VIDEO: Fox News Guest Claims ‘It’s Time To Have A Muslims Check-Point Line In American Airports’
VIDEO: Fox News Guest Claims ‘It’s Time To Have A Muslims Check-Point Line In American Airports’
Yesterday on Fox News’ Dayside, panelists Michael Gross, a constitutional law attorney, and conservative radio host Mike Gallagher debated whether profiling is the answer to fighting terror. As Newshounds first noted, Gallagher argued, “It’s time to have a Muslims check point line in American airports and have Muslims be scrutinized. You better believe it.†Gallagher’s suggestion was met with tepid applause from the audience. Watch it.
Shortly after 9/11, President Bush visited an Islamic Center in Washington, D.C. and delivered the following message to the American public:
America counts millions of Muslims amongst our citizens, and Muslims make an incredibly valuable contribution to our country. … And they need to be treated with respect. In our anger and emotion, our fellow Americans must treat each other with respect.
Bush would do well to remind some members of his conservative base of this message.
Full transcript:
GROSS: Don’t discriminate based upon race, creed, color, country of national origin.
GALLAGHER: Let’s have a Muslim-only line.
GROSS: What uniform you are wearing. What we want to do is look at behavior. We want to stop people who behave wrongly.
JERRICK: Michael, I think you missed a Mike Gallagher line there. What did you just say about different lines?
GALLAGHER: It’s time to have a Muslims check-point line in American airports and have Muslims be scrutinized. You better believe it. It’s time.
GROSS: Of course, your prejudice, which means to prejudge when you say Muslims or any people of any faith should be treated unequally because of their faith. You are absolutely wrong. Most Arabs are not Muslims. Most Muslims are not Arabs. You don’t have your facts straight. And Mr. Gallagher, how would you feel if we had a line for the Irish which English people were doing during the I.R.A. problems.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
That would sure show our strength. That, or really get a lot more members for Al Qaeda. I must be mistaken, Gallagher is the Al Qaeda Fox news guest ;D
August 16th, 2006 at 10:40 amMike Gallagher gets big time guests on his show. Including Cheney.
It’s discussion like these that should be sending up the biggest RED FLAGS when Democrats decide to go on FOX and whore for votes. That includes Lamont.
Democrats enable FOX.
August 16th, 2006 at 10:45 amHow many of the terrorists from 9/11 or any terrorist detained recently were white or grand-motherly? What did FDR do to Japanese Americans during WWII? While I think what FDR did was wrong, I think you do have to point out or treat a certain group of people differently. I know no one here gets it, but Islamo-facists really do want to kill Americans.
August 16th, 2006 at 10:49 amI didn’t realize that anyone was against profiling when it comes to terrorists. I am all for airport security profiling arabs for further searches. It doesn’t make us racist. It is simply a logical thing to do. If Irishmen or Italians were the terrorists, I would be all for profiling them as well.
Since the terrorists are mostly arab, we need to single them out to make us all safer. Are people actually against this?
August 16th, 2006 at 10:49 amI agree - we should cavity search all Muslims and leave all non Muslims alone!
Of course there are white Muslims, black Muslims, Asian Muslims, Arab Muslims, and Muslims of every color and ethnic background… so we won’t be able to identify them by sight.
I guess we could just ask them if they are Muslim or not… you know work on the honor system… if they say yes we strip them down and rubber glove em… and if they say no we let them go right on thru.
Yeah - this religious profiling definitely sounds like a good idea…it will keep us safer (if Muslims don’t lie)… make life more convenient (for non Muslims)… and definitely not alienate a whole group of people (except for Muslims).
August 16th, 2006 at 10:54 amHow is it that we tell Muslims from non Muslims? Is there some way of “just knowing.” You know kinda like gaydar, when you can just tell if someone is gay. Fox has become the number one outlet for spreading hatred and i think that complaints to the FCC are in order each time they air racist comments.
August 16th, 2006 at 10:56 amSince the terrorists are mostly arab, we need to single them out to make us all safer. Are people actually against this?
Comment by Roger_Roger
They key word here is mostly. Were the bombers of Oklahoma City muslim? No, if I remember, they were caucasion, and christians to boot. So, I propose, one line for Muslims, Arabs, or anyone named Mohammad (of course, Ali the boxer gets a pass). the other line for white, pseudo-christians who are against abortion but for the death penalty.
That would definelty make my plane ride safer!
August 16th, 2006 at 10:57 amholy sh*t!!
I’m never sure what’s worse: the people on faux news, or those little headlines on the bottom of the screen that have progressively become nuttier and nuttier Bush/war propaganda
August 16th, 2006 at 10:59 amTOTALLY RETARDED.
Timothey McVeigh wasn’t arab, dumbasses.
August 16th, 2006 at 10:59 amFAUX SNOOZE was just advocating the same shit this morning. Josef Goebbels. I mean Roger Ailes must be proud of this abortion of hatred and propaganda he has created.
Check out the movie “Control Room” for a break down of the media during this Iraq fiasco.
-GSD
August 16th, 2006 at 11:03 amIt may very well be that more real evidence exists/existed for factions in Israel being at least partly responsible for 911 than for a Muslim-only involvement.
Those who care to google that possibility may be surprised.
August 16th, 2006 at 11:04 amAccording to Mark Sageman, “The patriotism of the American Muslim community has been grossly underreported.”
Sadly, that patriotism may be under assault. An August 2006 Gallop poll finds that almost four in 10 Americans believe Muslims should carry a special ID card. 22% said they would not want to have a Muslim as a neighbor. 34% of respondents felt that American Muslims were sympathetic to Al Qaeda while only 49% thought they were loyal to the United States.
For the details, see:
August 16th, 2006 at 11:06 am“Homegrown Terrorism in the U.S. and Europe.”
Does anyone else find it funny that these people who are calling for a Muslims only line are to the RIGHT of BUSH?
I mean, wow.
August 16th, 2006 at 11:06 am#2
You are partially correct. Its also the rest of the liberal networks that have enabled Fox. How else could a network that just began a little over a decade ago, have the largest ratings? They have to be doing something different. CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC ABC all provide the news, but from the same viewpoint. The public understands how biased the networks are if none of you are willing to admit that and have made Fox the number one news network for that reason. Need further evidence? CNN’s recent moves in hiring Glenn Beck to order to attract more conservative viewers. Why would they do this if they didn’t realize how biased they appeared to be to the public?
August 16th, 2006 at 11:06 amThis is really proving to be quite a porous argument. For one how possibly can the authorities discern someone’s religion? Should we profile Christian airline pilots? I sure as hell don’t want a Tim Lehay rapture happing and snagging my pilot when I want to get my butt back to the smoldering hell on ground safely.
August 16th, 2006 at 11:06 amI’ve just come across this story and I’ll be blogging about this in more detail in the UK context but I might as well float the idea here first.
Profiling is both controversial and inevitable. The solution is compensation.
To address the problem globally, all air passengers should be charged a new flat rate “security tax” of, say, $10 per flight. This will fund all the additional security procedures made necessary by the current threat level.
We allow the authorities to impose whatever profiling rules are justified by current intelligence. However, anyone pulled out of the queue for more intensive scrutiny as a result of the profiling rules is (unless they’re arrested for carrying lethal weapons!) immediately entitled to a $100 refund/compensation. This is credited to their card there and then.
