Politics of Reality

President Bush is constantly criticized for playing "the politics of fear" whenever he refers to the Islamic terror threat.  When Rudy Giuliani was running for president, his campaign produced an ad that featured footage of the burning, smoking mass that used to be the World Trade Center.  He too was accused of "playing the fear card." 

Now Hillary Clinton is being attacked for "playing to our fears" by airing an ad in Pennsylvania that shows Osama bin Laden.  Barack Obama jumped all over her for it, saying we need to move on from "fear tactics" and that her ad was all about "scoring political points."

What does he think he's doing out there?  Running for dogcatcher?  Of course she's trying to score political points, as is he, by pointing out that she's trying to score political points.

Here's the bigger political point:  Hillary made the decision 15 months ago to run on her so-called "experience."  She hopes that flashing the image of bin Laden will reinforce the idea that she's better prepared than her opponent, Senator Deer-in-the-Headlights, to deal with the real threats coming at us.

We SHOULD be afraid.  Despite significant progress in killing and capturing top and mid-level al Qaeda and other terrorists, Islamic radicalism is still the most dangerous enemy we face.  Jimmy Carter, Obama's "mentor" of sorts, thinks we can just hug it out with Hamas and other terrorists.  Obama believes in "talking" to them.  (By the way, Carter talked and hugged and hugged and talked and Hamas still blew off his request that they renounce terror.)

A few years ago, Hillary criticized Giuliani and other Republicans who aired ads featuring footage from September 11, but now she's doing the same thing, because she knows they were right to do it.

We don't live in a fantasy world, filled with rainbows and puppies.  We live in a country that remains the number one target of Islamic terrorists.  We should feel fear.  We should be wary.  We should be dealing in reality about the threat, rather than anesthetizing ourselves with wishful thinking that if only we had Obama, all of our enemies would go away. (In fact, Obama is so weak and sympathetic to some of their causes that the enemy is rooting for him.)

There ARE threats facing us.  They are real, and they are powerful, and they are deadly.  If Obama wants to pretend the threats aren't there, or that he'll be able to work his charismatic magic on our enemies and make them disappear, he is certainly free to indulge that fantasy.

Hillary, for all her faults, knows better.  And so do we.

Comments

[FK]

So do we like Hillary now?

[Ummahgummah]

I know this fits in somewhere: npr just had a half-hour commercial-free taxpayer-funded segment on "eemeegrants" and how "eemeegration" is good for the Democrat Party.

Of course their wisdom is that "bitter" white people attack these poor "eemeegrants" indiscriminately and things are much worse ever since 911.

And of course "only Mexicans come across the southern border".. the whole thing about the fence is pure hysteria..

And "eemeegration" has nothing at all to do with terrorism since the terrorists of 911 used tourist or student visas and overstayed them.

Oh, and if we started to crack down on this abuse the liberals on npr wouldn't start crying and whining about it?!

I am SICK and TIRED of my tax money paying for enemy propaganda!

Oh.. and of course the more "educated" vote Dhimmicrat" and are more "welcoming" toward "eemeegrants".

Lieberals are just so FULL of themselves!

[SteveOk]

Fred, the answer is no, but if the choice is between someone living in a fantasy world of "weather undergroud" listening to a racist nutjob preacher every week for 20 years, and a socialist McGovernite who at least lives in the real world the answer is obvious. I don't like either one of them but the more we learn about Obama the more we realize he is kooky. A major red flag went up for me when he voted against confirmation of John Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. John Roberts was the most qualified nominee to ever be appointed to the Court in the history of this country and Obama joined the most liberal kooks in Congress and voted against him. That raised a major red flag in my mind about this guys character. He is a major hypocrite and I don't trust a word he says. He is an old fashion snake oil salesman and is not qualified or fit to be President.

[Phil]

What is going on, Monica? No green logo on earth day :)

Obama is tied in Mass with McCain in the latest polls. Some are speculating that the local electorate have had enough of the "deer-in-the-headlights" together we can, hope, etc. empty suits. After all Obama's buddy was elected in 2006 and has been a total failure. Together he can.

