A Simple Question That Wingers Never Seem To Be Able To Answer.

I ask them the same question every time I run into one of these wing-nut freaks:

"What about the current terror threat is so much worse than all other threats that this country has faced? Why is is more dire than facing down the entire Nuke arsenal of the Soviet Union? Why do we have to give up freedoms to protect ourselves from this threat that have never been required to deal with any other threat in our nation's history."

The ALWAYS just try to change the subject. They can't answer the question at all. Sadly, they also fail to internalize the lesson in the slightest.

Stupid? Deluded? Frightened? Fascists? Who knows. Probably a bit of all of the above. A sickening mix of stupidity, fear and fascism. It reeks.




Let me help them...


Here's the answer you fascist fellating cowards:

NOTHING. This threat is far LESS than previous threats we have faced with NO restrictions being put on our freedom. There is no need for the restrictions on our freedoms that you fascist fucks expect us to all embrace. It does not make us more safe. It just makes us less free.

That is one they can't answer, especially when they give "us" complete credit for the defeat of communism and the fall of the USSR.

They are into some sort of personal power trip from the US being the only superpower and since Bushco feeds into that, they go along with whatever the administration wants, because opposing it would interfere with their armchair warrior self esteem.

nEw York City. M O R A N S!

The Professor

I will surmise you really don't have a cogent answer, otherwise somewhere within two posts you would have made a point.

You haven't. I know you think you have. (Yeah, yeah, we were actually attacked on 9/11. I get it.)

THAT DOESN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION! Perhaps you should be taking some more classes in logic. However, since i have never taught anything but graduate level courses, you aren't ready for me.
The Professor

help.

During the 1950's the right wingers used the Red Scare (and the nuclear threat) for political gain as much as they could. And they sure wanted to curb free speech and political expression back then. In fact, most lefties were cowering back then in fear of losing their livelihoods or going to jail. It was a defacto loss of rights.

They never change.

It's the brainwashing man. You see you start with a really shocking event, which knocks people's brains out of their normal brain wave routine. Then you begin your repetitive message, preferably at a rhythmic pace (40 BPM is the most effective) later, rinse, repeat. Works great for evangelical preachers.

Change the first two question marks to commas and get rid of the third...et voilá, you have your answer!

So I will answer your question.

The threat of terrorism is no worse than a nuclear threat, but it isn't a nuclear threat from the soviet union.

It is a domestic threat of terrorism where the attack comes from within and kills civilians. With that said, I'm against giving up freedoms because I stick to a motto of walk softly and carry a big stick.

Of course I would need a more defined definition of freedom from your perspective to see exactly what you are refering too. If you mean having to endure high security at the airport as a loss of freedom, than I'm at odds with that.

I do not get your point here. I do not understand that the origin of the threat has to do with the fundamental question. It is not worse, it is domestic? I do not see how that relates per se. Help me out.

As to freedoms, I mean shit like having every call we make logged and data mined. I mean having proteters locked up in "free speech zones" (as if free speech can be restricted to some zone). I mean warrentless wiretapping and secret searches of private property. I mean indefinite detentions of citizens with no access to lawyers or recourse. I could go on. But, That should be enough to clarify. I am not talking about liquids on planes. Those are not RIGHTS. Those are a convenience.

I don't like the administrations actions in those regards.

With that said, I think we are in agreement to all of the issues. I was under the impression you were referring to airport security and other security issues being much more strict.

My mistake, sorry for the misunderstanding.

Have a great day! :hi:

wanted to be alive at the end of what ever happened.

What proof do you have that every Soviet leader was more self-preserving than the threat we face today? I would suggest that the leaders of Iran want to be alive, the leaders of the Palestinian authority want to be alive, and i notice how bin Laden hasn't fallen on his sword in a glorious battle for jihad.

Nope. These folks are just as into self-preservation as any other foe we've ever faced. You are believing the propaganda.
The Professor

Everyone wants to be alive, that just kinda is.

Man China has a big trade surplus. No wonder Wal-Mart loves them so.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12048225/

Duck and cover Repukes! Just as stupid today as 50 years ago. They think Reagan 'ended' the Cold War! :eyes: