Today on Blogcritics
Home » The Politics of Reality

The Politics of Reality

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Much was made last week of Tom Tancredo's campaign ad depicting an illegal immigrant with a knapsack, presumably filled with explosives, entering a US mall. "The politics of fear" was the near immediate refrain from the mostly liberal comments posted in response to this news item. "A vote for anyone but Tancredo is a vote for letting your children get murdered by Islamofacists and your wife raped by Jihadists. You have been warned" opined another commenter.

I was in New York on September 11th, 2001, along with millions of other New Yorkers, from both the left and right persuasions. The terrorists didn't discriminate between those following a particular political belief set, killing anyone they could possibly reach. How then did we get to this point where nearly half of this country has deluded themselves into thinking that any such talk of another terrorist attack happening again must be some sort of manipulation or fear mongering?

Mr. Tancredo appeared on Tucker last week defending the premise of his ad, citing that the scenario depicted was actually mentioned in a recent National Intelligence Estimate. It's worth mentioning that the NIE has been used by many on the left to disparage the Bush administration when convenient.

Convenient? We are talking about protecting Americans, the government's first and foremost job. Is that the sad state of affairs we are in where real threats cannot be acknowledged without treading over a political taboo? Where suggesting the reality that terrorists are here and actually do want to repeat and improve upon 911 immediately results in a charge of fear based manipulation? I know that we are just under a year away from a contentious election, but the lack of leadership and responsibility shown by those on the left never ceases to amaze me.

Rather than the politics of fear, I would argue that many on the left are indulging in the politics of willful ignorance. It was one thing when the left engaged in some nose cutting to spite the face when they had rejected the President's plan to privatize Social Security, even though before Bush took office Democrats were for privatizing Social Security. Not having a workable social security plan for the future won't kill (many) people. But being willfully ignorant of the serious threats that face this country is the sort of self destructive side effect of Bush Derangement Syndrome that could result in the deaths of quite a few innocent Americans. Not to mention the impacts to the economy, and our society as a whole. Take a gander at the severely dampening effect recurring terrorists attacks have had on the once booming society in Israel, it can happen here too if we aren't careful. This isn't the politics of fear that I am talking about, it's the politics of reality.

To delve just a little more into reality, it's been over six years since 9/11. We've been safe all of these years, not because of serendipity or the goodwill of our enemies, but because of the hard work put forth by all levels of our government, police, military, and even dare I say it, the President. While there have been no attacks within US borders, there have been several failed attempts that we know about, and likely many other attempts that have been stopped that we don't know about. I find it appalling that this outstanding effort of our countrymen to protect our way of life has been turned and twisted in such a way so as to stifle any kind of debate on national defense. That the payment for protecting the people of this country is the widespread belief that we could never be attacked is the height of chutzpah and ignorance.

I view my friends on the left not as enemies, but as Americans and political opponents. Should we elect a Democrat to the office of President in 2008, I won't be leaving for Canada or renouncing my US citizenship (like some on the left proclaimed they'd do in November 2000). However, the total lack of engagement on this serious issue by the Democrats, the willingness to place the entire issue on Bush's doorstep, as if it's all "his problem," or to cast any such discussion as engaging in the politics of fear makes me very scared for the consequences of a Democratic win in 2008 (a sort of reverse politics of fear).

As a nation, we need to wake up. Like it or not, WE elected Bush our president twice. Those that hate Bush will see the end of his presindency in just over a year from now. But the repercussions of any terrorist attack on our homeland, especially one that happened because we ignored, or worse, politicized our self defense, will not go away in 4 years. The lives lost in such an attack won't be remediated by the next election. Let's try and come together on this one, with our eyes wide open that yes, this can happen again, and will if we aren't careful.

Powered by

About The Obnoxious American

  • Sissy

    Did you even watch the ad? It has nothing to do with Mike Huckabee- it’s a Tom Tancredo ad. I mean, honestly

  • Franco

    Good opinion pieces. It would be a welcomed addition if more of the MSM pointed this out too.

