I hope this isn't more of the "we've done such horrible things to Muslims it's no wonder they want to kill us" nonsense. As if we should scratch our chin wondering why they run suicide missions into naval vessels or hijacked planes into buildings, Leaving aside, of course, the US soldiers and military apparatus put into action to save muslim lives in Bosnia, Somalia, Kuwait to name a few. This really isn't difficult to understand, because those trying to kill Westerners are good enough to yell out "Allahu Akbar!" Right before they start shooting or exploding. They BELIEVE that there is great heavenly reward in killing. Now, I don't want to get involved in the tired old discussion of whether they're right or wrong in their reading of the Koran; or whether it's just a few bad apple; or whether or not we do or don't "understand" them. It's a simple point of fact. Those doing the killing do it because they believe that the payoff is salvation. Until THAT changes, neither will the volume of killing.
Oh please. As if holding up nominees were something brand new. You're off your rocker. It's a distinction without a difference. John Bolton was filibustered, but I suppose in your world that wouldn't count, since it's not a "cabinet" position. Only the Ambassador to the United Nations. I suppose that's nothing, really. And we could talk about all of the judges that were held up during the Bush years - but those are * just * judicial nominees. The grandstanding Democrats have done over the years. Chuck Hagel could end it all today if he wanted. If he were to give the full disclosure he's been accused of not providing (because he hasn't), then stupid or not, he'll get his Senate vote.
So belief that there is a heavenly reward in killing is supposed to contradict the idea that that belief might be based upon killing people for valid reasons? I think it is only simple because you want it to be.
No, I think that it's only complicated because YOU want it to be. Akin to profiling in criminal investigations. You'd prefer to trip all over yourself to prove that you don't discriminate against anyone for anything, avoiding the fairly simple truth dangling right in front of your nose. This is the sort of thing that causes TSA to root through the colostomy bag of an old woman, looking for explosives. Because, for some mind-numbling reason of sensitivity, everyone is equally suspect. Except, down here on planet earth, they're not. And so, we shouldn't treat them equally. But that's not really the point of my post to which you've responded. The point was, and still is, quite clear. Until suicide bombers and other murderers in the name of jihad start telling us that they're trying to kill Westerners because we have a better cheesecake recipe, I think we should just take them all at their word. As opposed to the exercise that you seem to be looking to do - divining the "REAL" source of their murderous rage.
Yeah.... I have no idea what you are talking about with this rant that doesn't address anything. It is pretty obvious you are just interested in dropping in here from time to time and being condescending and acting like you have all the answers. You aren't worth my time
SJ is a homeless conservative at this point. He likely doesn't buy into the insanity but the conservative movement has apparently decided that if they don't hang together they'll all hang separately. To give you an insight into where he belongs on the scale right now (in my opinion) he genuinely thought Mitt Romney was going to win big this time around. He's in the Rovian fantasy world right now where a few well run elections that eked out relatively narrow victories were seen as America establishing a conservative majority. Never mind that the Republican electoral vote totals over the last 20 years have instead shown a conservative movement well past it's peak and now ossifying into generational weakness.
Lindsey Graham and John McCain aren't exactly Mensa members and neither one of them have a right to tell the President who can advise him if that person is remotely qualified and Hagel is remotely qualified. Advice and consent has become a joke on both sides but this is way over the line. This is a cabinet member who serves purely at the Presidents desecration. If high quality was a prerequisite for the US Congress McCain and Graham would have been fired years ago.
Explains a lot. I don't get why people even post on a message board if they have the attitude that they are going to bless the ignorant masses with the knowledge that only they hold. Complex situation? Hold on let me boil it down to something I can slap on a facebook meme and "answer" the problem. How arrogant. Just start a blog if you want to mock everybody else's take on things.
Give him a break. It's been a while since he's gotten to spout his Arab hatred and he needed to get it out.
Yeah, this is the end of the filibuster although it may take awhile to actually get rid of it. When a super majority is required to get anything through the Senate if the opposing party holds the White House then the filibuster has outlived it's usefulness. It'll take us awhile to come to that understanding but we're going to get there.
I credit you for being smarter than that, and I'd say that you shouldn't sell yourself short, except we both know that not what's going on here. It's an uncomfortable point for you. I can't appreciate that. So, as interested as I might be to hear your wild thoughts on this notion of "killing people for valid reasons," I'll do you the courtesy of dropping the issue.
I'm more than happy to offer my thoughts on the genuine issues that the Republican Party has. And I value your opinion, Br4d. You know that. The the problems that the party has right now and the problems that those like you on the left SAY that the party has right now are two entirely different things. You're not a very reliable gauge. I mean, let's not pretend that you're looking to kick off the new ascendancy of the GOP. And, since we're talking politics, hypocrisy runs thick. So, you'll highlight this "historic filibuster" of Chuck Hagel and cite it as the beginning of the end of the GOP. But then, on November 5, 2008, you were just as certain that the GOP was good and dead too. Two years later, the House flipped. James Carville said much the same. Because guys like Carville and you ARE smart, and DO understand that if you say something enough times, it just might catch on. And this is a good time to do that. Right after a presidential win. If the economy doesn't pick up any time soon, then THAT becomes the dominant theme. If the best response is "the Republicans filibustered the President's nominees," then I'll humbly suggest that you have a weak selling point. Voters a cynical about government. You're not saying anything new. It would be better point if you would run through the dozen or so House seats that will flip in 2014.
You should take it to mean that I said you weren't worth my time and you responded by saying you would drop the issue as if I was going to waste my time. Done. Move on and find somebody that will tickle your ego
I've said this a few times, but you've become such a disappointment, deathstar. I used to credit you for semi-interesting discussion. Now, you just like to point out how people on the right listen to Rush Limbaugh. I didn't marginalize you; you did that yourself.
On the other hand, you seem to have enough time in this busy schedule of yours to talk about how you don't want to waste your time. Volume, but not substance. As I said, I understand the uncomfortable position that you're in on this particular topic. I think you'd get a bit more respect for everyone reading if you didn't so conspicuously dodge the point. I think it probably would have been better for you if you just went dark.