Now, instead of it being regarded as an authoritarian imposition, people will WANT to be screened. Of course, we can’t permit volunteers because that would counter the logic of the profiling process, but such an immediate compensation scheme would, in my view take all the heat out of the equation and make onorous security checks somewhat less of a burden.
August 16th, 2006 at 11:07 am#3
Two words debunk your ENTIRE statement:
Timothy McVeigh
Care to respond? Or retract your ignorance?
August 16th, 2006 at 11:07 amI believe that the majority of Americans don’t care. Just as most can’t tell the difference between Judaism and Zionism, Islam and the Islamic Jihad, most Americans believe that the King James version of the Christian Bible is the word of God. I highly recomment BartEhrman’s “Misquoting Jesus” to find out that the KJV has more changes than words from the earliest available texts.
Yet, most Americans act as if this country is one of Maifest Destiny and that the American way should be the way the world should be. It is unfortunate that most Americans don’t know that our history is mostly fabricated fairytails as Leo Strauss, father of the neo-cons and his followers helped it become. A nation founded on genocide and built under slave labor, that lied continuously for massive land grabs and an ever widening of the Monroe Doctrine, is something most don’t want to hear about. The fact that the US has been the greatest terrorist nation in the 20th and 21st centuries is very well documented but as Allen Dulles stated, Americans don’t read. From 1898 through today, the US has several hundred standing military bases in over 100 nations through some of the most sinister executions and war plans devised. All America wants now is total control of the world’s energy supplies. The US didn’t attack the countries identified asresponsible for 9/11 which would be Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait, Egypt and Pakistan. The biggest bankrollers of Islamic Jihad are our friends!
August 16th, 2006 at 11:08 amJust plain mad, perfect. I would add only , just look at the members of OPEC.
August 16th, 2006 at 11:14 amMaybe we should just make all muslims wear a crescent moon on all of their clothing. Worked in the past didn’t it?
August 16th, 2006 at 11:15 amComment by me: “The patriotism of the American progressive community has been grossly underreported.â€
August 16th, 2006 at 11:16 am#3
Since the terrorists are mostly arab, we need to single them out to make us all safer. Are people actually against this?
First of all, he said “Muslim”, not “arab”. Secondly, what if that Arab or Muslim person you want to pull over into a separate line is a Saudi national who’s a member of the bin Laden family? I think you’d probably run into some stiff opposition from the White House on that. Remember, it was the bin Laden family that was allowed to leave the country while every other commercial plane in the U.S. was grounded right after 9/11. I guess not all Arabs are created equal.
August 16th, 2006 at 11:19 amI am against Abortion. I am also against the Death Penalty. Neither of my views are based on religon either rather Natural Law. Killing of another human is only ok if it is in self defense. The Death Penalty isn’t self defense as those criminals are already locked up and don’t show a threat. Abortion is only ok if it saves the mothers life. Simply killing a baby because you don’t want it is completely against natural law.
Anyways, since I am against Abortion and the Death penalty, am I a Lib or a conservative?
August 16th, 2006 at 11:19 amComment by Just plain mad — August 16, 2006 @ 11:08 am
August 16th, 2006 at 11:20 amI dont know if it was one of your past posts that I applauded. BUt Im doing the same with this one. Where are people like you hidden? Great post.
NO it’s time to have a GOP fear line at the airports > all those who are afraid and back the Bush Regime should be strip searched before boarding planes, and their luggage fully inspected as well! Show them that being fearful leads to being humiliated in public and never really safe!
August 16th, 2006 at 11:20 amSimply killing a baby because you don’t want it is completely against natural law.
Comment by Roger_Roger — August 16, 2006 @ 11:19 am
Natural law? Whats that one? Newton´s laws? Maxwell´s laws? or thermodynamic laws? There are only 11 fundamental physical laws. And I still havent found that natural law. Your opinions are emotional-based.
August 16th, 2006 at 11:23 amNot just Tim McVeigh, but how about Eric Rudolph, Terry Nichols, Clayton Wagner, Ted Kozinski, James Kopp, Paul Hill, the Anthrax guy, and all those other Christian Republican terrorists? Now if we want to profile white Republican men, that would be around 1/4 of the entire US population.
August 16th, 2006 at 11:26 amNATURAL LAW:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/natlaw.htm
Study up before commenting next time Juan
August 16th, 2006 at 11:29 amGallagher is an A-class moron. It is time to stop allowing this type of speech to go unchecked by the consuming public. Freedom allows it, but the vehicles of hate do not have to be bought and paid for by our advertising dollars and ratings. It’s time to let advertisers know what is being said on the shows they sponsor and gladly use thier expensive spots to let them know we are doing the opposite of what they intend when they pay Fox and any other hate spreading media channel.
Sorry, I see you competitor didn’t sponsor this moron’s forum. I think I’ll buy from them.
What’s that - you don’t agree with it either? Then pull your support for the conduit. Stop advertising with them.
Just like politicians must do, so must companies have the balls to stand up and do what is right.
Gallagher, shame on you. Shame on your little unenlightened listeners.
August 16th, 2006 at 11:30 amGreat idea! I’m sure that violent Islamists who plan to blow up airplanes will voluntarily get in the “Muslim” line so that they can be searched and stopped.
Bound to work!
August 16th, 2006 at 11:31 am.
Oh, sorry, Roger. NOw a moral or legal theory is a natural law and I presumed you said law of nature. What a dumbass I am. In that sense, you can make up with all the natural laws you see fit and keep on saying that human actions you dont like opposed THE NATURAL LAW.
August 16th, 2006 at 11:33 amWhatever.
“Natural law” is a goofy school of legal theory that says that their preferences are “self-evident,” “intrinsic,” and “self-revealing.”
That way they don’t have to actually argue their positions, apparently because they can’t.
August 16th, 2006 at 11:33 am.
It’s OK, Juan. Roger is an idiot for not knowing about my Super-Duper Secret Inarguable Law theory. It’s incontrovertable! So sez me.
August 16th, 2006 at 11:35 am.
#21 Roger_Roger
Anyways, since I am against Abortion and the Death penalty, am I a Lib or a conservative?
You’re neither. And for a brief time in the past four decades, it was possible for people to recognize and appreciate that. I’m pro-choice and against the death penalty. I would say your conditions for excusing or allowing an abortion are overly restrictive, but I would agree with you this far: nobody should be treating it lightly. A fetus isn’t a person, but it’s the beginning of a human life and it deserves some amount of reverence as do all lives. Muslims included.
August 16th, 2006 at 11:36 amGood news, Progressives!!! The Civil Rights attorney extraordinaire, Michael Gross, the FAA, TSA and Department of Homeland Security have developed a NEW and IMPROVED program to allow Progressives to DEMONSTRATE their sensitivity.
Understandably, many Progs are offended when someone of apparent Arab/Persian ethnicity is “overly” scrutinized. Therefore, beginning immediately, major airlines will begin offering “search-free flights”. YOU may show your solidarity with the seemingly “profiled” by choosing flight accommodations on scheduled flights WITHOUT suffering the humiliation of TSA scrutiny. YOU, and your fellow passengers may take comfort knowing YOU have NOT been subjected to random or unreasonable abridgement of your rights. Once onboard, please enjoy your flight…
August 16th, 2006 at 11:36 amWhy are we arguing about abortion or the death penalty anyways? It isn’t like anyone from the Dems or the Repugs will actually change either issue. I would love to see the Death Penalty go away and I hear many Dems say how they are against it. Sadly, they only TALK about it, they don’t actually change anything. Same with abortion and the Repugs. Sure, Bush is against Abortion, but he really hasn’t done anything about it.
