What Drives The Pre-9/11 Mindset? (1 Viewer)

[aquapub]

During the last 15 years, liberals have:

-Opposed the Patriot Act.

-Opposed wiretapping. Well, they opposed any wiretapping that wasn’t slowed to a crawl (hence, made useless) with individual warrants for each and every tap, roving wiretaps (the crowning achievement of the Patriot Act)…any wiretapping that actually prevents terrorism.

-Retreated from Al Queda in Somalia, leaving them with the impression that the American soldier was a “paper tiger” with no stomach for war, swelling their ranks and putting them on the map.

-Called terrorists to let them know the FBI was coming to raid them (on multiple occasions).

-Let Al Queda attack us with impunity for nearly a decade.

-Opposed detaining suspected terrorists at Gitmo until their ties with Al Queda and other groups could be sorted out.

-Made it illegal for the CIA, FBI, and police to discuss terror threats.

-Opposed using library records to identify possible terror suspects (Patriot Act).

-Opposed developing a missile defense system which would have neutralized much of the terrorist threat from North Korea.

-Needlessly exposed the inner-workings of a perfectly legal, classified anti-terror program that tracked terror funds.

-Opposed removing a genocidal terror-sponsor after 15 years of exhaustive diplomacy failures.

-Continue to oppose considering that 100% of American planes that have been hijacked have been hijacked by young, Arab, Muslim men when screening for airline terror threats.


Liberals have opposed every single thing Bush has done since 9/11 to prevent further terror attacks…every one.

Liberals always…always oppose things that enable America to protect itself because…?

 

[Kandahar]

Every single one of your poll options is stupid.

They just don’t get that doing things their way is what made 9/11 possible in the first place.

No, things like 9/11 are going to happen from time to time. They won't usually be on such a large scale (although they occasionally will), but you aren't ever going to be able to stamp out terrorism entirely unless you turn the country into a police state.

They just don’t get that terrorism is a military issue rather than a criminal one.

This is the most blatantly stupid option. On the contrary, YOU just don't get that terrorism is primarily a criminal issue rather than a military one. Diligent police will stop many terror attacks; the military is too brute of a force to be able to do that effectively.

That's not to say that countries should never respond to acts of terrorism with military force. But it's primarily a criminal issue.

Coincidence. They just innocently happen to always side with militant Islam on every single issue.

And there it is again. Anyone who doesn't tow the Bush line on every single issue is a treasonous Islamist. :roll:

 

[afr0byte]

Can we get an "other" option for this poll?

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

I have a better question: what drives aquapub to post polls that allow for absolutely no debate because of their intolerance, absolutism, and overgeneralizations and that are destined to end up in the basement?

 

[aps]

Every single one of your poll options is stupid.

I have a better question: what drives aquapub to post polls that allow for absolutely no debate because of their intolerance, absolutism, and overgeneralizations and that are destined to end up in the basement?

I totally agree. In fact, I realize that aquapub will never have anything substantive to say, and as of right now, he is back on my "ignore" list. I don't waste my time on posters who can't do anything but bash the opposing party. He's not even interesting.

 

[The Mark]

Gah!

I left them all blank and clicked the "vote now" button, but this stupid biased poll wouldn't let me make the choice I wanted too!!!!!

Talk about irritating......

 

[mixedmedia]

I have a better question: what drives aquapub to post polls that allow for absolutely no debate because of their intolerance, absolutism, and overgeneralizations and that are destined to end up in the basement?

Good question. Maybe we ought to start a poll on that question that will not serve any purpose other than to annoy aquapub. Maybe then we'll feel better or something. Is that how it works, aquapub?

 

[aps]

Good question. Maybe we ought to start a poll on that question that will not serve any purpose other than to annoy aquapub. Maybe then we'll feel better or something. Is that how it works, aquapub?

mixed, he doesn't care about anything except slamming liberals/democrats. We can chastize him, and he won't care. In fact, I think he enjoys when we react negatively. jallman and I made a pact to ignore him, and I am going to follow through on it. People like him thrive on attention, and for him it appears to be negative attention that he seeks. By acknowledging his posts, we give him validation and the attention he loves. So I will no longer acknowledge his existence.

