Another Dispassionate Analysis
 

...of just how big a parcel of rogues we've got cluttering Capitol Hill. The Democratic Party always wanted to lose the War On Terror because we're America, or something. They're going about it as steadily as they can. They are certainly by no measure serious about winning it. Our present best hope is to get some meanass Republican back into the Oval Office at the first opportunity, as the results of two terms of this kind of thing are too dismal to stomach.

The terrs have taken notice of this. Since the Republicans relinquished power, terrorist attacks on US soil, wholly absent during the Bush years, have increased. Until Team Obama actually becomes Team Antifascist and not Team Dither, Haver, and Cavil, we can only expect more of the same.

Of course, if Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber", was Mirandized by the Bush admin team, starting five minutes after his capture and happening four times in two days... Krauthammer's point would be moot and your insufferable partisan rhetoric would turn precisely against you, wouldn't it?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32399.html

ETA: especially if Abdulmutallab is cooperating?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/03/us...er=rss&emc=rss

Three come to mind. If you count all of the 9/11 ones as a single incident. 9/11, anthrax, shoe bomber. Two of which were successful. Plus some nutty ones caught in the planning stages by actual law enforcement.

What does 'Mirandize' mean?

Read the suspect their rights. "You have the right to remain silent.... etc".

Ah right. ok. Thanks:)

- frpm Wikepedia

Right, I should add the adjective "successful" to some of that. Still, two incidents that get to, or near, fruition in a single year is an increase in density by any measure. The point remains that the Republican Administration was serious, the Democratic enough less so that anti-Democratic partisanship is not just justifiable, but much to be desired until this lot of boobies wakes up to smite the undemocratic. People of liberty want the antidemocrats ... to be at no risk of constipation. Our troubles come from anti-democrats. Lose the anti-democrats, we lose the troubles. How's that bad? Oh, the Left is sure somehow that must be a bad thing, oh indeed.

Commie twats and Fascist snots, lots and lots. May the one be locked to the other with a Prince Albert and cast upon history's ash-heap. Keep the age of undue governance a thing of the past, or you will spend your futures as slaves. A dismal prospect for the adult thinker.

Are you a joke?

There are those who would like to believe so, Flint, and who greatly desire it.

They have not attained their desire. Perhaps because what they wanted was none too worthy in the first place.

There were two that succeeded under Bush. Again, counting 9/11 as a single incident. And the shoe bomber incident was pretty much identical to the underwear bomber.

Another example of how the more rational (and legal) approach to prevent future terrorist attacks:
UG...."You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you to further demonstrate that your "freedom fighter" mentality is not only undemocratic, unethical and of questionable legal footing... but bad public policy."

Does an individual of such lofty analytical aspirations see fit to postulate whether the pitch of one's own desire to measure the worthiness of the desires of others in turn may have an inverse artifact upon the presentation of said desires of others, and that a reciprocal relationship may, in fact, factor greatly upon the originally stated proposition?

I don't know about that. But i do know I've had acid trips that have made more sense.*

* I'll soften that by saying 'at times'.

I completely eviscerated UG in post #2. He failed to address it. There is no need for the thread to continue.