[Account Deleted]

Dear Monica,

We should NOT be afraid. Fear allows the enemy to win without a single shot being fired. We should be strong and aggressive against the real enemy, Al Qaeda. No one – not Obama, not Clinton, not McCain, not Bush, not Romney, not any conservative, not any liberal, not anyone in Congress, not the Pentagon, and not the DHS – have proposed a single, actionable plan to destroy Al Qaeda. Worse, no one has made that the primary military, economic, or political objective.

G-man, does that answer your question on where I stand on terrorism?

Regards,

[FK]

That seemed pretty direct, Michael. So if I understand you correctly, the Democrats and liberals are not the enemy.

[Account Deleted]

You understand perfectly Fred.

[FK]

In case any of you think I'm alone in thinking that our president totally sucks:

Bush's disapproval rating worst of any president in 70 years
By Susan Page
USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — President Bush has set a record he'd presumably prefer to avoid: the highest disapproval rating of any president in the 70-year history of the Gallup Poll.

In a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll taken Friday through Sunday, 28% of Americans approve of the job Bush is doing; 69% disapprove. The approval rating matches the low point of his presidency, and the disapproval sets a new high for any president since Franklin Roosevelt.

The previous record of 67% was reached by Harry Truman in January 1952, when the United States was enmeshed in the Korean War.

Bush's rating has worsened amid "collapsing optimism about the economy," says Charles Franklin, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison who studies presidential approval. Record gas prices and a wave of home foreclosures have fueled voter angst.

Bush also holds the record for the other extreme: the highest approval rating of any president in Gallup's history. In September 2001, in the days after the 9/11 attacks, Bush's approval spiked to 90%. In another record, the percentage of Americans who say the invasion of Iraq was a mistake reached a new high, 63%, in the latest poll.

Assessments of Bush's presidency are harsh. By 69%-27%, those polled say Bush's tenure in general has been a failure, not a success.

Low approval ratings make it more difficult for presidents to maneuver, limiting their ability to get legislation passed or boost candidates in congressional elections.

"The president understands war and the slowdown in the economy weigh down public opinion, but the situation in Iraq is improving, and the economy is about to get a big boost from the stimulus package," White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said.

Bush has had dismal ratings through most of his second term. His approval rating hasn't reached as high as 50% since May 2005. He has been steadily below 40% since September 2006.

Views of Bush divide sharply along party lines. Among Republicans, 66% approve and 32% disapprove. Disapproval is nearly universal — 91% — among Democrats. Of independents, 23% approve, 72% disapprove of the job he's doing.

[Ummahgummah]

Michael, you want a plan to destroy Al Quaeda? Frist of all, no more PC 'rules of engagement' for the troops.

Did you know that our guys have orders to stop shooting when the enemy stops shooting at them?!

Most of us knwo that Bin Laden was on one of those many planes that Bush allowed to leave when we had Tora Bora surrounded.

And the troops are made to wait until their commanding officers have consulted with a team of lawyers in Tampa before they are possibly allowed to engage high-value targets.

Remember that picture taken by a drone of about 150 AQ and Taliban at a funeral, completely in the open, perfect for aerial engagement.

Now I don't know if it's the home grown Dhimmicrats, the ACLU and the likes.. or whether it was the SOWdis who have persuaded Bush to fight the war with both hands tied behind out troops' backs.. in the end it doesn't really matter anymore..

When we are wringing our hands over some moslem terrorist who has a panty put on his head in jail compared to the things they do to our troops when they have the misfortune of falling into their hands.. then we shouldn't even bother fighting this war.

Or any war for that matter.

But then the Dhims don't weant us to win a war.. any war..

Now if it were up to me to destroy AQ.. make life so unbearable for the Afganhs and the Pashtuns in Pak that they's come running to hand you the heads of bin Laden and all his henchmen.

remember it was bin LAden who said that moslems 'follow the strong horse.'

We have the military power to do just that but not the mental strength.

The way to do this is through merciless employment of JDAMS and carpet bombings.. less prisoners and more direct kills..

Show a ruhtlessness the enemy hasn't seen from us before..

Teach our soldiers the relevant passages from the KKKorag and what their 'eemaamas' are really saying..

Also I would inform the SOIWdis they must fork up the entire cost of 911 since it was their citizens and the way they are indoctrinated overe there who caused the damages.

Instead of like Bush did to try and suppress civil lawsuits against these barbarians.

Should they refuse then I wouold follow through with drastic and irreversible consequences.

Which could include the utter destruction of Mecca if need be.

I don't think we would need to demonstarte our ability to make that threat a credible reality.

We just need to have the guts to to say the words that must be said.

[FK]

Should we also rape their women in front of their faces and convert the population to Christianity?

[Dgscol]

We need an operational FBI and some people like Joseph McCarthy and Martin Dies
to make life safe for our children and ourselves, within America. We have many groups that have infiltrated or would like to infiltrate our society. Our politicians need to be aware and have the courage to take on the responsibility. The plastering McCarthy had taken, has made them afraid of doing the job.

[Ummahgummah]

Fred, do you mean the way the followers of MADhomet did it to the Jews of Quraish..?

Or do you mean we should rip out their oergans while they are still alive the way the Kosovo Albanians did recently to their Serbian CIVILIAN hostages..?

Yes, we don't get to read about that one in our MAIN STREAM MEDIA!!

So keep your blinders on REAL TIGHT, Fred.. it will never happen here.. or will it?

But anway.. that's not my bag. I was answering Michael's question on how to eradicate Al Quaeda.

You cannot do that without threatening that which is most valuable to them.

They obviously do not value human life - neither theirs nor yours.

Come to grips with it, Fred.

[FK]

OK, I'm with you. Let's castrate them and make them eat their own testicles!

As for Joseph McCarthy, it's a tragedy that his image has not been added to Mount Rushmore.

[gringoman]

FROM MICHAEL AVARI: G-man, does that answer your question on where I stand on terrorism?

Regards,

No, Michael, so let me ask again. As detailed in the recent gringommentary, MUSLIMS ATTACK JOHNNY BOY, our muslim 'brethren' are demanding that McCain stop identifying fanatic muslim terrorists with Islam. E.g. They demand that McCain stop saying "Islamic terrorists." (To date,as of April 22, McCain has rejected this muslim demand.)

So let me ask you once again, Michael: On this very concrete and precise point, are you with John McCain or are you with the muslims?

ps 'brethren' is in quotes due to the Islamic definition of kufars. A serious muslim, as I believe you know, cannot speak of an animal as a brother.

[gringoman]

Michael,

Other points have been addressed in Monica's BEGAT post below, Comment #35.

Andale,

[Account Deleted]

Gringoman,

I believe I answered your question when I made the remark about McCain showing some class, not to mention some diplomacy, by acceding to their request.

Now I realize you asked the question again for me to answer “as a Christian and a capitalist”. As a Christian, I would respect the wishes of millions of innocent, peaceful Muslims who do not want to be associated with terrorists. Do you not see this as an opportunity to isolate the extremist from whatever support they may have in the middle? McCain or his advisor could meet with the leaders of the moderates and exchange an agreement to avoid that appellation in return for their support to be more outspoken against extremism. What does using “Islamic terrorists” add to our strength in fighting them? On the other hand, how might it weaken it?

As a capitalist, this gesture would give us even more leverage. For example, why wouldn’t the Bush administration suspend the $12 B sale of GE’s plastic unit to the Saudis last year until every Ry’al flowing within Saudi Arabia to and from the bin Laden family (still prominent in Saudi business) and to Al Qaeda is accounted for and traced with Sarbanes-Oxley like precision monthly until Al Qaeda ceases to exist?

By the way, your question is as divergent from binary as McCain’s position. He has said, “I admire the Islam. There's a lot of good principles in it [sic]."

But these questions are peripheral, don’t you think? Should we not instead be talking about insisting that next President to give us a concrete plan to destroy Al Qaeda? UG’s plan is a start, perhaps a bit forceful (!), but not without kernels of tactics to discuss. I am proud of him, though, he articulated an entire strategy without once using the word “Islam”!

Cheers,

[Account Deleted]

By the way, here is an example of the kind of no-fear attitude we should show Al Qaeda, and the world. When New York City was wobbling around in a fog of confusion and pusillanimous thinking about what structure/monument to erect at the World Trade Center site, Donald Trump said it is very easy really: another twin tower ... one story higher than the previous one!

[Ummahgummah]

Weel, Michael, at least I am answering your post with somethign substantive. While Fred Koolaid resorts to polemics.

Precisely o because he has no answer.

Fred is like the kid who knocks over the chess set when he realizes the endgame is unavoidable.

Just so he can say he didn't lose..

Well, this isn't chess and we are talking about the most crucial issue of our lives an dth elives of generations yet to come.

Will we all end up dead or living in slavery under the despotic rule of sharia or will we stand up and take the enemy head-on?

[Ummahgummah]

Michael.. I'd have rebuilt the Towers. Five of them. One really TALL one, taller than anything on Earth. And then I#d have grouped four towers around that one to form a hand giving a BIG FAT FINGER to the terrorists :-)

[Ummahgummah]

Michael, as far as separating the extremists form the followers.. have fun.

If they ever get their chance to round us up and deide whom to behead and whom to ensale and so on and on.. these 'moderates' you and everyoine else fantasize about will do exactly NOTHING for you.

At best they will cross the street pretending not to see anything.

That's simply human nature.

[M/M]

I don't like NObama because I really think he is too inexperienced. Hillary sounded very credible today when she said she would bomb Iran. I'm sure the Daily Kooks disagree, but I do think there are times when force is justified.

What experience does Obama have on the economy? I think he will be a disaster. I enjoy watching Bill campaign for Hillary and I learn a great deal about the economy from him. (I assume she will bring him with her.) Hillary has a proven team, and she will hit the ground running.

Last year, one reason I didn't like Hillary was because I thought she was weak and that she would run to Bill when she got in trouble. But during this campaign, when Bill got Hillary into trouble, Hillary was able to show us that she was strong enough to save herself.

Congratulations HillRod !!! ABC NEWS REPORTS HILLARY WON PENNSYLVANIA !

[Ummahgummah]

M/M what's the margin?

[Ummahgummah]

As for the reaction of the likes of Fred.. they all know it's going on.. but they don't want to have to face REAL CHANGE.

A change of their condescending WE-ARE-BETTER-THAN-THOU liberal attitude!!

Meanwhile others fight the wars and others are left to beat the drums.

The liberal keeps looking down his nose at all of them.. while they risk their lives or at least their income and careers to svae everyone.

Winston Churchill once stood alone. They called him a warmonger.

They said how can you prove the Nazis mean business? How can you prove that Hitler means what he says?

Simply 'disliking' the Germans isn't sufficient reason to go to War, Mr. Churchill!

So now those who keep warning about the danger that islamic aggression and irredentism pose for our future - with careful presentation of the evidence - are ridiculed and vilified.

The liberals are all to glad to point their morraly superior little finger atg us. Meanwhile the SOWdis are laughing the tuchuses off and paying the corrupt buffoons we call our leader to betray us!

And Fred calls me the bad guy.

[Ummahgummah]

So do we like Hillary now?

Posted by: FredK2929

--

We like her better than HUSSEIN Obama.--

I really relish the thought of the SOWdis having to stand still under their sweaty headrags as she descends off Air Force One.. hair open.. wearing one of her pantsuits. Hehe..

And then they have to listen to her VOICE.. that grating voice..

YESSSSSSSSSSSS...!!!!!!

I LOVE it!!

As long as she doesn't get any PC weenies who tell her to wear a burka when she goes on a visit to these enmy countries.