    It will be interesting to see the premise on which critics of the piece base their reasoning.

  • Lapdog

    “Sure, America has made its mistakes,…”

    Mistakes?? What are you referring to?

  • The Obnoxious American

    Happy Thanksgiving to you too Moon Raven!

  • moonraven

    Offensive American, too.

    Native Americans do NOT celebrate Thanksgiving, [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor].

  • Baronius

    OA – Liked the article; loved the Thanksgiving wishes. Brilliant.

  • moonraven

    Right. Genocidal Baronius kicks off Thanksgiving by trying to roast a Mohawk. [Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor]

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    I love Thanksgiving too!

  • Baronius

    Lighten up, Moon. For someone whose stock in trade is abuse, you should learn to admire it when done so well.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    It will be interesting to see the premise on which critics of the piece base their reasoning.

    I don’t have a problem with the article so much as the ad – I think the MSM reaction had it about right. It was as crass and uncalled-for as the infamous LBJ “daisy” atom bomb ad.

    I’ve said before that the most likely explanation for 9/11 is that Atta and his team just got lucky. There’s never been another terror attack on US soil on anything approaching that scale, simply because it would have been next to impossible to set up without being detected. The OA points out that much hard work is done by the security and intelligence services to prevent further attacks. But they can’t stop all of them and one day, another terrorist will get through the net. I think every reasonable person realizes this, and it’s really not a partisan issue. As such, Tancredo’s ad was uncalled-for.

    To be fair, I think Tancredo realizes he hasn’t got a Bill’s chance in New England of winning the nomination, so he probably figures he can be as outrageous as he likes.

  • moonraven

    ALL little gringo piggies love Thanksgiving–so they can simultaneously pig out on turkeys filled with chemicals, canned cranberries, plastic potatoes and Purina’s pumpkin pie–while celebrating the empire of Macy’s and giving the finger to the remnants of the Native tribes they slaughtered so that they could pig out on garbage and cheer for credit card debt.

  • moonraven

    B: Bet your favorite flic is that masterpiece of film history, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, too!

  • Baronius

    Doc – Sure, al Queda got lucky on 9/11, but they were trying to do something big. It’s their M.O. – big, multibomb attacks. They’ve done it before, and they’ve done it since. They hit London, Madrid, and Manila, all free cities fighting Muslim extremism.

    They got lucky in the same way a bank robber gets lucky outsmarting bank security. Not in the way that a pickpocket gets lucky by finding $10,000 in a wallet. Actually, for the size of the targets they chose, the body count was remarkably low. The point is, you have to take an audacious enemy seriously.

  • moonraven

    So llucky, in fact, that Dick Cheney did everything for them.

    God, you guys are such gullible fools.

    Al Qaeda did not exist until it was created by the CIA.

    And Osama Bin Laden is STILL on the CIA payroll.

    But YOU aren’t.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    The point is, you have to take an audacious enemy seriously.

    And we do. Hence the paucity of operations which al-Qaeda has actually been able to see through. The attacks against New York, Washington, London, Madrid and Manila were all one-shot deals and the various security agencies have learned from them. Further attacks on Britain, Spain and America have been tried, and have failed miserably.

    However, al-Qaeda is probably very pleased with its enduring success in disrupting the way of life in the countries it has attacked and in thereby keeping people fearful of it. As I said, I don’t disagree with the article as much as I do with Tancredo trying to make crude political capital by playing on that fear. It doesn’t make him much better than those he warns against.

  • Clavos

    “Al Qaeda did not exist until it was created by the CIA.”

    Totally wrong.

    Read The Looming Tower, by Lawrence Wright.

    In it, Mr. Wright (who won the Pulitzer for this book), traces the beginnings of Al Qaeda back through the originally Egyptian organization known as The Society of Muslim Brothers, formed in opposition to, and during, the British occupation of Egypt. The Brothers, founded by Hasan al-Banna, were followers of Professor Sayyid Qutb, whose book, Milestones, was and is one of the seminal influences on modern Islamic Jihadists, including Ayman Al-Zawahiri and Osama Bin Laden.

    The Brothers were instrumental in helping Gamal Abdel Nasser take control of Egypt. Shortly after the revolution, Nasser a secularist, and the Brothers, devoutly religious, and by then led by Qutb, clashed, and a struggle for the hearts and minds of the Egyptian people ensued.

    Nasser finally had Qutb and some of his followers arrested and tried for an assassination attempt by the Brothers on Nasser in 1954. Qutb was imprisoned, but later released by Nasser.

    In 1966, Qutb (now working with Saudi backing) again attempted an unsuccessful coup.

    Again arrested and tried, Nasser had Qutb hanged in 1966. But the damage was done, as by then, Al-Zawahiri and Bin Laden had met and begun to collaborate, and Nasser’s hanging of Qutb served only to make him a martyr, and his ideas became the cornerstone of Islamic Jihadists worldwide.

    Al-Qaeda (The Base) sprang from this chain of events, coming to full flower as a result of two events in 1979: The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the ascension to power in Iran of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, also a militant religionist and Islamic supremacist.

    According to Wright, Khomeini’s takeover of Iran marked “…the first successful Islamist takeover of a major country.”

    Khomeini’s success emboldened Islamists all over the world, dealing a major blow to the secularists, and reinforcing the cause of the religionists.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    accurate to it’s point…

    but it was indeed the extensive training and financing received during the Afghan/Soviet conflict that created an effective unit and gave it both the strategic and tactical know how (as well as experience)to plan long range and implement short rage operations

    sometimes more effectively than other

    from the “shoe bomber” to 9/11…it’s how the working Cell has been trained and operates that determines just how effective, or not, they are

    the cell structure, as well as how to hide, was indeed taught the mujahadeen (like bin Laden) by CIA and other U.S. agencies…the same Tricks that were taught to them to evade the Soviets are what they use to this day…very rare updating or innovation has been demonstrated so far…

    just for the Record

    Excelsior?

  • bliffle

    “…the repercussions of any terrorist attack on our homeland, especially one that happened because we ignored, or worse, politicized our self defense..”

    It was Bush and his flunkies like C Rice who ignored the warnings one month before 9/11, although it was clearly spelled out.

    Then they tried to alibi their careless neglect by saying “who’da thought they’d steal airplanes and fly them into buildings…?” Who indeed, except 12 different government reports.

    And those reckless, malevolent idiots till haven’t even solved THAT problem.

  • Clavos

    According to Wright’s book, in 1948, when the Egyptian government officially dissolved the Muslim Brothers,

    “Although the Brotherhood was a mass movement, it was also intimately organized into cooperative ‘families’–cells that contained no more than five members each, giving it a spongy, clandestine quality that proved difficult to detect and impossible to eradicate.”

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    hence why i note that the tactic was taught to the “mujahadeen”

    sorry if it appeared to imply that some didn’t already know that specific bit

    i’m very familiar with Qutb, and his root cause influence in current radical philosophy

    the early history of it is more in the political theatre of Egypt…what came in the second generation of well off Arabs…

    many of those became the first cadres of the Afghan mujahadeen

    you will also see the tie in to the 1950’s overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian government to install the Shah (another root cause) influencing Qutb and his immediate followers (the first generation)

    again strictly for the Record, and a sheer waste of my Time…

    Excelsior?

  • Clavos

    “again strictly for the Record, and a sheer waste of my Time…”

    Pardonnez moi…I certainly don’t want to impose on your busy schedule.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    ain’t anybody in particular..don’t flatter yerself and get yer panties all in a twist

    any of It i do, is strictly my own Responsibility

    Excelsior?

  • Clavos

    Meh.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    the cell structure, as well as how to hide, was indeed taught the mujahadeen (like bin Laden) by CIA and other U.S. agencies…the same Tricks that were taught to them to evade the Soviets are what they use to this day…very rare updating or innovation has been demonstrated so far…

    Just for your favoriete friend, ‘the record’, those tricks weren’t exactly uniquely invented by the CIA for the use of the Muj. They were already well established by that point and had been used extensively by German agents in the two World Wars, by the French Resistence, by the OAS by various Soviet sponsored groups around the world and by many others. Insurgency techniques and ‘leaderless resistence’ could easily have been learned from many sources, and in fact had been used by prior Islamic reistence movements going back hundreds of years. The point being that it certainly didn’t take the CIA to teach al Qaeda most of these things and it’s a mistake to assume that they are an American creation.

    Dave

  • Franco

    #10 — Dr Dreadful

    I think the MSM reaction had it about right. It was as crass and uncalled-for as the infamous LBJ “daisy” atom bomb ad.

    I don’t think the LBJ ad and this one are even in the same camp. First, we still live under the threat of that same LBJ insinuation, perhaps even more so today then back then. Second, we have always had the highest security measure in place concerning a nuclear missile launch anywhere in the world, and we know exactly who to watch and where they are. In addition to that, the reality of mutually assured destruction (MAD) has played one of the biggest parts in prevention.

    Tancredo ad is taking specific aim on our lack of those same kind of security measures being applied to your boarders.. Our lack of committed attention in study and effective solutions to our lack of border controls. No one is saying there is any easy solution and that’s the point. No one is willing to seriously address what we can and should do because it is mired in a mix of good, bad, and ugly politics and special interests when in comes to illegale entery into the US from Mexico. Even Presidet Fox got on Bush about cracking down to hard on it.

    When considering the risks we live with today and will for decades to come, it’s an open opportunity for terrorests, and Tancredo is tying illegal immigration to terrorism and he sights some important facts.

    Tancredo cited congressional testimony by FBI Director Robert Mueller in 2006 that there is evidence of persons of Middle Eastern origin learning Spanish and taking on Latin American identities. He also said there is evidence Hezbollah is organizing opperations in Central and South America. Now add Chavez to this mix.

    Tancredo has replied to his critics in saying. “It is not fear-mongering to suggest that terrorists will join in taking advantage of our porous borders,”

    If we were to give our border security anything approaching even 50% of the same security attention we give enemy missile launches detection that would be different, but we don’t. And a little irony here is that a nuclear devices or chemical “dirty bomb” could get through our borders undetected a 100,000 times easier then a missile launch going undetected.

    I’ve said before that the most likely explanation for 9/11 is that Atta and his team just got lucky. I think every reasonable person realizes this, and it’s really not a partisan issue. As such, Tancredo’s ad was uncalled-for.

    So here in lies that question. What part and or degree of luck was increased for the terrorests by the likes of Sandy Berger and Bill Clinton in their Millennium Alert After Action Review (MAAAR). Berger did not steel and or destroy docs pertaining to that for nothing. The fact of the matter was that the Millennium attack was prevented by sheer luck, our luck, not the other way around.

    I’m not interested in rehashing what the Clinton Administration or even Mr. Berger did or didn’t do vis a vis the al Qaeda threat pre-9/11. Nor am I much interested about Mr. Berger’s criminal activities and breading the law. What does interest me is what other damage to national security has taken place and has still not required us to face those consequences yet.

    In 1999, Berger failed to inform President Clinton of his knowledge that the People’s Republic of China had managed to acquire the designs of a number of U.S. nuclear warheads. In fact it took Berger months to bring it up to the attention President Clinton. And only then because it had started to be a regular security breach by the Chinese taking place repeatedly.

    This kind of luck afforded our enemy is scary shit.

