Take that, Ned
 

I don't care. Whoever the Dems put in the slot would be equally unqualified. moreover, no matter how qualified the person in charge might be, if the terrorists have the right plan on the right day, they're going to hit us again. Unlike the Left, I don't use perfection as the baseline for determining negligence (as the Left's favorite son trial lawyers do). I also don't "believe" in govt as a positive changing force as Lefties tend to do. It's a necessary evil, and the best change it can effect is removing its nose from our lives.

Votes cure nothing. There are no more Churchills or FDRs in the pipeline. Both sides offer absolute scumbaggery. I go with the side that serves my interests. You go with yours.

Take that, Ned
 

That's horseshit. James Lee Witt was clearly more qualified than Brownie, for example.

This is what I think about every time I go through airport security. Evidently you ride Greyhound a lot, or something.

Kos
 

Little Green Footballs - together with Powerline - was at the forefront of exposing Dan Rather as a partisan fraud and, today, LGF has been the leading site in exposing Reuters, AP and the NYTimes as willing dupes in Hezzbollah's propaganda machine.

Whereas Kos is a tin-foil hat echo chamber of left-wing extremists whose sole claim to fame is now having backed Ned Lamont's primary win.

Hardly a comparison. TPM might be more apt.

PS - Who is your elected friend, John Conyers?

Say it ain't so, Joe
 

Israel was willing to accept International law because at that time it swung in their direction. But later when it has not they have ignored it. If the UN had not supported the creation of Israel do you think the Jews that had migrated to Palestine would have accepted that?

When the UN voted to give them a state that was international law that should be respected, but when it told them other things they ignored the international law? Either UN resolutions are international law, and Israel is and has violated them, or UN resolution are not international law, and then Israel has no right to exist under international law. You can't have it both ways.

You talk of Natural rights, but the Palestinians had no rights. They were occupied by a foreign power, and foreign powers decided the fate of the land they lived on. If the UN voted that South Carolina should be given to the Gypsies would you support that? Say it was OK under international law?

If a vote of the population of Palestine had been taken in 48 to see if part the land should be reserved for a Jewish state then there would be no Jewish state. Why did the Jews have a "natural right" to create a homeland in a place that was already occupied by another people. If these people where not occupied by a foreign power they would have never allowed these actions to take place.

Natural rights and International law really don't have much relevence in a discussion about Israel.

They want ethnic cleansing not Genocide. In the Arab mind a state based on Jewish ethnicity was placed right in the middle of the Arab nation by the western powers. In the Muslim mind, a Jewish religious state was placed right in the middle of a muslim nation by Christian powers. Are they wrong?

No one defends these actions you cite as moral acts, or actions sanctioned by international law. The extermination of the Indians was wrong, and you cant really expect the Indians think is was a good thing. At the end of the WWII the Poles were given a whole swath of territory. It was the Germans who were ethnically cleansed out of Konigsburg, Pomerania and Silesia. Once could argue that the German national deserved this because of what the German nation did. The Palestinian nation never attacked its neighbors nor instituted a Genocide, so why should they be punished. In my mind none of these acts were moral (or supported by International law or natural rights) and I don't expect any of the victims to support these actions.

I take your point that these border changes are a done deal. Israel's creation is a done deal. But as you can't expect the victims of these other crimes to accept the morality of these actions you cited (Germans, Indians etc) you also can't expect the Arabs or Muslims to accept what is done to them as either moral, part of Natural Rights or part of a justly implemented International Law.

Kos
 

You have an amazing strong sense of victimhood.

London Calling
 

I will say once, if I have to say it a thousand times, the world would probably be a lot better off if we made Spain an island.

Say it ain't so, Joe
 

Cite please

Take that, Ned
 

1. Nobody was going to handle that hurricane properly.

2. Three scotches. Jesus handles the rest.

Kos
 

I was referring to the comments, and many of the LGF commenters are froot loops. I think I just read that the FBI is investigating comments there for threats of physical violence against Muslims.

Take that, Ned
 

I vote for government that doesn't drive me to drink. Maybe I just think Jesus' ways are too mysterious.

Take that, Ned
 

It seems reasonable to me to believe that after 9/11 the office of Homeland Security was a little more focused on Terrorism than natural disasters. It was a newly created agency and it had an immediate problem to deal with, where natural disasters were not so immediate (or at least did not seem immediate). They focused on the problem at hand and put off the other stuff. Considering that we have not had one death in this country caused by Terrorism since their creaetion, I feel very comfortable with the OHS protecting me.

As for New Orleans, their focus was somewhere else, and they had to deal with incredibly corrupt and incompetant local politicians. If you don't believe the local politicians were corrupt and incompetant then you didn't visit New Orleans nor Louisian prior to 9/11.

So considering these facts, I think the arm chair quarterbacking and condescending ridicule of their conduct is unwarranted.

London Calling
 

Actually, the way I look at it, is when fighting the war on Terrorism you focus on people of Middle East descent, whether they have or don't have citizenship or residence in the United Kingdom. Doesn't that make sense to you?

Kos
 

Well actually, the incident that you are referring to was that CAIR had complained to the FBI that one commenter on LGF had made a threat against an official at CAIR. The comment was immediately removed. Several months later the FBI contacted Charles Johnson (who runs LGF), by telephone, about the incident. further action was taken.

Qucik question, many people connected to LGF have been arrested, convicted, deported, or otherwise linked to terrorism-related charges and activities? Now ask that same question about the fine civil rights organization known as CAIR?

aV

Take that, Ned
 

If you have any confidence whatsoever in DHS, it is misplaced. They have their heads up their asses. It would be a management nightmare even if they had good people in charge, but they don't. And they have no clout with the White House or Congress to get anything done. Instead, the focus is on making $$$ off government contracts. It is another disaster waiting to happen.

Kos
 

Unfortunately yes. Actually to be honest, I had references to Kos, and had a vague idea it had a liberal affiliation like Slate, but wasn't really sure what exactly it was.

I spend most of my time focusing on the battles within the Republican party.