I do liek her nuke statement. similar to the one Obama made on Pakiland isn't it?

Though I believe he was lying.. he's not going to used force in any of the NAJIStan countries....

He's a card carrying member of the Daily Kooks.

And he's got the evil Soros up his big ears.

[M/M]

UG,

Hillary had a 10 point lead over NObama with Hillary winning 54.6% of the vote over NObama's 45.3%.

http://www.foxnews.com/

And we like her drinking skills.

[FK]

UG --

I never called you the "bad guy". I called you an a**hole.

Anyone see the article in yesterday's WSJ about how it is a mistake to revise the history of Joseph McCarthy's terrible career? The article states that while it may be noble to try to identify spies within the Government, it was McCarthy's tactics of destroying anyone in the process that ruined his reputation, especially declaring that anyone who had anything to do with any liberal groups was a communist.

[J. Pierpont Finch]

If Obama wants to pretend the threats aren't there,

HE MAY BE PART OF THE PROBLEM and/or HE MY BE WORKING IN COLLUSION WITH THE ENEMY - RADICAL ISLAM and THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNIST MOVEMENT.

Barack Hussein Obamam and his past associations, connections and funding needs to be investigated and independantly verified more thoroughly than the accepting his responses to the media's softball questions without adequate followup/followthrough questioning and verification until the union is completely unpealed!

[FK]

Maybe we should waterboard Obama?

[gringoman]

TO MICHAEL AVARI from g-MAN:

Thanks for clarifying on McCain's use of "Islamic terrorists." At least it's now perfectly clear.

As a sensitive Christian with ME connections, you side with the muslims. As a widely traveled American (in contradistinction to Free Trade Georgie's dumb stereotype about the "nativists" and "vigilantes,") I stand with McCain on this (while wondering how long he will withstand Islamic and Soros and plutocratic pressure.)

You make some interesting points, if I understand them, about what I'd call 'trade-off' with muslims, e.g. agreeing to politically correct rhetoric in exchange for Saudis honest cooperation in tracing the bin Laden network.

But it indicates to me, yet again, that Arabs have been horse-trading for thousands of years, putting them well ahead of their Western counterparts. Oh, sure, Western traders have done very well for themselves under capitalism, no question. The difference is that today's oil sheikh belongs to a supremacist religion, something the Western capitalist, being essentially a secular businessman, has little interest in. In every deal, there is a dimension which the West's Secular Sammy---and even what passes for 'Christian' today---is barely aware of and does not really care about anyway.

Michael, if truth be told (and sometimes it must, even in geo-politics) I am no more impressed with today's (more or less effete) Western rulers than Mr. Ummah is. Even the ones who are self-made are essentially hand-maidens to the pampered children of the self-made. Not even the Council on Foreign Relations can escape the human condition.

The plain truth: It's become increasingly clear that today's capitalistas and socialistas have so much more in common than any of them want to admit. (Even your harmonics with a certain example of the Liberal Mind can enlighten the observant---or does this unfairly fail to see that you are really more in harmony with Mr. Gummah?)

For the ease of insights,fair or unfair, maybe we should thank the technology, or creativity, still remaining in the lands of "privilege and imperialism?" Who thought that today's kufars would light up Aladdin's lamp, enabling anyone to surf around the planet from a keyboard?

[FK]

As I've expressed before, in the course of fighting terrorism, I don't want to become terrorists. That's my biggest concern, and I think that George W. Bush has failed us on this (along with many other things).

I expect that any of the candidates, including McCain, will do better than Bush on this issue. Or on any issue. Including getting out of bed and not being a dunce for the rest of the day.

[Ummahgummah]

especially declaring that anyone who had anything to do with any liberal groups was a communist.

Posted by: FredK2929

---
Fred, you little Hugo-hugger, that"s because they are. Just look at Shemensty International, HRW and the ACLU. Ha! Huaahh! I rest my case.

Who needs Communists when we hate the ACLU and HRW to impede us.

This is coming from one who calls others **sholes when he doesn"t liek their opinions. The Left has MANY McCartys.