    So let me turn it all around now. Let’s say your right and it was a crass ad and he was being as outrageous as he likes for the reasons you sugjest. Then answer me this. What if Tancredo is right?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    @ 3 24 – of fucking course it wasn’t invented by them or for them, nice attempt at attempting to imply something i never fucking said…

    the history bit is very nice for those unfamiliar with the topic…but your point is?

    scratch that…i know better than to even attempt to Ask anything pertinent, or expect anything worthwhile

    do note, i didn’t make any “assumptions” or inferences…each bit i mentioned is readily available for any that look into the matter

    those who have personal ties with folks who were involved might know more about certain specifics over others…the Nature of the situation, after all

    i’ll stack what i know of it against most

    and any who doubt the influence of certain alphabet soup agencies on the training or equipping of the mujahadeen, and thus on what they became…is in serious denial of objective reality

    same goes for the influence of Qutb, or the installation of the Shah…it’s that kind of Ignorance, or will full “forgetfulness” and sloppy Thinking which has placed much of the world in the
    shitstorm we currently inhabit

    Excelsior?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    the history bit is very nice for those unfamiliar with the topic…but your point is?

    Just that I’m sick of those who try to use the CIA involvement in Afghanistan as an attempt to direct blame away from al Qaeda and their supporters and place it on the US and its policies instead.

    The same hold true with Iran, since you bring it up. Again, the fact that the US put the Shah in power in no way excuses the excesses of the current regime in Iran.

    These arguments are no more valid than Moonraven trying to say that Americans can’t be concerned about human rights in Venezuela because we mistreated the Indians a hundred years ago.

    Those who bring up these spurious arguments time and time again are the real enemy who we ought to be opposing.

    To be absolutely clear, the involvement of the US in Afghanistan and Iraq is a given. But when you go from acknowledging that fact to blaming the future actions of those people against the west, the US and their neighbors on the US you’re going too far. The bottom line is that even terrorists and theocrats retain free will and should be held responsible for their actions – no excuses.

    Dave

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    you are fucking unbelievable…

    where did i lay blame ..please do point it out, i fucking DEFY you too

    because once again, you assume rather than read what is actually typed

    go back, read what’s been typed again, then get your head out of your ass, it will stop you from having such a shitty outlook on it all

    cause and effect, plus historical accuracy, as well as possibly mentioning “reasons” that some psychotics give (in Afghanistan and the WH) to try and justify the crimes they have committed

    “The bottom line is that even terrorists and theocrats retain free will and should be held responsible for their actions – no excuses.”

    i’ll buy that one, and would gladly enforce it…but one has to be fair about it

    and hold the WH and such to the same fucking standard rather than your usual Apologist bullshit excusing them for everything as well

    goose/gander

    Excelsior?

  • REMF

    “The bottom line is that even terrorists and theocrats retain free will and should be held responsible for their actions – no excuses.”
    – Dave Nalle

    As long as SOMEONE ELSE does the dirty work of “holding them responsible”, right Nalle?

  • Moonraven

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

    “These arguments are no more valid than Moonraven trying to say that Americans can’t be concerned about human rights in Venezuela because we mistreated the Indians a hundred years ago.”

    At no point have I ever posted this ridiculous statement–it is straight out of the book of illogical internet argument–a Nalle classic.

    I have said that it makes little sense for Nalle to rant and rave about UNDOCUMENTED abuses in a country that he cannot even find on the map and which he, obviously, has never visited.

    Right up there with Dick Cheney’s goofy statement about how Peru deserves a better president than Hugo Chavez!

    I really do not give a shit if you folks are abused and frightened out of your shorts by YOUR government.

    Nor if you believe the fairy tale about Al Qaeda having done 9/11. Al Qaeda is not the vice-president of the US, so far as this poster knows.

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

  • Clavos

    I read the book (as I’m sure gonzo did; it or others on the same topic), mr.

    Did you?

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    never read the book that was mentioned, nor needed to google anything on the topic

    i touched on it a bit here, more in the comments than the Article itself but i have given this same info many times over the years here on BC

    as i have stated, i have personal sources who were involved in each of these incidents, and some where i have more direct, firsthand experience

    but few have any desire to hear the Truth of the matter, and others deny Facts when presented

    still more have their eyes glaze over when reaching into deep, or complex topics… and this one is far from simple

    another example of just how often you are completely wrong, mr… and i still hold by my very low Opinion of you from the last time… your own words condemn you [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor].

    Excelsior?