Both parties need to simply shut up about these issues unless they are actually planning on taking action. These issues get the base all worked up. People like you and I will aruge it, but those that we send to Washington won’t do one damn thing about it once they get there.
It is sad really.
August 16th, 2006 at 11:37 amSince the terrorists are mostly arab, we need to single them out to make us all safer. Are people actually against this?
Comment by Roger_Roger — August 16, 2006 @ 10:49 am
While we are at it, I’m sure we all can relate anecdotes of “out of control” women during that “time of the month”.
I say lets also have a separate Q for women during their “unclean” time. I mean who wants to get a tounge lashing from some hi strung bird on the blob? Strictly speaking they shouldn’t be allowed to travel at all. Muslims too.
August 16th, 2006 at 11:38 amFor those who support this idea… assuming that you could somehow identify all Muslims by sight… what do you do with the non Muslims?
Let them go right on thru?
Does this really make us safer… super scrutinizing Muslims and not scrutinizing every one else?
August 16th, 2006 at 11:39 amI’m still not clear on the Republican Plan to line Muslims in line at the airport. Is that in addition to the Mexican, Jew, Canadian, Vietnamese, Japanese, and India only lines?
Or is there a hole in their logic and did they really mean we need to add a Christian only line? Afterall, they need to be carefully checked too. Didn’t the Christians blow up that government building in OK?
#26- Not just Tim McVeigh, but how about Eric Rudolph, Terry Nichols, Clayton Wagner, Ted Kozinski, James Kopp, Paul Hill, the Anthrax guy, and all those other Christian Republican terrorists? Now if we want to profile white Republican men, that would be around 1/4 of the entire US population.
Amen to that!
August 16th, 2006 at 11:39 am#34 MA
Understandably, many Progs are offended when someone of apparent Arab/Persian ethnicity is “overly†scrutinized. Therefore, beginning immediately, major airlines will begin offering “search-free flightsâ€. YOU may show your solidarity with the seemingly “profiled†by choosing flight accommodations on scheduled flights WITHOUT suffering the humiliation of TSA scrutiny.
Since you’ve recycled your post, I’ll recycle mine:
Well, you’ve laid it out fairly clearly for all of us terrorist-lovin’ liberals. There are only two possible courses of action: either we conduct religious profiling to separate the Muslims from the decent folk or we don’t do any checking at all and throw the doors wide open for terrorist attacks. You’ve covered everything. No other possible ways to make flying safe from a terrorist threat. Thanks for simplifying it for us.
I hate myself for my freedom.
August 16th, 2006 at 11:42 amMuslim terrorists are sure to think that separate line for Muslims in airports is such a marvelous area. Why, that way they can simply walk up to the non-Muslim line, denonate themselves, and not have as high a risk of blowing up fellow Muslims.
Can’t we find some thinkers in our society who are even half as bright as our founding fathers who will look at the root causes of terrorism, not just the methods, and come up with a wide-ranging solution?
August 16th, 2006 at 11:43 amOn the subject of that “unclean” time. I harbour a deep seated (albeit irrational and unfounded) fear of being made “unclean” by women who are … you know …. on the blob.
Why should I be put at risk? I say separate the flights into the two sexes to ensure we men aren’t inadvertently violated and struck down by a merciful yet arbitrarily testy God.
August 16th, 2006 at 11:43 amHey!. Natural Law is a perfectly legitimate and sound legal doctrine. It was popular and new just before the American Revolution. I don’t know the details but it had that certain rights were intrinsically held as opposed to being part of a gift from a king or other authority. There are references to this in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Now I don’t understand what abortion has to do with this thread …. and why Roger Roger thinks this is self explanatory.
August 16th, 2006 at 11:45 amAlso unlike physical laws the natural law philosphies and conclusions are subject to debate and discussion.
#21 - “Anyways, since I am against Abortion and the Death penalty, am I a Lib or a conservative?” - Comment by Roger_Roger
******Dear Roger, I am also opposed to abortion AND the death penalty. But remember, Joe Lieberman had a 90% “Dem approved” voting record and he was castigated relentlessly by Far-left Dems and Prog-wacks. You’ll be despised here….but remember, if they don’t, you’re not doing a very good job letting them know your views on issues. (The ONLY rule to be LOVED and ADMIRED by Progs: DISAGREE with conservatives ALL THE TIME….Progs have NO solutions of their own.)
August 16th, 2006 at 11:48 amTo be honest roger, a victory in the abortion debate, i.e. overturning Roe v. Wade, would be a massive blow to the republican majority. After all without a false issue to throw out every election cycle, we might have to do something about the real problems.
August 16th, 2006 at 11:50 amI think we should have seperate sections reserved for Mormons and Non mormons, so the mormons don’t have to be near coffee or coke or alcohol, and the Nonmormons don’t have to live in fear of mormon missionaries trying to convert them. Christian fundamentalist may sit with the Mormons if they promise not to discuss religion.
August 16th, 2006 at 11:50 am(The ONLY rule to be LOVED and ADMIRED by Progs: DISAGREE with conservatives ALL THE TIME….Progs have NO solutions of their own.)
Comment by mighty aphrodite — August 16, 2006 @ 11:48 am
Subtle, subtle … winning friends and influencin people as usual I see:-)
August 16th, 2006 at 11:51 am#46 - … Progs have NO solutions of their own.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
The only thing ReichWingNuts have come up with in the past 6 years of running every branch of government, including the media, is chaos. But then, maybe chaos was your goal all along.
This is your’s to fix.
August 16th, 2006 at 11:52 amMighty Watermelon likes the idea of segregation…
August 16th, 2006 at 11:53 amReally, MA, how does one tell if the guy inthe line is a Muslim? They come in all races.
I din’t think we are opposed to searches of obvious threats (nervous, sweating people with supicious bulges under their clothing, for instance), we are just opposed to racial profiling (pretending to be religious profiling).
I personally fear Christians a lot more than Muslims, any day. But I don’t think we should automatically arrest andsearch them for being representatives of the religion that has killed the most innocents.
URIKA - I HAVE THE ANSWER… AIR JESUS!!!
It incorporates Christianity, discrimination, and free market capitalism… Only Christians with a Christian card from their churches can fly on the privately funded Air Jesus.
After the scanning of their Christian cards they can just get right on the plane… no lines, no waiting, no towel-headed macaques!
You in Mighty Moron?
August 16th, 2006 at 11:53 amDuhh my solutions fur Terra is lines…yeah lines aaa straight lines… umm make um Muslim lines at airports..yea dats it . I have good ideas and plenty of dum.
August 16th, 2006 at 11:54 ammighty,
August 16th, 2006 at 11:54 amSoldiers don’t declare war
and
Pro-Israeli Jews don’t make social policy about Muslims.
#27
And I quote from your link:
[The term “natural law” is ambiguous. It refers to a type of moral theory, as well as to a type of legal theory, but the core claims of the two kinds of theory are logically independent. ]
Moral theory does NOT equate Law. Of any kind. That’s not political posturing on my part, ask the scientific community. Theory must have proof before it becomes Law. What you are hinting at is just specious reasoning backed by your religious upbringing. And yes, it was influenced by religion.
I can, however, pose empirical evidence to counter your point about ‘only abort in self defense’. I could pose that abortion IS self defense. Say a mother who doesn’t want a child and can’t abort it just leaves it. Either it dies anyway or becomes a ward of the state. At 18, he is released into the wild and left to fend for himself. Not only was this unwanted child a drain on state social program funding (what little is left), but now he is a vagrant and much more likely to mug me, rape my girlfriend, or get hit by traffic, making Roger_Roger late for his Kool Aide Meeting.
But alas, I am pandering to the right’s tactic of changing the subject whenever they smell their own blood in the water. Hey Roger_Roger? Come join the discussion about this whacko that wants to make bigotry a federal practice again. It’s a real hoot.
August 16th, 2006 at 11:56 amUnlike right wing nuts, there is not a catechism that liberals/progressives have to believe. Most liberals like people and wish to help them but thats an attitude not a doctrine. Myself I don’t like lies and hypocracy ( sorry about the spelling ). Try to avoid stating something as a fact unless you can give an outside reference, most people think thats sloppy.
August 16th, 2006 at 11:58 amMost Liberals like ideas more than people, so while Joe Liebermann used to be a true democrat we were willing to abandon him over his support of the Iraqi war.
On Topic:
While you are at it, why not make them wear little arm bands and mark their businesses with the star and moon? Yeah all of this us and them stuff really made Germany safer back before WWII /sarcasm.
Back off the topic again:
I am ambivelant on both Abortion and the Death Penalty. I do feel however that the deepest hypocrisy on the former is banning abortion and them moaning about welfare grants to single mothers, increased spending on public schooling, and improving national health care.
If you are so concerned about the fetus, why the lack of concern over the baby?
August 16th, 2006 at 11:58 amSay and do what you like about Muslims.
But you’d better have a clear policy about Islam before the Right does.
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=5764
August 16th, 2006 at 11:59 amCan’t we find some thinkers in our society who are even half as bright as our founding fathers who will look at the root causes of terrorism, not just the methods, and come up with a wide-ranging solution?
Comment by PLC (PatrioticLiberalChristian) — August 16, 2006 @ 11:43 am
Sometimes I despair …. how in Gods name did you guys end up with a guy like Bush in charge? The republican party should never be allowed to forget what they did to America and the world.
Vote ‘em out America, and then try them for war crimes.
August 16th, 2006 at 11:59 amRoger_Roger
August 16th, 2006 at 11:59 amI appreciate your consistency on the abortion-death penalty link, although I disagree in part because I don’t see a group of undifferentiated cells as “human life”. I can appreciate people having different views of when life begins, and ends. This is why abortion, with limits, should remain a personal choice. I also think you tend to do an excellent job of presenting your views and hearing those who disagree, which is admirable. Thank you for that.
ChimPRUNE - As usual, your lack of understanding precludes any understanding of safety measures. For those WILLING to be scrutinized at airports (or other forms of public transportation), let the searches begin. But for offended Muslims and Progs - my suggestion allows you to retain your privacy rights AND “show your solidarity” with the “poor, downtrodden Arab/Persian”. (By a wide margin, polled Progs thought the latter was the BEST part.)
August 16th, 2006 at 11:59 am#52 - URIKA - I HAVE THE ANSWER… AIR JESUS!!!
It incorporates Christianity, discrimination, and free market capitalism… Only Christians with a Christian card from their churches can fly on the privately funded Air Jesus.
After the scanning of their Christian cards they can just get right on the plane… no lines, no waiting, no towel-headed macaques!
Brilliant. Absolutely brilliant!!!
Now why didn’t Ralph Reed use all that money that his buddy Jack stole from the Indians to fund this kind of capitalist forward thinking christian venture? Seems like a missed opportunity to me.
August 16th, 2006 at 11:59 amMakes sense, it is not too far off that extra attention and lines be formed for them. Hell it would be easier if we have them identified in public with some kind of symbol….like a star…..er….uh…….nevermind.
Neocons are fascists and FAKE Americans
August 16th, 2006 at 12:01 pmNow why didn’t Ralph Reed use all that money that his buddy Jack stole from the Indians to fund this kind of capitalist forward thinking christian venture? Seems like a missed opportunity to me.
Comment by Jesus Christ God of WAR — August 16, 2006 @ 11:59 am
Hang on people big snag. What about the rapture? Are both pilots going to be Christians, and all the passengers? Who’s left to fly the plane … huh? Who?
August 16th, 2006 at 12:02 pmRonin;
August 16th, 2006 at 12:03 pmYou are comparing apples and oranges. Law is not science. Repeat human law is not science. There are various legal theories, but they are more like philosphies than scientific theorems. Human beings make and enforce laws. Science actually exists, ie the law of gravity just exists whether you or I want to enforce it.
I can believe in divine right of rule for kings, and pass a law that the king can not be sued because he is always right, but I would need my own army to enforce it. The 2nd law of thermodynamics exists whether I believe in it or enforce it.
We have made our airways, airports, and flights safe, after 9/11 without resorting too forcing all muslims into a seperate screening. A screening that would not work. There are plenty of non-arab, caucasion Muslims. If we relax screening, on everyone but muslims they will find a way around, and attack again.
War is made up of actions and reactions, but this sort of racist garbage, is not what will win the war.
August 16th, 2006 at 12:05 pmMy question is…
If you stick an iraqi/iranian american man next to a cuban/puertorican american man next to each other in the same clothes, Would TSA agents in say Omaha, Nebraska know the difference?
August 16th, 2006 at 12:06 pm#64 - Hang on people big snag. What about the rapture? Are both pilots going to be Christians, and all the passengers? Who’s left to fly the plane … huh? Who?
Who cares?
Just contact NORAD and let them know that the plane has been highjacked by Jesus. I’m sure NORAD will respond in, oh, 45 to 50 minutes. Afterall, why would we respond to this kind of emergency any quicker than we would when Muslims were piloting the aircraft?
Hmmm… I wonder if Emperor Bush has had his PDB yet on Jesus’ plan to snatch christian pilots from planes?
August 16th, 2006 at 12:06 pm#51 - “Really, MA, how does one tell if the guy inthe line is a Muslim? They come in all races.” Comment by Sked-A, the Sensitive Savant
*******SkedA - Re-read #37 - TWICE. (Did you attend the reading program entitled “SKIP EVERY OTHER WORD”?)
Until Swedish grandmas start hijacking planes and murdering people, Younger ARAB/PERSIAN people should be closely scrutinized - BUT ONLY if they get in the “OK to SEARCH” line.
August 16th, 2006 at 12:08 pmIf you stick an iraqi/iranian american man next to a cuban/puertorican american man next to each other in the same clothes, Would TSA agents in say Omaha, Nebraska know the difference?
Comment by Elliot — August 16, 2006 @ 12:06 pm
They would if the Iraqi had a big shiny yellow crescent on his arm band. Or maybe just go with rfid, implanted in the right hand or just under the skin of the forehead to really scare the bejaysus out of the fundamentalists:-)
August 16th, 2006 at 12:09 pmUntil Swedish grandmas start hijacking planes and murdering people, Younger ARAB/PERSIAN people should be closely scrutinized - BUT ONLY if they get in the “OK to SEARCH†line.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — August 16, 2006 @ 12:08 pm
Don’t underestimate those Swedish Grandma’s … fatal mistake.
August 16th, 2006 at 12:11 pmCan’t we find some thinkers in our society who are even half as bright as our founding fathers who will look at the root causes of terrorism, not just the methods, and come up with a wide-ranging solution?
