[quote]etaco wrote:
Internet conspiracy theories are always a credit to those who believe them…[/quote]
That’s just what they want you to think.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
USNS physique wrote:
It doesnt matter who runs on the republican side anyway, none of them have a chance in hell.
Funny to watch them , though.
Any, repeat Any, Republican in the field would probably beat Hillary. Hell, even Ron Paul or Duncan Hunter would burn her ass.
You are so very wrong I don’t even know where to begin.[/quote]
Are you kidding? Ru Paul owns Hillary.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070925/ap_on_el_pr/giuliani_house_party_1
WASHINGTON - A supporter of Rudy Giuliani’s is throwing a party that aims to raise $9.11 per person for the Republican’s presidential campaign.
ADVERTISEMENT
Abraham Sofaer is having a fundraiser at his Palo Alto, Calif., home on Wednesday, when Giuliani backers across the country are participating in the campaign’s national house party night.
But Sofaer said he had nothing to do with the “$9.11 for Rudy” theme.
“There are some young people who came up with it,” Sofaer said when reached by telephone Monday evening. He referred other questions to Giuliani’s campaign.
“I’m just providing support for him. He’s an old friend of mine,” Sofaer said of Giuliani.
Sofaer was a State Department adviser under President Reagan and is a fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution
Giuliani’s campaign had no immediate comment.
According to the invitation, “$9.11 for Rudy” is an “independent, non-denominational grass-roots campaign to raise $10,000 in small increments to show how many individual, everyday Americans support `America’s Mayor.'”
Giuliani was mayor of New York during the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
You are so very wrong I don’t even know where to begin.
Are you kidding? Ru Paul owns Hillary.[/quote]
I know this was meant tongue-in-cheek but by “Ru Paul” you mean Ru Giuliani – right?
Just want to make sure you are getting your cross-dressing references right.
I disagree with your assessment; however, Rudy wasn’t even bright enough to figure out he actually needed to read the 9/11 Commission Report even though he seems to think he knows all about terrorism. Hillary would make short work of Rudy in a head-to-head debate.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
What about an intelligent Republican woman?[/quote]
At this point, if you’re still supporting the Republicans, you’re pretty much excluding yourself from the “intelligent” set.
An intelligent conservative, man or woman, sure, no problem.
Intelligent Republican? Oxymoron. With emphasis on the moron.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Yes that’s the list give or take a few bodies here and there. Thanks.[/quote]
We should make a list for Bush too.
Let’s see. Almost 4,000 US soldiers, near a million Iraqis, Katrina victims, etc.
And we haven’t even begun making shit up and sticking it on the list.
Guess we’ll have to make it a series of book. Bush Related Deaths, Vol I-XXXVII should about cover it.
LOL!!!
The “Clinton Body Count” is at least as looney as the Loose Change and 911 was an Inside Job type stuff.
Congratulations, guys. You are crazier than a shithouse rat.
Rudy is an opportunistic idiot, almost as bad as Say Anything Mitt Romney. Did you see that Rudy came out publicly against the liabilty lawsuit against gun manufacturers… the lawsuit that HE HIMSELF FILED?
I guess Rudy’s excuse is that 911 changed everything (regarding handgun liability? Really? )
And what else does Rudy say that 911 has changed, beside his totally embarrassing position on guns?
Answer: nothing. It’s just a good excuse to weasel out of pissing off conservatives with that gun liability lawsuit. And when you’re in a tight spot during election season, you can’t say NINE ELEVEN often enough.
I hope that Rudy is the GOP candidate, so we can have a national dialogue on crossdressing. I suppose it will lead to more tolerance and public acceptance of transvestites, if the president is one.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
You are well on your way regarding “making shit up” when you tag the Katrina deaths on him.
Hey wait…didn’t some people die out west after a snow storm last winter?[/quote]
A lot less people would die in natural disasters if so many of the National Guard wasn’t stuck in Iraq.
If someone dies as the result of a bad decision you took, then you’re responsible, even indirectly.
That’s your fucking trouble right there. You grant your leader all the power he wants but also absolve him of any responsibility when he fucks it up. And Bush has yet to meet a situation he cannot fuck up.
Anyway, it’s your tax dollars that are being wasted and your fellow citizens and soldiers that are dying, why should you care?
What’s messed up in canada?
[quote]Fitnessdiva wrote:
What’s messed up in canada?[/quote]
It is not the USA.
You have to understand that the US is the bestest country in the world which is why everybody wants to live there and which automatically reduces every other country to second best.