  • Moonraven

    Sorry, gonzo, but I am NEVER wrong. Not about THIS. Not about ANYTHING.
    And your saying that I am is foolish. If you had any PROOF you would post it [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor].

    Clavos: If you read it, it’s true, right?

    Well you read what I wrote HERE.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writer.php?name=gonzo%20marx gonzo marx

    carrion eater – i’ve proven you wrong with your own spewing in enough Threads already to demonstrate your utter lack of infallibility

    just because you repeat it ad nauseum doesn’t make it True… nice try at the whole big Lie bit…but it wasn’t Funny the first time around…even less when you mimic, lunarcrow

    Excelsior?

  • The Obnoxious American

    For the record Dave, totally agree with you, since when did excuse making for murderers become so en vogue?

    Further, “Those who bring up these spurious arguments time and time again are the real enemy who we ought to be opposing.”

    Totally right, which brings me to REMF – sir/madame you really need to go back to your high school debate club and polish your act. I think it’s a reasonable point to make from time to time, that some of us may have strong feelings about national security and military actions, while not serving in the military (although I don’t think that the argument holds a ton of merit considering that people in the military don’t have a say in military action either, and after all whether we serve or not, we are all Americans which if you checked affords us certain rights to speech such as this).

    But my problem with your argument is that it’s the only point you seem to ever make. Time and time again the same point, even within the same discussion. You’re actually turning this position of yours into a mockery given that it’s the only angle with which you seem to be able to attack any ideas you don’t agree with. It may not matter a whole lot to you, but FYI I tend to believe that a person with a weak argument has even weaker principles to back it up.

    Also, if Moonraven is going to be rolling around in the mud anywhere, I want to watch.

  • Baronius

    OA, REMF talks about more than one thing. There’s “chicken hawks”, Limbaugh’s hot air, Nalle shooting rats (apparently Nalle said something once about it), and… OK, three things. The curious thing is, even though it’s a 90/5/5 split as to what he says, the context doesn’t matter. I could say that John Kerry never proved his patriotism, and REMF would reply that Nalle shoots rats.

  • Moonraven

    This bird served in the military, filed a statement of conscentious objection, refused to be bribed with a commission as Major, was given an honorable discharge [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

  • Moonraven

    Gonzo: Show us the BEEF, buzzard–you know, the PROOF that I have ever been wrong.

    Lots of luck searching for it–it’s dark up there.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    It’s dogs, Baritone, not rats. I once shot a feral dog which was trying to kill my chickens. Didn’t even kill the thing, just some buckshot in the butt. MCH has been mindlessly outraged ever since.

    Dave

  • Moonraven

    Right, troll–To show how much I respect the gringo war machine, my honorable discharge hung in the place of honor: right over the toilet.
    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

  • Moonraven

    It’s true that I have NO empathy for gringos.

    No reason to have any.

    They have never shown any empathy for the folks they have murdered.

  • Baronius

    Perfect reply. I realized that I forgot to mention one thing – that your insults are often directed at the other person’s intelligence. That’s the arrogance of a college professor. Funny, I didn’t get a chance to add that to my message before you called me stupid.

  • The Obnoxious American

    MR,

    I gotta say, Baronius has got you there my dear. Even The Obnoxious American is wrong from time to time, and I will even freely admit it when it (rarely) happens.

    Dare I suggest that you admit you are wrong when you say you are never wrong?

    Kisses

    TOA

  • troll

    *It’s true that I have NO empathy for gringos.

    No reason to have any.

    They have never shown any empathy for the folks they have murdered.*

    having listened to your crap more or less empathetically for over a year I’m all empathied out – you’ve had plenty of opportunity to engage in reasonable (or some approximation thereof) discussion and have chosen your ‘style’ instead

  • Lumpy

    I don’t think Mponie even understands how far things have gone when she has managed to alienate even the compulsively ingratiating troll.

  • Zedd

    I agree with Doc on this.

    Also, in order to address the issue of 911, we have to soberly look at what actually took place. Men with box cutters got on planes and convinced the pilots that they were more armed than they were…

    Extremism exists in every society. “Racializing” or “ethnicizing” extremism only causes our society more problems. It renders us ignorant and far less likely to rid ourselves of the extremist responses.