Comment by PLC (PatrioticLiberalChristian) — August 16, 2006 @ 11:43 am
And spolied all the fun for oil and war companies? Come on! This is free-market. Dont give us shitty lines about founding fathers. Palitocracy all the way! (That was sarcastic)
August 16th, 2006 at 12:12 pmJust contact NORAD and let them know that the plane has been highjacked by Jesus.
ROTFL … excellent. Hijacked by Jesus, well I guess he was from the middle east!!!
August 16th, 2006 at 12:12 pmBack on topic: Mighty, Rog, and all others that agree with religious profiling… please tell us how this would make security better and boarding more convenient.
So far all I have heard is good I hate towel-headed macaques… no substance… you do have a substantive argument don’t you?
August 16th, 2006 at 12:12 pmApologies to everyone. I was wrong about “Natural Law”. It is older than the 18th century. Actually a very interesting article, look at Magna Carta while you are in wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Law
August 16th, 2006 at 12:13 pm#52 - “URIKA - I HAVE THE ANSWER… AIR JESUS!!!
It incorporates Christianity, discrimination, and free market capitalism..You in Mighty Moron?” Comment by, GW, SuperRabbi
*******Eureka! Such a cute suggestion! As a Jewess, I don’t think I’d qualify….But you’ll be able to spot me in the “OK to SEARCH” line….
August 16th, 2006 at 12:13 pmIf we think we can develop a way to identify religious affiliation to determine who gets cavity searched before boarding public transport, then I suggest all religious persons need to be suspect while the sensible, secular population can board without delay.
As UK_DAVE posted on another board, none of the terrorists to-date have been atheists. John Walker, McVeigh, Atta, etc… were all doing ‘God’s work’.
August 16th, 2006 at 12:14 pmScience actually exists, ie the law of gravity just exists whether you or I want to enforce it.
I can believe in divine right of rule for kings, and pass a law that the king can not be sued because he is always right, but I would need my own army to enforce it. The 2nd law of thermodynamics exists whether I believe in it or enforce it.
Comment by Skeptic — August 16, 2006 @ 12:03 pm
Just a few remarks. Science does not exist. Humans invented it. You probably wanted to say physical phenomena. We can debate whether human laws (invented by humans) and nature laws (discovered by humans) have the same valid ground. I would say of course no. But, in my opinion, you studied law. Human-made laws are to keep things in order, but again, in my opinion, they are made to keep the ruling class in power as long as possible. About the abortion thing, it does not matter whether I think its wrong or right. Im not a woman, so it is not my choice.
August 16th, 2006 at 12:17 pmPoint taken Skeptic. My issue is with people trying to dictate lives based on their OWN set of moral standards, and then having those people turn around and tell me that it has nothing to do with THEM, it’s NATURAL LAW. Yes, as dictated by writers who were tasked with placing laws of rich men into a text about a visionary over 2000 years ago. I’m a religious man, and I abide by the book in my fashion. But social reform based on the disciples is just incredibly backwards.
Also, the only thing I’m concerned about in regards to Mighty Aphrodite’s proposition is this: is the Muslim line shorter? If so, I’m in. I’m honestly more worried about a Southern Baptist NRA Member wigging out than I am someone of Arabian decent. This profiling bs is a fear tactic, and while at first glance it might be an option, it does NOT pass muster when you consider the cost/benefit sceneario of enacting it. What you should be asking yourself, all of you in favor of a ‘darkie line’, is what happend to all your tax payer monies that were supposedly going to improve National Security?
Do you feel safer?
Are you okay with them getting BILLIONS of dollars to come up with ‘let’s put em in a seperate line’?
There’s nothing partisan about disagreeing with profiling, it goes against “Natural Law”. HA!
August 16th, 2006 at 12:17 pm#72 - Just contact NORAD and let them know that the plane has been highjacked by Jesus.
ROTFL … excellent. Hijacked by Jesus, well I guess he was from the middle east!!!
Ah, the subtle details of religious profiling. ROTFLOL!!!
And to think WingNuts have their panties in a wad over all this.
It didn’t work in Germany during the 1930’s and 1940’s. I’d love to hear WingNuts explain how “times are different now” and what their plan is to help them get over their fear of “the other”.
August 16th, 2006 at 12:18 pm#67 Jesus, that was funny. I lost my cereal on that one.
August 16th, 2006 at 12:19 pmBack on topic:
August 16th, 2006 at 12:20 pmOne simple question, how many lines do republicans need to sleep well at night?
#56 - “Most Liberals like ideas more than people, so while Joe Liebermann used to be a true democrat we were willing to abandon him over his support of the Iraqi war.” Comment by SkedA
******Of course liberals love “ideas” and HATE people - can you spell H-O-U-S-I-N-G PROJECTS? P.S. You didn’t “abandon” Lieberman - Progs threw him overboard… A 90% Dem-approved voting record means $H!t…(My goodness, Progs are starting to sound JUST like GWB - “Joe Lieberman, You’re either with us - OR against us…)
August 16th, 2006 at 12:21 pmSo far all I have heard is good I hate towel-headed macaques… no substance… you do have a substantive argument don’t you?
Comment by G.W.SuperChrist — August 16, 2006 @ 12:12 pm
Upside
1) The dangerous muslim types would be herded away from the rest of us.
2) If they blow themselves up, they just kill each other.
3) All the rest of us can skip through with modest checks.
Downside.
1) Demonises millions to … what exactly? …. inconvenience a few?
2) Who is muslim … people of a particular colour? White muslims are they also dodgy? Basically completely unworkable without, at a minimum, RFID tags.
3) At what point is everyone separated? Is that just a handy differentiator to ensure you blow up as many of the “right” people as possible?
Bah .. it’s an unworkable dumb idea about as sensible as segregation based on race or sex. MA I’m surprised they you’d be for something so obviously idiotic. Normally your reasoning is almost sub standard, what went wrong today?
August 16th, 2006 at 12:22 pm#61 Mighty Crapped-her-didy
ChimPRUNE - As usual, your lack of understanding precludes any understanding of safety measures. For those WILLING to be scrutinized at airports (or other forms of public transportation), let the searches begin. But for offended Muslims and Progs - my suggestion allows you to retain your privacy rights AND “show your solidarity†with the “poor, downtrodden Arab/Persianâ€. (By a wide margin, polled Progs thought the latter was the BEST part.)
You misunderstand your own post. You’ve equated a distaste for religious profiling, as opposed to everyone being equally subject to searches, with a desire by those opposed to it to have no searches. Hence, the false dichotomy: religious profiling or no searches. In which post, other than your own, did you see anyone mention “privacy rights”? I must have missed it, because I don’t recall that ever entering the discussion. It’s not about privacy rights. It’s about equality and respect for those who are different from us. And it’s also about the right-wing’s sudden and conspicuous embrace of Hitleresque scapegoating.
At no time did you even come close to offering a reasoned defense of the religious profiling argument. Care to take a whack at it? Or will you just continue to grace us with your smarmy obfuscations and catty swipes?
August 16th, 2006 at 12:23 pm#82
The problem is, Liberman IS against us. He’s only for HIMSELF. Hence, baby got booted to the curb. That’s what happens in democracy.
Guys, help! The kool aide is making it impossible for them to stay on topic again.
August 16th, 2006 at 12:24 pmJoe Lieberman had a 50pct voting record, but why bother with factd when a lie is easier. my source: jerry politex on bushwatch.com
August 16th, 2006 at 12:25 pmMA
You talking about the liberal Jihad against kindly Joe Lieberman?