They are ALL OVER THE PLACE.

They work in the MSM.. more abot that later.. they work in education.. the terrorist "professor" Avery, HUSSEIN Osama's friend is another great example!

I'd be more than happy if WE had JUST ONE McCarthy back.

[Ummahgummah]

Anyone notice how NOONE on npr is dicussing yetserday's primary!!

Huuaaahh!

[Ummahgummah]

Sorry for the typos. My girlfirend keeps interrupting me.

Anyway.. as long as I can get a moment of peace.. I was listening to Curtis this morning..

A caller from "behind enemy lines" called in. He works deep in the bowels of PMS NBC and he reported the atmosphere of Doom and Gloom over there last night as the polls were closing..

YESSSS!!!!

He said that Olberman, Matthews Brokaw and company were in a state of disbelief like the Red Sox in Game Six.

Good Bless America!

[Ummahgummah]

It's a beautiful day indeed.. we are beating back the liberal hordes..

[FK]

UG --

I don't like your opinions, and I do think you are an a##hole. And no one stops me from saying that. And no one stops you from responding. It's America, and that's what makes it great.

The problem with McCarthy was that you couldn't even subscribe to the wrong newspaper (a left-leaning one, in McCarthy's mind) without fear of being publicly destroyed.

You seem to think like McCarthy. The ACLU and Amnesty International are two groups that are more liberal than you are. (Of course, I suspect that Ayn Rand was further left than you.) Therefore, they are socialist or communist or Marxist (your pick) and should be destroyed by someone like McCarthy.

We don't need another McCarthy, and we certainly don't need anyone like you in our government.

And I have not noticed that NPR is not discussing the primary because I'm working and can't listen to the radio. How do you have all this time to listen to NPR and other radio shows during the day?

I can't believe the story about MSNBC being in shock about the primary. That's absurd. Everyone predicted Clinton would win, and it was predicted it would be by about 10 points. So I am suspicious of that supposed call, and you should be, too.

Nice to hear you have a girlfriend. Someone can actually stand you? Amazing.

Oh, and just to reiterate, I do think you are an a**hole. God bless America (if he actually existed).

[Ummahgummah]

You make some interesting points, if I understand them, about what I'd call 'trade-off' with muslims, e.g. agreeing to politically correct rhetoric in exchange for Saudis honest cooperation in tracing the bin Laden network

--

These rhetorical concessions take us down the slippery slope which leads to eventual dhimmification.

They work like the spider, always wrapping a little tiny piece of slime on you until finally you find yourself trapped in an inescapable coccoon.

[Ummahgummah]

How do you have all this time to listen to NPR and other radio shows during the day?

---

I clip coupons, Fred. Now back to work!

[Ummahgummah]

Fred, there are REASONS I hate the ACLU and Shamnesty.

They hate the United States and they hate Native Europeans. And they hate Israel.

They work actively on behalf of terrorists.

I can back up what I am saying point by point with concrete examples.

You, Fred.. dear child.. all you can do is engage in emotionalisms and verbal abuse.

See your retort to J. Pierpoint Finch asking him if we should waterboard Obama. Now what kind of trick is that supposed to be?

You do it to all of us.

This is very similar to the techniques the moslems use. You have even engaged in the rhetoric of violence and threats, I remind you and everyone.

I want everyone to see the techniques Fred uses in debate and how hey are exemplary for liberal subversion of any debate in the country.

This goes from the top down.

I want people to see the mechanics of this so they are properly armed when they are exposed to the propagnad stream of the MSM.

The most important thing is to immunize ourselves agains the liberal onslaught which aims to frame the center to the Left.

[Ummahgummah]

There are way too many people watching Oprah who is the successor and heiress to Phil Donahue..

That is even more insiduous propaganda..

I call it the Big Softening.

Menawhile the Saracens are at the gates with sharpened blades...

[Ummahgummah]

To brak it down even further they even worked the visuals there.. they started with a weak old white man and they then phased in a homely big black woman..