    With McVeigh and clan, we didn’t bother to post notices about thin blonde males. It would have been silly. Such a reaction is just as mad. There are millions of neo-nazi, nationalist crazies on our planet and they have made the lives of many people hell. We haven’t gone mad trying to figure then out as if they are apes in the rain forest. They are just people who are misinformed and caught up in a world that makes them feel as if they have relevance, but so are members of ALL extremist groups.

    Using the racial, ethnic and religious element to formulate a solution is RIDICULOUS and a waiste of time. It is a backwards way of assessing human behavior.

    The funny thing is that what caused the extremist causes to expand is the reaction that we have towards people of islamic ancestry. Not seeing their humanity is what started the “extreme” reaction in the first place.

  • REMF

    “I once shot a feral dog which was trying to kill my chickens. Didn’t even kill the thing, just some buckshot in the butt.”
    – Dave Nalle, #39

    —————————–

    “Did I mention that I have on occasion sat in my back yard and SHOT stray/wild dogs with a hunting rifle?…Now the cougars have taken over the coyotes hunting ground, so they’re wandering up to the house and needing to be SHOT as well. I figure the next visitors will be the cougars themselves, so I’m keeping my 30-06 and a clip by the bakc door at all times now.”

    – Dave Nalle, 2005
    (capitalization mine, MCH)

  • Baronius

    And you’re still bringing it up? You dwell on it like he shot at you.

  • Lumpy

    If only he had….

  • REMF

    “And you’re still bringing it up. You dwell on it like he shot at you.”
    – Baronius

    Um, no…actually YOU did, Baronius (see #36). And it’s not about the shooting; it’s the LYING about the shooting. A lie will always be a lie, whether it was yesterday, 10 months ago, or a hundred years ago.

    Weird how the so-called “party of integrity” doesn’t understand the concept of honesty…

  • Baronius

    REMF – That’s right, I brought it up… this time. You regularly comment about it though. I wouldn’t have known about it if you didn’t. As for your joy in catching Dave in a lie, considering this is the internet, and no one uses their real names or personal information, that’s not much of a victory. To be honest, the way you spell “liuetenant” makes me wonder if you aren’t fudging your personal history a little. Maybe you’re not; I’ll never know. The point is, I’m too busy dating hot women to care if anyone’s telling stories.

  • REMF

    “As for your joy in catching Dave in a lie, considering this is the internet, and no one uses their real names or personal information, that’s not much of a victory.”

    Only because of the image of perfection he tries to convey.

    “To be honest, the way you spell “liuetenant” makes me wonder if you aren’t fudging your personal history a little.”

    By that logic, since Nalle repeatedly misspells “altogether” do you also doubt his English degree?

    “The point is, I’m too busy dating hot women to care if anyone’s telling stories.”

    Speaking of fudging…

  • REMF

    “…considering this is the internet, and no one uses their real names or personal information…”
    – Baronius

    So you think Nalle’s lying about his real name and his personal information, too…?

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Re. #51. Hey, I use my real name, Baronius, and my bio is full of accurate personal information. Yeah, I exaggerated my degree of dog hunting activity for effect. Part of a point I was trying to make at a the time – I consider it literary license. For MCH to make such an issue of it is more than a little disingenuous. He should start with some baby steps towards the truth, like posting under his real name – which RJ would be glad to remind him of if he’s forgotten.

    Dave

  • REMF

    “I consider it literary license.”
    – Dave Nalle

    And I consider it a lie.

  • REMF

    “He should start with some baby steps towards the truth, like posting under his real name…”
    – Dave Nalle

    So would this also apply to Clavos, Obnoxious American, Baronius, etc…?

  • Franco

    REMF, Baronius is right. What is this obsession of yours about Dave and lying?

    Direct Question to you REMF:

    Have you ever told a lie?