August 16th, 2006 at 12:26 pmIt didn’t work in Germany during the 1930’s and 1940’s. I’d love to hear WingNuts explain how “times are different now†and what their plan is to help them get over their fear of “the otherâ€.
Comment by Jesus Christ God of WAR — August 16, 2006 @ 12:18 pm
I reckon if the Nazis had started the “final solution” earlier, they might have been alright. GWB in his typical shrewd fashion has realised this. In effect, just target the genocide at the particular group you are interested in eliminating instead of attacking everyone all at once.
That was Adolf’s big mistake.
August 16th, 2006 at 12:27 pmI think all Muslims should be towed behind in gliders and at the first sign of trouble, the line disengaged, and the glider jettisoned. All male Muslims know how to get to the cockpit quickly anyway and are quite skilled flyers……. as we all know.
August 16th, 2006 at 12:28 pmSPECIAL REPORT: Bush states, “America is safer, but not safe. What an IDIOT!!!!!!
August 16th, 2006 at 12:28 pmJuan,
The arguement I would bring against abortion isn’t one of choice. I believe that we as humans have the natural right to life. I believe that we as humans would be against natural law to kill each other out of convienence. So by my line of thinking, it isn’t a womens right to choose whether to kill there children simply because NO ONE has the right to kill someone else unless it is out of self defense.
I guess thearguement goes straight back to whether a baby is human or not……. I can see a justified arguement in the first trimester for saying that the baby isn’t a human, but after that I don’t really understand how anyone would say that the baby isn’t human. Hell, doctors deliver baby’s under 5 month’s old that survive these days. I would argue that if the baby can actually be delivered and survive, it is human. Would you disagree?
August 16th, 2006 at 12:30 pm#88 - I reckon if the Nazis had started the “final solution†earlier, they might have been alright. GWB in his typical shrewd fashion has realised this. In effect, just target the genocide at the particular group you are interested in eliminating instead of attacking everyone all at once.
That was Adolf’s big mistake.
One would think that since Emperor Bush’s granddaddy Prescott was doing business with Hitler that maybe, someone, somewhere would have passed this realization down through the Bush Crime Family.
Alas, I fear ‘Ol Nazi Prescott Bush probably wrote things down with a pen. The only thing Emperor George can read are things scribbled in Crayon. Generations of inbreeding will do that to a family.
August 16th, 2006 at 12:31 pmEureka! Such a cute suggestion! As a Jewess, I don’t think I’d qualify….But you’ll be able to spot me in the “OK to SEARCH†line….
Comment by mighty aphrodite — August 16, 2006 @ 12:13 pm
You are Jewish?
Holy Shit!!!
That makes your willingness to single out and scapegoat a whole group of people that much more incredible… you have learned nothing from your own history!!!
August 16th, 2006 at 12:31 pm“If you stick an iraqi/iranian american man next to a cuban/puertorican american man next to each other in the same clothes, Would TSA agents in say Omaha, Nebraska know the difference?”
Comment by Elliot
*******My Dear Elliot, The handsome Mr. Aphrodite is has undergone a thorough second search at every security checkpoint at EVERY airport he has flown out of since 9/11. (He is of Portuguese/Sicilian descent with an “olive” complexion.) A friend of ours asked him if “the searches irritated him”. Mr. “A” said, “EVERYONE who looks like ME should be searched until the Swedish Grandma Brigade starts plotting.”
THAT would solve the problem for Omaha…
(He won’t admit it, but he is secretly FLATTERED that TSA considers him YOUNG enough to be considered! Ha!)
Due in court…..
August 16th, 2006 at 12:32 pmThat makes your willingness to single out and scapegoat a whole group of people that much more incredible… you have learned nothing from your own history!!!
Comment by G.W.SuperChrist — August 16, 2006 @ 12:31 pm
On the other hand, it gives the raging intolerance a context. Sympathy is in order I think:-(
August 16th, 2006 at 12:34 pmMA;
August 16th, 2006 at 12:36 pmYou confused the Liberal/Progressive/Democrats with an organized church. We don’t throw people out and excommunicate them. At the moment I ( not speaking for anyone else ) am upset at the IRAQ war and disappointed that anyone should support it. I am glad that Joe Lieberman lost the primary, but I didn’t viciously attack him or believe that he is no longer a democrat. I wish he was not trying to run as an independent as that makes it more likely there will be a Republican Senator. All this is my opinion not that of anyone else.
Joe Lieberman is wrong but I don’t hate him and I don’t believe he has suddenly turned into a right winged nut, but he is wrong on the Iraq war.
As someone at work said: “But Lamont only has one issue”
And so it was that it only took one issue to make people stand up and boot Lieberman out. Sure, he’d messed up in the past, but this was big, supporting the war. Dems decided to send a message instead of just throwing their hands up in the air and going back to work. Again, if it smells like democracy and tastes like democracy, the cons will claim it to be ‘liberal shennigans’.
It’d be laughable if it weren’t so depressing.
August 16th, 2006 at 12:37 pmSo by my line of thinking, it isn’t a womens right to choose whether to kill there children simply because NO ONE has the right to kill someone else unless it is out of self defense.
Comment by Roger_Roger — August 16, 2006 @ 12:30 pm
Tell that to your president.
I would argue that if the baby can actually be delivered and survive, it is human. Would you disagree?
August 16th, 2006 at 12:37 pmComment by Roger_Roger — August 16, 2006 @ 12:30 pm
Its a complex issue, no doubt about it. I think this whole discussion is due to the male-based society we live in. If men could give birth, abortion would be seen as jerking off.
#64 Mr. C, please see comment #15.
August 16th, 2006 at 12:38 pm#98- … If men could give birth, abortion would be seen as jerking off.
Ooo. Oooo! UNCLEAN TOUCHING!!! Ya, baby. That’s the ticket!
Actually, you hit the perverbial nail on the head! So to speak.
Christian conservatives are wackos in large part due to their lack of coherent thought processing. Faith-based thinking is not rational.
Yet christians (and apparently many Jews) want to call all Muslims “terrorists”? Don’t they realize that christians (an apparently many Jews) are “terrorizing” their own minds every moment of every day? And that in America they have the “freedom” to inflict this upon themselves? Why not grant this right to others?
August 16th, 2006 at 12:44 pmHow low the cowards stoop to maintain their relevance to affairs of the world. Mark the examples of the trolls, everyone, for they illustrate perfectly the answer to the question no one asked - “what would cowards do?”
August 16th, 2006 at 12:44 pmRoger;
August 16th, 2006 at 12:45 pmYour arguements are getting better. But a human embryo/fetus only has an existance as a parasite upon a humwn woman. Do you have a legal case for compelling support of a parasite at a emotional and physical cost, which is going to result in serious medical problems. I’m only exagerating slightly, modern medicine has allowed most woman to survive childbirth but it used to be very dangerous and can still result in permanent damage.
So, shall we just have them wear yellow stars?
August 16th, 2006 at 12:45 pm#101 - “what would cowards do?â€
Isn’t that what the cute little christian republican loving bracelets say already?
August 16th, 2006 at 12:46 pmRoger, I agree with your argument, and have even used it before elsewhere - when arguing against war. Your argument is a strong argument against the Iraq war certainly, which was started without a clear threat being established.
August 16th, 2006 at 12:48 pm#93 - “You are Jewish? Holy Shit!!!