 

[aquapub]

No, things like 9/11 are going to happen from time to time. They won't usually be on such a large scale (although they occasionally will), but you aren't ever going to be able to stamp out terrorism entirely unless you turn the country into a police state.

Bill Clinton's Deputy Attorney General who made it illegal (with his full endorsement) for the CIA, FBI, and police to communicate about terror threats described her decision as "going beyond what is required by the Constitution."

In other words, they didn't HAVE to tie the government's hands behind their back to enable 9/11, it was a choice. They also didn't have to retreat from Bin Laden in Somalia, or let him attack our people with impunity for nearly a decade.

Other than Al Queda, Democrats caused 9/11.

Portraying this as some inevitable thing we all just have to expect is intellectually dishonest. It was entirely preventable...if we would have had LEADERS instead of Democrats in office.

Why is it that liberals always care more about not losing than winning? We always lose under them because of that mentality. We shouldn't just expect to keep getting hit. We can do common sense things that are consistent with the Constitution to make it nearly impossible for another 9/11 to ever happen.

Calling any improvement beyond the pre-9/11 negligent liberal policies that enabled 9/11 "a police state" is hysterical nonsense.

 

[aquapub]

And there it is again. Anyone who doesn't tow the Bush line on every single issue is a treasonous Islamist. :roll:

How silly of me to take issue with liberals siding with militant Islam on every single issue. You're right, we shouldn't connect the dots. That might lead to questions about what the hell liberals are thinking.

Hint: If liberals stop opposing EACH AND EVERY THING this country does to defend itself and OCCASIONALLY be willing to get behind SOMETHING that gets in the way of militant Islam, they will stop being portrayed as rooting for the other side.

Duh.

 

[tecoyah]

Why did you even bother to make this a poll, when you know full very few people here carry partisanship to the extremes you dwell in. You should have just made another Rant....though thats getting a bit old. I guess you really are running out of creative ways to SAY THE SAME DAMN THING OVER>>>>and OVER AGAIN.

 

[aquapub]

This is the most blatantly stupid option. On the contrary, YOU just don't get that terrorism is primarily a criminal issue rather than a military one. Diligent police will stop many terror attacks; the military is too brute of a force to be able to do that effectively.

That's not to say that countries should never respond to acts of terrorism with military force. But it's primarily a criminal issue.

:2funny:

This is exactly why liberals don't win elections anymore.

You have just demonstrated precisely what the pre-9/11 mindset is all about. :applaud

If Bill Clinton would have treated eight years of Al Queda attacks on our troops as a military issue rather than a criminal issue, 9/11 would not have happened.

If Democrats wouldn't have treated terrorists in this country as criminals rather than enemy fighters (by making it illegal-under Clinton-for the CIA, FBI, and police to discuss terror threats-which well exceeded the non-existent privacy rights for foreign terror suspects afforded by the Constitution), 9/11 would not have happened.


So...tell me I'm stupid all you want (nice debate strategy BTW :roll, but the problem here IS that DEMOCRATS don't think terrorism should be treated as military issue.

 

[aquapub]

Good question. Maybe we ought to start a poll on that question that will not serve any purpose other than to annoy aquapub. Maybe then we'll feel better or something. Is that how it works, aquapub?

Something is wrong with a group of people who always oppose every single thing the U.S. does to protect itself.

It warrants discussion.

This isn't about annoying anyone. I want to hear what possible rationales there could be for ending up on the side of the enemy on each and every issue.

Maybe you can explain all the coincidences away. I'll be waiting.

 

[Saboteur]

All jazzed up on Mike Savage B.S. again huh?

During the last 15 years, liberals have:

-Opposed the Patriot Act.

No comment

-Opposed wiretapping. Well, they opposed any wiretapping that wasn’t slowed to a crawl (hence, made useless) with individual warrants for each and every tap, roving wiretaps (the crowning achievement of the Patriot Act)…any wiretapping that actually prevents terrorism.

Hey I don't care if the government listens to me talking about going to lunch with my mother-in-law. Just want it to be legal.

-Retreated from Al Queda in Somalia, leaving them with the impression that the American soldier was a “paper tiger” with no stomach for war, swelling their ranks and putting them on the map.

Islamic radicals have taken Mogadishu recently... where is the conservative controlled U.S. now?

-Called terrorists to let them know the FBI was coming to raid them (on multiple occasions).

Prove it.

-Let Al Queda attack us with impunity for nearly a decade.

Prove it.

-Opposed detaining suspected terrorists at Gitmo until their ties with Al Queda and other groups could be sorted out.

Prove it.

-Made it illegal for the CIA, FBI, and police to discuss terror threats.

Prove it.

-Opposed using library records to identify possible terror suspects (Patriot Act).

What?

-Opposed developing a missile defense system which would have neutralized much of the terrorist threat from North Korea.

UMMMMMM.....

-Needlessly exposed the inner-workings of a perfectly legal, classified anti-terror program that tracked terror funds.

Never heard of this one.

-Opposed removing a genocidal terror-sponsor after 15 years of exhaustive diplomacy failures.

Who what when where?

-Continue to oppose considering that 100% of American planes that have been hijacked have been hijacked by young, Arab, Muslim men when screening for airline terror threats.

We're just not racists and we face the reality that the second we don't check everybody equally is the second that terroists stop using young arab, muslim men to hijack planes. Sorry, yer just gonna have to buy yer shampoo after you get off the plane.

Liberals have opposed every single thing Bush has done since 9/11 to prevent further terror attacks…every one.

So there have been more terror attacks in the U.S.? When and Where?

Liberals always…always oppose things that enable America to protect itself because…?

Because we don't want to give up our freedom for security. We're not afraid to live in a dangerous world that's always been dangerous. We don't need to be watched and listened to everywhere we go.... the list goes on.

 

[mixedmedia]

Something is wrong with a group of people who always oppose every single thing the U.S. does to protect itself.

It warrants discussion.

This isn't about annoying anyone. I want to hear what possible rationales there could be for ending up on the side of the enemy on each and every issue.

Maybe you can explain all the coincidences away. I'll be waiting.

I'll explain it. You hyperbolize, distort, mischaracterize, misrepresent and outright lie to make your ridiculous assessments of "liberals" and anyone else who doesn't (apparently) spend the majority of their time sniffing the *** of George Bush for their marching orders that day. What's really funny to me is, the people whose ideology you go to such lengths to support would think you are a fool for the things you say. But whatever, it's your life, dude.

I'm listening to the new Bob Dylan album right now.....so fluff off, aquapub, you're a waste of time. aps is right about you.

 

[Stinger]

This is the most blatantly stupid option. On the contrary, YOU just don't get that terrorism is primarily a criminal issue rather than a military one. Diligent police will stop many terror attacks; the military is too brute of a force to be able to do that effectively.

That's not to say that countries should never respond to acts of terrorism with military force. But it's primarily a criminal issue.

So let's pull back and hunker down. Let's put the money into ambulances and EMT's and excavation crews so when we are attacked we can save as many people as possible. Then the FBI can go through the evidence and figure out who did it. We can then demand Iran, which is where they will probably be, turn them over to us and then wait for the next attack. In the meantime the Islamofacist take over the middle east and the S. Pacific basin and operate with impunity.

Wonder how long it will take for them to run out of suicide bombers. How long before they bring us to our knees, 20 years? 30 years?

 

[aquapub]

I'll explain it. You hyperbolize, distort, mischaracterize, misrepresent and outright lie to make your ridiculous assessments of "liberals" and anyone else who doesn't (apparently) spend the majority of their time sniffing the *** of George Bush for their marching orders that day. What's really funny to me is, the people whose ideology you go to such lengths to support would think you are a fool for the things you say. But whatever, it's your life, dude.

I'm listening to the new Bob Dylan album right now.....so fluff off, aquapub, you're a waste of time. aps is right about you.

