Yeah. It might have been a bit weak. But it just galls me when Smash talks like it's the Bush Whitehouse that's playing on the public's fear of terror in order to enforce changes at home.
Yeah that would be silly of me. Nothing like that is happening.
Fact is that *both* sides certainly use that fear to push their agenda. The difference is that the Conservative agenda is to focus most of our efforts outside the country, and the Liberal agenda is to focus most of our efforts *inside* the country.
Wow, that's a wonderfull statement. Patently false by an objective measure, but just charming. That the party who's *stated goals* are to lessen civil liberties is the party least likely to actually act on that goal. Charming.
If you get any better at denial of reality you may be able to run for Dog Catcher down there or something.
Really. Which would you rather have? Soldiers make poor guards and police. That's a simple fact. That's why we have rules limiting their ability to act domestically.
Guess that's why the Justice Department looked into suspending Passe Comitatus. Because they believe in acting abroad instead of domestically, right? Guess that explains their attack on Miranda, and the Patriot Act.
That's also why we've seen things like Abu Ghraib (which should just highlight the issue). But remember what the Dems were pushing for all along? They wanted us to expend federal resources to "make us safer" at home. Think. What do you *think* that means? More to the point, if you're using that as a counter to having our troops say in Iraq, then who do you think will be doing the "make us safer" bits?
Are you on crack? Is that it? Arbitrarily making sh[/b]it up really isn't a verry effective rhetorical technique, you know. I realize it's all you have, but still. Cut and paste something from TownHall or something at least, like you ussually do. Oh, I mean rephrase it so that you completely butcher and subvert the meaning of the propaganda in question like allways, because it's great schadenfrunde for the rest of us to se you fu[b]ck up the party line, but at least you'd have some sort of vague factual basis for your pathetic efforts here.
You know instead of "what do you think". Boy, compelling.
While I was being a bit overdramatic, the point is a valid one.
Um, no. Not close.
The argument that having our troops in Iraq isn't making us safer at home (which has been made many times by Liberal Democrats) implies that if those troops weren't in Iraq, they could be somewhere else "making us safer".
Sure it does. About as much as "we shouldn't lynch black people" implies that we should lynch white ones.
Again, very compelling...to a labotomy patient.
While they don't ever say this, what that really means is spending federal resources to spy on people living in the US. To actively look for terrorists in the US. To apply greater search and seisure powers to federal forces acting in the US. To detain and question potential terrorists in the US.
While Republicans don't ever say that they want to rape your children and the cut them up into bloody chunks and then smear the blon on their gentials and run around the White House singing "Zipitty Do Da", that's what 'war on terror' really means.
It's clearly implied. "War". on "Terror". Think about it, man. What else could it possibly mean?
That's the implied alternative. If you think the Patriot Act is bad under President Bush (who's mostly focused anti-terrorism work abroad), how much worse would it have been (and possibly other laws) under Kerry if he'd won and focused us domestically on terror protection? Heck. All the "F"s in that recent 9/11 commission report? Read specifically what recommendations they gave which weren't followed? Most of them are *not* federal level things. They are local security issues. Does your police and fire/resue departments use a combined frequency range and dispatch system? Do you have local anti-terrorist groups formed? How secure are local ports of entry? Many of these things are not controlled federally. To blame a federal level (White House) for those "F"s implies that we *should* do them at a federal level. Which means federal troops managing your local law enforcement. And federal troops guarding your city's port of entry. And federal fast response forces operating in every city in the place of local SWAT type teams.
You're really losing it I see. I can imagine it's the stress of everything you advocate for being proven a failure countless times, but really, man. You're getting into milita-man/aryian nations territory now. Next you'll be telling us it's all the Jews fault.
That's what we call a police state. But that's what would be required to get all "A"s on the homeland security front. Think about that...
So GOP failure makes us more free? Damn, I just don't know what to do with all this freedom then. Because, let me tell you, there sure is a LOT of it.
You're pathetic as allways. I can't believe I'm even posting this, but your arguments used to have a better logical foundation. I realize that's like saying getting punched in the balls is better than stabbed in the eye, but nevertheless. Why don't you compose yourself and google your way to somewhat better attempt.
Thanks.
____________________________
Disclaimer:
To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.