That makes your willingness to single out and scapegoat a whole group of people that much more incredible… you have learned nothing from your own history!!!” Comment by GW Super Christ
*******I’ve got just a second before I head out - - Currently, since the latest waves of terror attacks are being perpertrated by Arabs and Southern Asians of the Muslim persuasion, we would be playing Russian roulette with passenger safety if we were not cautious. Your ignorant LEAP to “my history”?? Have they started rounding them up into neighbourhoods so as to easily facilitate train rides from the ghettos? If SO - I will fight such a horror tooth and nail. I feel sorry for those contemporary, moderate Muslims who face inconvenience. I know many are embarrassed that Islam0-wacks who call themselves Islamists “bastardize” their honest peers.
Your sensitivity is precious….now let’s apply a bit of practicality and you might be onto something.
“Til later.
August 16th, 2006 at 12:51 pmI am very skeptical of profiling.
* How do you actually recognize a Muslim? What about if you’re black? If you’re light-brown? If you have olive skin because you have Italian heritage? That of course does not even take into consideration the fact that there are white Muslims out there also. Not just new converts – the Kabyle people in Algeria for instance are often white (look at Zidane) even with blue eyes.
* Then what do you do next – ask people for their religion? Not the kind of world I want to live in.
* The other series of question has to do with performance – do they really think those security people are subtle enough to do profiling? If, as they claim, profiling is a sophisticated system, it probably requires “sophisticated†people to handle it, and I think you’d probably have to spend a whole lot of money to find those people and hire them. (No offense meant to TSA or BAA people, but frankly, a lot of them do not seem to the brightest dudes in the world!).
August 16th, 2006 at 12:57 pm(I wrote more at http://jokertothethief.blogspot.com/)
AIR JESUS?
Brilliant!
In case of Rapture this plane will crash
August 16th, 2006 at 12:58 pmWill they have separate water fountains too?
August 16th, 2006 at 1:05 pmJokertothethied
“No reason to get excited,” The thief he kindly spoke “there are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke, but you and I we have been through that and this is not our fate, so let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late.”
August 16th, 2006 at 1:06 pmA separate line for Muslims at the airport? Why, what a wonderful way to demonstrate to the rest of the world what “equality under the law” means in America! (That and “innocent until proven guilty.”)
August 16th, 2006 at 1:06 pmMighty,
I am dismayed at your inability to recognize your history. No one came up to the Jews at large and said ‘Get in that ghetto!’. It was a gradual process that started with small changes and and segregations and security checkpoints JUST LIKE in this article.
You should be fighting tooth and nail NOW. By the time you’re in the ghettos, it’s too late. Just ask our black population.
August 16th, 2006 at 1:07 pmYour sensitivity is precious….now let’s apply a bit of practicality and you might be onto something.
“Til later.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — August 16, 2006 @ 12:51 pm
Your ignorance is astounding… in all your anti Arab tirades you have not once tried to explain exactly how profiling Muslims would make air travel safer, more cost effective, or even more convenient.
Because of your complete inability to coherently defend your positions - I can only assume that you are almost certainly the world worst defense lawyer… probably the single greatest contributor to prison overcrowding in your state.
August 16th, 2006 at 1:19 pmPerhaps a Mike Gallagher is a dumbass line would be appropriate.
August 16th, 2006 at 1:28 pmOooh, Ooh, there’s the Muslim/Terrerist line, quick, let’s get in that line…
How about a Muslim only terminal with Muslim only airlines at every airport. Bet that will “go-down” well.
August 16th, 2006 at 1:30 pm“Yes, the gentleman with that cross around your neck, over here, please. And sir, with that leather strap around your arm, same line, please. But could you put away that box on your head for now? Thanks. Next! Pardon me? No sir, no…you cannot carry on that prayer rug. And hey, the area outside the terminal is ‘no parking’, so you get that Russian battle tank out of the way, alright? Next!”
August 16th, 2006 at 1:30 pm“Thank goodness our friends and allies did not desert us during our civil war”comment by Mighty Aphrodite-August 3, 2006 @ 3:22 pm
August 16th, 2006 at 1:36 pm[…] in all your anti Arab tirades you have not once tried to explain exactly how profiling Muslims would make air travel safer, more cost effective, or even more convenient.
Comment by G.W.SuperChrist — August 16, 2006 @ 1:19 pm
Or even attempt to explain how this could be done legally (within the boundaries of the constitution). I mean, she is a lawyer who graduated summa cum laude. This is the perfect opportunity for a lawyer to argue their case and show their acumen.
Forget about “political correctness”. How can an ethnic, religious group be legally singled out for searches before boarding any means of transportation? How can they legally be set apart in their own “check-point line”? Wouldn’t some laws have to be changed to allow for this? If so, which ones? If no laws need change, explain why not.
August 16th, 2006 at 1:42 pmFaith-based thinking is not rational
Faith based thinking is NONTHINKING!
August 16th, 2006 at 2:14 pmLike I said before, natural law dictates that we do not have the right to murder another human unless it is in self defense. The Iraq war is of interesting debate in regards to this law. I would argue that the Iraq war on many levels is against natural law as we, on a simple level, are not doing this out of self defense.
On a more macro level, we certainly are in Iraq over the defense of the American society. While the reasons for going were flat wrong, the real reasons are obvious and sadly meaningful. America requires energy. The middle east has huge amounts of energy in the form of Oil. It is in the best interest of our nation to make sure that Oil is in the control of people that will trade it to us. Without a steady supply of Oil, many Americans will certainly die. So, to defend America we defend the energy that fuels it. VERY VERY SAD, but VERY VERY TRUE.
I guess one could also argue that natural law says that all men and women are free. By that arguement, we jumped to the defense of those that were not free.
Again, overall the Iraq war on many levels was a bad idea. In the end, it will still pay out in spades once the country becomes stable enough for our Oil investment dollars to flow into the country. The price was huge, but the payout could be life saving in the long run.
I am still against the Iraq war however as we had easier ways to get more Oil that didn’t require going to war. American soil still has lots of untapped oil just waiting to be drilled. I guess in the long run, we will need all the Oil we can get as demand rises and supplies decrease.
So, I guess Iran is next :)
August 16th, 2006 at 2:19 pmWithout a steady supply of Oil, many Americans will certainly die.
Comment by Roger_Roger — August 16, 2006 @ 2:19 pm
So, are there americans who eat and drink oil? Wasnt aware of that.
In the end, it will still pay out in spades once the country becomes stable enough for our Oil investment dollars to flow into the country.
August 16th, 2006 at 2:25 pmPitiful argument. I really hope chinese, muslims, russians whatever invade your town and you get to see all your family dying. Cause thats what you are supporting. Disgusting.
Without a steady supply of Oil, many Americans will certainly die.
Comment by Roger_Roger — August 16, 2006 @ 2:19 pm
It is troubling to find someone so calmly rationalising wars that are about access to natural resources. Doesn’t natural law say something against theft and plunder? Or are American interests above those of the Iraqi people, according to natural law?
By that arguement, we jumped to the defense of those that were not free.
Doesn’t natural law say something about securing consent first? Or is the fact that the US can do whatever it wants the actual root for your argument about natural law?
This natural law sounds an awful lot like the law of the jungle to me.
August 16th, 2006 at 2:29 pmRoger,
your very argument, places us into the same category as every imperialist aggressor in the past. No we don’t need oil. If we spent time, and money to work our energy supply away from oil, and into resources we could produce at home, then we wouldn’t need to fight in the middle east. Nice of you to spout the facist line though.