This is not Whine Politics, it is DEBATE Politics. Refute any of the points I've made or stop spewing drivel.

 

[aquapub]

Hey I don't care if the government listens to me talking about going to lunch with my mother-in-law. Just want it to be legal.

Actually, the co-author of the law we are allegedly violating by listening to phone calls from terrorists in a manner that is feasible, practical (i.e., NOT with warrants) has made several appearances on the talk show circuits and confirmed that they left a provision in the law allowing for warrantless wiretaps in extraordinary circumstances.

9/11 qualifies as an extraordinary circumstance.

So there is no need to slow wiretapping to a dysfunctional crawl. It is perfectly legal.

Are you serious about needing proof about things like liberals opposing Gitmo?

 

[aquapub]

Islamic radicals have taken Mogadishu recently... where is the conservative controlled U.S. now?

Islamic radicals control 2/5 of the planet. Since when was it Bush's pledge to eradicate Islam?

 

[mixedmedia]

This is not Whine Politics, it is DEBATE Politics. Refute any of the points I've made or stop spewing drivel.

You crack me up. I'll refute all of your points. They are paranoid fantasies from a sick, yet rather simple mind. Because I said so. There.

I can see why you prefer this style of debate. I can type this crap all day long and have nary a worry about actually contemplating anything.

 

[Iriemon]

So let's pull back and hunker down. Let's put the money into ambulances and EMT's and excavation crews so when we are attacked we can save as many people as possible. Then the FBI can go through the evidence and figure out who did it. We can then demand Iran, which is where they will probably be, turn them over to us and then wait for the next attack. In the meantime the Islamofacist take over the middle east and the S. Pacific basin and operate with impunity.

Wonder how long it will take for them to run out of suicide bombers. How long before they bring us to our knees, 20 years? 30 years?

Actually if you look at the incidents of terrorist attacks against occupying countries, that is exactly what we should do. Terrorists attacks decrease significantly when the foreign occupation ends.

In the end, we have 3 basic choices.

1) Get out of their lands, maintain a balanced and neutral approach to the mid east and act honorably while doing things that will reduce radicalism and foster moderation.

2) Stay the course of fueling anti-American radicalism by occupying their holy lands, killing muslims daily, locking away muslims without trials or hearings, and torturing them; or

3) Kill them all.

#3 I can't stomach, #2 isn't working and doesn't make sense.

 

[Saboteur]

Islamic radicals control 2/5 of the planet. Since when was it Bush's pledge to eradicate Islam?

Hey you're the one blaming what happened in Somolia on liberals...

 

[Saboteur]

Actually, the co-author of the law we are allegedly violating by listening to phone calls from terrorists in a manner that is feasible, practical (i.e., NOT with warrants) has made several appearances on the talk show circuits and confirmed that they left a provision in the law allowing for warrantless wiretaps in extraordinary circumstances.

9/11 qualifies as an extraordinary circumstance.

So there is no need to slow wiretapping to a dysfunctional crawl. It is perfectly legal.

Are you serious about needing proof about things like liberals opposing Gitmo?

I really don't care about wire tapping.... And yes, I want proof for everything you're presenting here.

 

[Saboteur]

Actually if you look at the incidents of terrorist attacks against occupying countries, that is exactly what we should do. Terrorists attacks decrease significantly when the foreign occupation ends.

In the end, we have 3 basic choices.

1) Get out of their lands, maintain a balanced and neutral approach to the mid east and act honorably while doing things that will reduce radicalism and foster moderation.

2) Stay the course of fueling anti-American radicalism by occupying their holy lands, killing muslims daily, locking away muslims without trials or hearings, and torturing them; or

3) Kill them all.

#3 I can't stomach, #2 isn't working and doesn't make sense.

I agree with #1 but let's not kid ourselves... The world's running out of oil and big business is determined to squeeze every last drop of it out of the middle east so they can make their money.

 

[Saboteur]

Here's another reason for the question in the O.P.

Because liberals have as much faith in and compassion for humanity as Jesus Christ ever did.

Something that the religious right has forgotten about while they're busy perverting their church with rightiousness.