At least that is his opinion, after his extensive travels.
[quote]Fitnessdiva wrote:
What’s messed up in canada?[/quote]
Canada isn’t bad, per se. Just that it’s populated and run by Canadians ;-]
[quote]pookie wrote:
A lot less people would die in natural disasters if so many of the National Guard wasn’t stuck in Iraq.
[/quote]
This particular piece of bullshit was already proven to be false, just sad political posturing on the part of the Governor, the great Mayor, the Democrat party, and looney leftists at large. It pisses me off to hear these lies perpetuated by the DNC, leftists, and now you.
The following is a first hand account from someone who has forgotten more about disaster planning and response than you’ll probably ever know. You should read the entire article.
http://cms.firehouse.com/web/online/Natural-Disaster-Coverage/The-Road-To-Katrina/55$50766
[i]I can't begin to imagine what Biloxi and Gulfport must look like, where most of the highest winds were felt. [b]We approach a check-point manned by the National Guard[/b] at the toll plaza just before the Crescent City Connection, so I close the gap between us, apply my best serious frown and we're quickly waived through.
Crossing over the bridge as I turn my flashers off, I gain a good view of the downtown skyline and it seems mostly intact, except for one building - the Hyatt - that seems to be missing numerous windows, with drapes flapping in the breeze. Its pretty trashed.
I peel off at the first exit and make my way through the empty city streets towards the business district. [b]Then I begin to notice the troops. [u]Everywhere.[/u][/b] About every other street, there's a platoon marching down the road with M-16s in hand. They have their "game-faces" on.
Then come the armored vehicles...humvees with 50-caliber machine guns, rocket launchers, small cannons, you name it, loaded up with more troops whizzing by in every direction. [b]It is obvious that "the cavalry" is here and they are very much in charge.[/b]................
...........The sounds of military helicopters seem to constantly fill the air the entire time I am here. They are always up there going in one direction or another, ferrying men and supplies to and from various locations, plugging dikes, rescuing people off rooftops or just doing aerial reconnaissance. It is a comforting sound. You know positive things are happening. Every hour of every day that passes means the situation is improving.[/i]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
katrina.house.gov/hearings/10_27_05/blum_state102705.doc
[b]STATEMENT BY
LIEUTENANT GENERAL H STEVEN BLUM
CHIEF, NATIONAL GUARD BUREAU[/b]
[i]Chairman Davis, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss Hurricane Katrina: the Preparedness and Response by the Department of Defense, the Coast Guard, and National Guard of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.
Today, the National Guard finds itself more than ever linked to the vital interests of our nation, both here at home and around the world. Over 140,000 National Guard soldiers are currently deployed in support of operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and dozens of other nations. At the same time, the men and women of the National Guard have responded magnificently to the catastrophic events of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma here at home.
Over 50,000 National Guard personnel hailing from every state and territory - responded to calls for support during this difficult period. That is more than the United States employed during Grenada or Panama operations.
As the government begins the necessary process of assessing the effects of the hurricanes and the response to those events, the picture is one of laudable successes as well as areas requiring improvement.
I am particularly proud of the timeliness and magnitude of the National Guard�??s efforts in advance of Hurricane Katrina and our response in its immediate aftermath. National Guard forces were in the water and on the streets of New Orleans rescuing people within four hours of Katrina�??s passing.
More than 6,500 National Guard Soldiers and Airmen were in New Orleans by the second of September. The National Guard deployed over 30,000 additional troops within 96 hours of the passing of the storm.
More than 11,000 National Guard personnel remain on active duty today in Louisiana alone, with over 12,500 total personnel in the five affected states. In short, the National Guard response to the catastrophic events of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma has been and continues to be both timely and extensive.
While we have been successful in meeting the needs of the warfight overseas, there exists room for improvement in our capability to respond effectively to domestic mission requirements.
Resourcing National Guard units deploying in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom has significantly degraded the equipment inventory of the National Guard�??s non-deploying units.
Every effort has been made to ensure that our deploying units are fully equipped and ready to support operations anywhere in the world. So far, we have transferred over 101,000 items of equipment in support of these missions. But these efforts have resulted in reduced inventories of many critical equipment items here at home, including trucks, radios and heavy engineering equipment.
Resources earmarked in current legislation will allow the National Guard to take its first steps on the road to recovery. Nonetheless, that road will be long and will require an order of magnitude increase in resourcing relative to that seen today. By working with the Army and the Air Force and the Congress, I firmly believe we can meet this challenge.