August 16th, 2006 at 2:34 pmAmerica requires energy. The middle east has huge amounts of energy in the form of Oil. It is in the best interest of our nation to make sure that Oil is in the control of people that will trade it to us. Without a steady supply of Oil, many Americans will certainly die.
American represent about 3-4% of the global population, yet use roughly 25% of the energy. Natural law dictates that if we killed the lot of you, we’d be significantly better off.
August 16th, 2006 at 2:39 pm113
as a black male i don’t know what you are talking about… you think we were forced into ghettos? please explain.
114
could you tell me the last hijacking an israeli airline has had since they started profiling? or since they started profiling the palestinians they allowed into their country? The last time they found explosives it was an irish woman who converted to islam… as she was passin gthrough customs they were questioning her as to where she was going and where she was staying… she gave a hotel name… they asked her how she could be staying there with only a few hundred dollars in cash… she said her husband who had a muslim name… they decided to search her bag again and discovered explosives they missed the first time… the woman was in shock as she was also pregnant… she was set up…
tell me, if those 10 planes had gone down… what do you think would happen… people would be asking why they were profiled in the first place…
let them try a new way around security… but they aren’t going to use ignorance of who involved in every armed conflict taking place in the world, against us. Where does it make since to try and dumpout water in the flooding the basement before you find the leak?
119
FDR did worse… is he up for war crimes? I guess they need to get rid of all those boxes on surveys and tests to check for ethnicity, height restrictions, insurance profiling of males vs females, hmm
I by no means advocate a muslim line… simply more scrutiny… and as for terror in our time… Mc Veigh and company weren’t suicidal, and they weren’t working alone… simply put the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
As a black amle i am profiled in some shape or form everyday… and i am happy everyday i prove someone wrong especially those who are predjudiced and causeing them to think twice. Think about it how do they find serial killers, murderers, rapists? You study behavior, ethnicity, probabilities, otherwise you are wasting valuable time and energy.
August 16th, 2006 at 2:49 pmBrian,
What Roger_Roger is saying is that, if you are bigger, stronger, and need or covet something a smaller, weaker neighbor has in his possession, natural law says you should take it -by force if needs be. If you need to replace the head of the household to someone more friendly to you, natural law says you should do it regardless of what the rest of the people in that house might have to say about the new arrangement.
Natural law apparently says nothing about negotiating or reaching compromise. It also doesn’t seem to say anything about changing your consumption habits, if resources are growing increasingly scarce and someone needs to fight in order to get to them. Or maybe natural law says you should only seek compromise only if your sorry behind is actually on the line. It it’s someone else’s, then don’t.
August 16th, 2006 at 2:51 pmHold on a moment,
I was just giving you some arguements. I don’t actually agree that we should invade another country for Oil. I am merely pointing out an arguement I would use.
Here is another arguement to further the initial one. You seem to think that someone who holds this idea thinks of America as “better” then Iraq. It doesn’t really work like that in a macro sense. It is more like we (America) look out for each other first. We are like a pack of monkeys. When we come across another pack of monkeys, we don’t look at them as not equal. We simply look at them as a threat to our resources. We don’t need to make a judgement call on who is better. We simply are looking out for each other first. This applies throughout the animal kingdom. Humans are animals afterall.
Either way, I don’t agree that this arguement or my previous line of thinking is actually correct morally. I was just looking at it from a more simple view. You people always jump to get emotions and feelings involved so quickly. While that is nice, it isn’t how the powers that be look at this world (your Democrat leaders as well).
August 16th, 2006 at 2:56 pmYou NEVER look at Oil consumption based on population. You ALWAYS look at it in comparison to GDP. Americans use 25% of the Oil, but have over 25% of the worlds GDP. We actually use our Oil much more wisely then any other Country in the world. In other words, we are able to produce more “stuff” from a gallon of Oil then any other country. Basically, we already conserve oil better then any other country, they are the ones that are wasteful.
August 16th, 2006 at 2:58 pmRoger,
most countries recycle plastics something the US does in minor quantities. Perhaps we do use the oil more efficiantly, but that sounds like another slick right wing talking point, with no actual basis in reality.
August 16th, 2006 at 3:08 pmYou people always jump to get emotions and feelings involved so quickly.
Comment by Roger_Roger — August 16, 2006 @ 2:56 pm
I don’t believe Brian or myself got emotional over this issue. Brian offered a rebuttal, I asked questions first and then tried to summarise your “natural law” argument.
While that is nice, it isn’t how the powers that be look at this world (your Democrat leaders as well).
I am fully aware that powerful countries/cultures have always gone to war over land and access to natural resources, so you are not offering any new insight in that respect. I simply reject your rationalisation. In my granfather’s generation what you describe was called “building an empire”, and didn’t have any of the flowery rhetoric you so graciously have submitted.
And you missed the mark when you assumed my “leaders” are Democrats.
August 16th, 2006 at 3:11 pmHow naive you guys are?? do you really think that almost every moslim is a terrorist or what??
August 16th, 2006 at 3:12 pmIf you would know anything about the Kuran you never want to make some extra checkpoints for moslims! I just can´t belive what i just read here… These terrorists has nothing to do with the islam, the islam is a peacefull religion and there is nothing written like “kill all non moslims” or something like that! just to clerify… think about what you guys are talking about and if you dont have a clue about it… just don´t write this senseless things down.
Look,
I gave you some arguements that OTHERS could easily try to bring up. I don’t agree with them. I personally think the Iraq war was a VERY BAD IDEA!!! It was 100% wrong to invade Iraq. So we can all agree on that 100%. I would disagree with you that we should leave Iraq however. While it was stupid to invade, I cannot see how leaving will make it better. I can see leaving for selfish reasons (like making sure we don’t have any more dead american soldiers), but selfish reasons don’t cut it.
Iraq was a backward country before we invaded. Now it is screwed up. The least we can do it attempt to fix it and help those people develope a free state. If I truly thought that us leaving Iraq would lead to a good outcome, I would say we should leave.
August 16th, 2006 at 3:19 pm#110 - Grgrrrrr - Re-read #37 - then write a 5000 word essay on satire. (Hint: you MAY reference Jonathan Swift, but footnotes will be checked for attribution.)
#114 - GW, Super RABBIt drops the following intellectual “pellets”:
“… in all your anti Arab tirades you have not once tried to explain exactly how profiling Muslims would make air travel safer, more cost effective, or even more convenient.”
*******RABBIt, I believe thorough searches and fact-checking of younger Arab/Persian/olive passengers would lessen the likelihood of more air tragedies. Is it foolproof - NO, but evidence demonstrates, saf-ER. I don’t expect it to be MORE cost effective OR convenient - ONLY a “progressive” would mention “cost and convenience” at a time like this…..
“I can only assume that you are almost certainly the world worst defense lawyer… probably the single greatest contributor to prison overcrowding in your state. ” Cute comment by RABBIt
*******Thank goodness my clients don’t share your assessment of my skills…..Whew!!!! P.S. The judge lifted the remand order - your mom should be released as soon as you get over and post bail…
#127 - “Americans use 25% of the Oil, but have over 25% of the worlds GDP….In other words, we are able to produce more “stuff†from a gallon of Oil then any other country….they are the ones that are wasteful.” - Comment by, RogerTHAT
*******Thank you, Roger!! These self-proclaimed, “open-minded” apologists - I mea