    Now before answering that question, please remember

    #50 —REMF…… A lie will always be a lie, whether it was yesterday, 10 months ago, or a hundred years ago.

    The only thing you show perfection in is Ad Hominem attacks, which if you really had any grasp of its core meaning and how it clearly revels what you are, and what your not, you would surly avoid using it at all costs. Those chosen actions of yours are the joke, not Dave’s shooting tail or spelling errors.

    I don’t offer this post to come to Dave’s defense, he can do that for himself. I bring it up in hopes you will stop embarrassing yourself by consistently repeating your limited and pitiful discussion/debating skills that can rise no higher then Ad Hominem attacks. Ever been embarrassed for someone?

  • Baronius

    I use a nom de plume because my birth name is Bliffle L. Moonraven. It’d be confusing. (And yes, my middle name is Lumpy.)

  • Clavos

    Mine is a nom de guerre, rather than a nom de plume, because I’m on the lam from the authorities for repeated attempts on the life of Santa Claus, whom I’ve hated intensely ever since 1953, when he didn’t bring me that red racing bicycle.

    I also advocate the violent overthrow of the NCAA for no special reason other than my proclivity for anarchy.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    Writing under a nom de plume is an ancient literary and particularly journalistic tradition. Unless the writer is deliberately trying to deceive or make his/her writings appear to be someone else’s, it doesn’t signify a lack of integrity.

    Personally, I post as Dr Dreadful because my real name is rather unfortunate (the last one, anyway). In fact, when we got married I insisted that my wife keep her name. I wouldn’t wish mine on anybody.

    OK, Chris – get your [personal attack deleted] button ready!

  • REMF

    “Ever been embarrassed for someone?”
    – Franco

    Yes, for Nalle, whenever he uses one of his twelve different excuses for not enlisting in the military during the first Gulf War.

  • Silver Surfer

    Doc, your surname isn’t Dick is it? There was a politician here named Richard Face. D’ya reckon he didn’t cop some sh.t as a young bloke??

    That’d be the aussie equivalent of a boy named Sue, I reckon. He was a tough sort of fella too.

  • http://drdreadful.blogspot.com Dr Dreadful

    No, it’s not Dick. Although if it were, I’d like my first name to be Hugh and my middle initial to be G.

    I’m reminded of an old Not the Nine O’Clock News skit in which Rowan Atkinson played an American presidential hopeful called Richard Head. His slogan was something like “Put Dick Head in the White House”. Priceless.

  • REMF

    “As for your joy in catching Dave in a lie”
    – Baronius
    “What is this obsession of yours about Dave and lying?”
    – Franco

    At least neither of you sugar-coated it by calling it “literary license”…

  • Zedd

    Clavos sed:Al-Qaeda (The Base) sprang from this chain of events, coming to full flower as a result of two events in 1979: The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the ascension to power in Iran of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, also a militant religionist and Islamic supremacist.

    Who armed and trained those that fought in Afghanistan against the Soviets? We did. We created them. Sorry. It hurts I know and the Easter Bunny is not real too. Hang on there bud, there there, hug for you….

  • Franco

    #65 —Zedd

    um…Zedd,…..Clavos knows this………um….welcome to the party.

  • The Obnoxious American

    #65 um everyone knows this. (Last I will comment on this article so I can focus on the next one and the rest of the items in my life BUT) who cares? We supported OBL in a big way many years ago. We supported Saddam in a big way many years ago. Does that automatically mean we must continue to support him regardless of his behavior whether we agree with it or not? No.

    What kind of foolishness are you bringing to the discussion? This is the kind of discourse that makes me sad for Democrats. It’s in my tagline – America has made it’s mistakes. Part of being human is making mistakes, learning from them and improving on them is how you deal with mistakes. Not continuing an alliance that you don’t agree with. Not supporting an enemy to save face because you once supported him in the past. And certainly not by doing nothing because once long ago you made the wrong decision.

    If you want to see this is a paradox then thats your bad. Changing courses to deal with changing situations is good. Changing principles on the other hand is not (i.e. 90% of this country supported Bush after 911).