Interagency relationships are fundamental to the success of the federal response to any disaster, and we must continue to foster strong relationships with the Department of Homeland Security and Northern Command.
Indeed, coordination efforts to date point to the need for better planning, procurement of more equipment and interoperable communications, and joint training of the National Guard, active duty forces, and our federal partners.
As a full member of the national security team, the National Guard had met its mission requirements at home and abroad. But additional resourcing and better inter-governmental coordination is needed in order for the National Guard to be effectively postured to meet the needs of the future.
By working closely with the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Congress, the National Guard will continue to be Always Ready, Always There.
Thank you.[/i]
[quote]pookie wrote:
A lot less people would die in natural disasters if so many of the National Guard wasn’t stuck in Iraq.
[/quote]
Just what we need: more national guard troops violating the Constitution in New Orleans. While your statement is bullshit, it is true that the national guard has no business outside of our own borders. That’s the reserve’s job.
mike
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Hillary would make short work of Rudy in a head-to-head debate.
You got that one right.[/quote]
I doubt that very much. Rudy was a U.S. attorney who had to make arguments to skeptical judges for years. Hillary is smart and would be very prepared, but Rudy is also smart, would also be prepared, and has had more practice.
[quote]Fitnessdiva wrote:
Comparing religious extremism to Nazism is a poor comparison. You clearly don’t understand terrorism, like most republicans. None of your statements in that diatribe even make any sense. Perhaps you should leave the thinking to the big boys.[/quote]
Oh, I don’t know about that. Militant Islam and fascism had very similar intellectual roots:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_09_09-2007_09_15.shtml#1189564059
[i][Ilya Somin , September 11, 2007 at 10:27pm] Trackbacks
Common Intellectual Roots of Fascism and Radical Islamism:
For a more systematic look at the common intellectual roots of European fascism and radical islamism, discussed in David Bernstein’s recent post, check out Ian Buruma and Avishai Margalit’s book Occidentalism: The West through the Eyes of its Enemies ( http://www.amazon.com/Occidentalism-West-Eyes-Its-Enemies/dp/1594200084 ). As the authors point out, both fascism and radical Islamism were heavily influenced by the nineteenth century European romantic nationalist reaction against liberalism and free markets. The romantic nationalists claimed that liberal society was overly materialistic, neglected important group ties, and lacked spiritual values. Obviously, the fascists were direct intellectual descendants of the romantic nationalists, whose ideology they took to new extremes. In the Arab Middle East, the intellectual connection emerged as a result of the penetration of European nationalist ideas beginning with the early twentieth century.
In the 1930s, as historian Bernard Lewis explains here ( Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos ), Nazi Germany made a “concerted effort” to export its ideology to the Arab world directly; they were in large part successful. Many of the Nazi ideas were taken up by the early radical Islamists at that time, as German scholar Matthias Kuntzel discusses here ( http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/080ruyhg.asp ).
I would add that the modern radical Islamist version of anti-Semitism also has its roots in European nationalist and fascist thought. This is most clear in its embrace of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion ( The Protocols of the Elders of Zion - Wikipedia ), a forgery created by czarist Russian secret police and first popularized by right-wing Russian nationalists. As the NY Times puts it ( The Anti-Semitic Hoax That Refuses to Die - The New York Times ), the Protocols have become a “canonical text” for radical Islamists. More generally, the entire idea that the Jews are a powerful, insidious cabal dominating capitalist economic system is rooted in European nationalist and fascist ideology and is very different from traditional pre-20th century Muslim anti-Semitism (which viewed Jews more as objects of contempt than fear). There are some important differences between fascist and radical Islamist ideology. Perhaps the most important is that the latter is an internationalist ideology that cuts across different racial and ethnic groups, while the former tries to exalt a particular nation-state. But they also have numerous commonalities, including strikingly similar reasons for their hatred of liberalism, democracy, the free market, and Jews.
UPDATE: To avoid confusion, I should emphasize that this post is not a defense of the term “Islamofascist.” It’s a post on the intellectual roots of radical Islamism, many of which are fascist in origin. For what it’s worth, I think the term is on balance counterproductive. It tends to alienate liberal Muslims (a key constituency the US must appeal to), while largely failing in the original objective of rallying Western left-wing support for the War on Terror, as David noted in his post. At the same time, the term is descriptively accurate as a characterization of the ideology of Al Qaeda and other similar groups. That ideology does indeed combine a reactionary strain of Islam with major elements of European fascism. Sometimes, the use of a word is both accurate and tactically unwise.[/i]