Because Phil.. as liberal as he is.. Phil is simply not "entitled".

Goodbye Phil..

And throw Hitlery under the bus.

Race trumps gender.

[Ummahgummah]

Welcome to the World Of fRed.

[FK]

Some of my responses are called sarcasm. Look it up.

OK, so now my tactics are (instead of Marxist) Muslim?

Once again, I remind everyone that I don't speak for all liberals. I speak for myself, so UG should not be alerting you to my "techniques" as the techniques of the media. That's just absurd.

The ACLU and Amnesty International do great work. What they do demonstrates a love for the Constitution and this country that someone like you, UG, can't appreciate.

You don't have to love the Nazis, but you can defend their right to free speech. You don't have to love Muslim detainees in Guantanamo, but you can defend their right to due process. Someone like you looks and all you see is that they have represented Nazis and Muslim detainees, so they must agree with them. That demonstrates your limited thought process.

Now respond and tell me what an emotional Marxist I am and how I want the Muslims to take over. It's all you really ever say. How about getting some new material?

[J. Pierpont Finch]

JUST IN FROM OVERSEAS:

"We in Denmark cannot figure out why you are even bothering to hold an election.

On the one side, you have a bitch who is a lawyer, married to a lawyer, and a lawyer who is married to a bitch who is a lawyer.

On the other side, you have a true war hero married to a woman with a huge chest who owns a beer distributorship.

Is there a contest here?"

[FK]

Not sure about the huge chest, but if you take that out and replace "beer" with "ketchup", you have John Kerry, and somehow that wasn't good enough for you Reps/cons (whatever).

[Ummahgummah]

fRED.. only a liberal would have a problem understanding the difference between beer and ketchup.

HUSSEIN's got a big War Chest and McCain's wife has a big natural chest.. LOL

J. Pierpoint Finch, I love the lawyer analogy and I'm gonna spread this one around.

They're GREAT, those Danes!

[FK]

I don't know which Danes wrote that, but I'm pretty fond of Denmark. Their people stood up to the Nazis and didn't give up their Jewish citizens. Also, their standard of life is better than the U.S.'s.

[Ummahgummah]

Freddy the Danes who wrote that are sympathetic with Freedom of Speech and therefore the MADhomet Cartoonists.

By the way the ACLU nor the Reporters without Borders have had anything to say on the case of the MADhomet Caricaturists.

Now why do you think that is?

Bias? Double standard? They believe it's worthwhile for Nazis to march through Skokie and for the terrorists to get geneva Convention status on the one hand and on the other demand they be treated like ordniary criminals with full access to the US court system.

But NOT a WORD form them when it comes to someone making fun of the world's most bloodthirsty 'prophet'.

Somehow moslems have become the latest liberal 'cause celèbre'. Because True Conservatives who are sticklers for little things like National Security being an essential prerequisite for 'the pursuit of happiness' and Free Speech being allowed for ALL forms of speech and not only what suits liberals.

Defunding an art show that includes the Virgin Mary plastered with dung is not the same as OUTLAWING it.

The Danish cartoonists published their cartoons ina public paper which zou have to buy. They did NOT do so with taxpayer money.

Liberals NEVER get this point no matter how often I make it.

But then I am deep behind 'enemy lines' here in New York City.

[FK]

I'm pretty sure the Danish cartoon situation is out of the ACLU's jurisdiction, genius. Think about it.

[Ummahgummah]

Gitmo's is out for their "jurisdiction" too since that's in CUBA, genius!

That inconvenient little fact sure doesn't seem to hold them back..

[FK]

Try again, UG. Gitmo is on the island of Cuba but the U.S. has controlled that area since 1903. In effect, it's U.S. territory. Since the U.S. is holding detainees there, the ACLU takes an interest in whether those detainees are being held in accordance with applicable laws and treaties.

I think the part of your brain that causes anger is more powerful than the part that controls reason. Really, UG. Try thinking through the issues once in a while. It would make it easier for all of us who respond to you.