The lie doesn’t become true no matter how many times you repeat it.

http://betsyspage.blogspot.com/2008/12/infrastructure-stimulus.html

Technically it was in the 8th month and no I’ll BLAME THE TERRORISTS

Novel concept!

But if Obama treats a 9/11 like a ‘law enforcement’ action – you bet I’ll be saying something about Obama’s measly ‘actions’

ergo… an admission that he is a communist…

pragmatism was and is amoral reasoning to an end justifying any means. if you dont agree, then you dont understand pragmatism… [though you can read a lot more about it in soviet papers]

soon… we will hear the word praxis again…

An idealist usually cannot acknowledge his own bullshit, because it is in the nature of his “ism” that he must pretend it does not exist. In fact, I should say that anyone who is devoted to an “ism”–Fascism, Communism, Capital-ism–probably has a seriously defective crap-detector. This is especially true of those devoted to “patriotism.” Santha Rama Rau has called patriotism a squalid emotion. I agree. Mainly because I find it hard to escape the conclusion that those most enmeshed in it hear no bullshit whatever in its rhetoric, and as a consequence are extremely dangerous to other people. If you doubt this, I want to remind you that murder for murder, General Westmoreland makes Vito Genovese look like a Flower Child.

from “Bullshit and the Art of Crap-Detection”
by Neil Postman

and mitsu is a produce of one of the biggest bullshit training factories of the modern age!!!

which is not true to its heritage… but hey, gut and take over aythig and people might think it was the same because the outside never seemed to cahnge.

There were no terrorist attacks in the U.S. between 1993 and 2001.

That’s 8 years.

So far, there have been no terrorist attacks within the U.S.
since 2001.

That’s 7 years.

Clinton kept us safe from outside terror for just about the same period that Bush did — even if there are not attacks for the remainder of Bush’s term.

It’s not clear whether you, Trim, are confused, or whether you are simply trying to confuse others.

You site two cases where Americans were attacked outside the U.S. while Clinton was president, but the number of attacks on Americans outside the U.S. have been literally uncountable under the Bush administration, resulting in thousands of deaths. Exponentially more than under Clinton. The number of terrorist incidents against all targets in all countries has mushroomed.

Do the math.

Under Bush, we have more than 4,000 and counting Americans dead, plus nearly a 1 trillion dollars for Iraq alone — not counting long term expenses like health care for the 10s of thousands of Americans maimed in the war.

Under Clinton, the U.S. was perfectly safe from outside terror attacks for 8 years — longer than Bush — while the spending on counter terror measures was but a few billion and virtually zero casualties.

Instead of slobbering out insults, Trim, you should do the math.

writes:

“While Clinton was still President, two embassies were bombed in Africa. Two years after that, while Clinton was still President, the USS Cole was attacked.”

Oh, and while Clinton was President, Al-Qaeda was planning and training for a big operation involving passenger planes and the World Trade Center, but of course Clinton’s intelligence and law enforcement underlings didn’t think it was worth bothering about.

I said, “What I mean to say is, assuming he wants to preserve the Union, what if the President of the United States has no more choice in his course of action than a mouse running down a winding tunnel?”

Allow me to further had one more thing. I am sure there are many people who would take exception to this statement. But as counter intuitive as is, I believe that the higher one ascends in politics and power, the more one’s options are closed. Especially here in America.

As you ascend, your actions must necessarily become more constricted. You are allowed less forgivable mistakes by the populace and you’re abutted on all sides by political enemies, not least are the ones in your own party.

Many people have the false notion that the higher one goes, the more freedom one has. Quite the opposite is true. It is true for Kim Jong Il and Ahmadinejad, who’ve walled themselves off from the rest of the world, and it’s true of our President.

While we as freedom’s heirs can sit on our recliner and grouse to our hearts content, the President does not have that luxury neither on the domestic front nor on the foreign policy front.

We are not responsible for the lives of hundreds of millions.

He is.

So, you wanna’ bet against a policy with a perfect record, instead merely betting on your own wishful postulations? I personally don’t think Obama is dumb enough to do even that. Do you?