because I haven't read it yet. It's still sitting on my desk waiting for a good opportunity.
I do know that the definition of "social cohesion" is not in that article. Did you see my comment where I did find a definition which doesn't seem to match your use of that phrase, so I'm still waiting for YOU to define what YOU think it means? Or had you already run away from that thread?
Or had you already run away from that thread?
If you ask me, Mark spends too much time on that blog as it is. Running away? All he does is talk about that blog these days.
well what else is he going to talk about? obamas policies that are changing the world as we speak? he avoids talking about those as best he can.
"I haven't read it yet."
When you read it, let me know. I'll put up another post about the article--I'd like to get back to it soon--and will define it at that time. You have to read the article so you can see how it balances with innovation otherwise any definition I give will be very two dimensional.
"Running away?"
Running away. For a recent example, Marxy was trying to make a point using the "social cohesion" phrase as his lever. That was a new one on me, so I asked him to define it. And asked him again. And again. And again. (Kinda reminds me of this) He kept using it over and over again as a key point, but the closest he got was to point to the Manzi article, which uses it, but doesn't define it either. To this day, he still hasn't defined it.
Furthermore, he challenged me to discuss the effect of the "free market on social cohesion". He also has consistently claimed a definition of "free market" which disagrees with the accepted definition, which we have pointed out to him numerous times. So I also asked him to tell me which definition of "free market" he was using.
No response. Even though his response was necessary to before I could response to his challenge.
I once searched the comments using Google to get a count of how many times he had run away from a debate that was going a direction he didn't like. It was more than 190 times. There was only a handful (like 2 or 3) where Marxy wasn't the one who dropped out of the debate.
(Note: A couple of months ago, I challenged Marxy to show that same sex marriage is actually a right. He responded but I couldn't due to a lack of time. That one still bugs me.)
It is normal for people to drop out of debates due to lack of time, moving on, etc. The point here is that Marxy does it so reliably when the challenges get down to brass tacks that it has been identified as his Standard Response #10.
Since I did that search, the percentage has remained about the same, even here.
So many of their causes can't be defined...equality, social cohesion, fairness, and so on. How the heck can you achieve something you can't define? They know they can't define it, hence their struggle will go on for infinity (even with democrats running every branch of government).
Ed, I'm not going to explain my views on social cohesion or innovation until you read the Manzi article.
You might also want to take a look at the series I did on the article (multiple posts). Both last and you would be incorrect in stating that I don't respond or can't define my viewpoints. Those posts are plentiful in response and reflection and define a very significant change in my perspective. I would hope that you have read them already so I don't have to waste time repeating myself.
But, please, by all means...continue to make it all about me personally and my "standard" responses aka avoid reading the article and any substantive discussion.
Also see: weak ideology.
" You might also want to take a look at the series I did on the article (multiple posts)."
I've asked you for links before. Will you actually provide some this time?
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2010_01_01_archive.html
Scroll down to the "State of the Union" series....there are 8 of them.
Hi
Very nice and intrestingss story.
Post a Comment