[Winstonm]

Quote

“threat of terrorist violence against the United States is growing. al-Qaeda is gaining strength, and Osama bin Laden continues to elude capture. There is not a moment to spare to take the steps necessary to keep the American people safe,”

[cherdano]

Well, this is all correct. Some of the necessary steps might include ending a war or two...

[kenrexford]

What are you concerned about?

A politician points out a cause for fear, and then notes that we must do something to address that fear, but offers no specific as to what that "something" is.

This reminds me of my Azimov. The greatest politician in the Galaxy is the one who can speak the most without saying anything.

Nothing new here.

[Al_U_Card]

Well, it can't be Chertoff because there was no mention of "gut-feeling"....;-(

It sounds like a religious leader but if the quote is difficult to ascribe someone to it then it must be.....Hillary?

[Winstonm]

The oddity (to me) is this is the type of fear-mongering rhetoric you would expect from a right wing hawk like Lieberman or McCain - but coming from a supposedly left-winger like Nancy Pelosi?

Now, to some, I suppose this would show the bipartisanship involved in saving the U.S. from the evils of Al-Qaeda.

But to me, what it points out is when it comes to usurption of power there is simply no difference whatsoever between the right and left, between Democrats and Republicans - all will use the ruse of fear mongering to gain their objectives.

By the way, is there any proof that Osama bin Laden is still alive or is that name simply being bandied about because of its "recognition" factor - this was a guy who needed kidney dialysis, and he was living in caves in Afghanistan - which were at last count woefully short on not only dialysis machines but electrical outlets. My bet is he has been dead for about 4 or 5 years, having expired about the same time Bush declared Osama no longer to be a priority.

For propaganda purposes, though, he is much more valuable as a living ghost than as a dead enemy.

[luke warm]

i have a question winston... if the things stated in the quote are true, why do you consider it fear mongering?

[Al_U_Card]

Let's see.....because it is the U.S. that is shooting itself in the terrorist-foot! Anyone who is not in the process of exposing the fallacies of the Iraqi pillaging must be seen to be aiding and abetting your duly elected criminals.....

[mycroft]

You know, every word of that is true (well, except possibly for the conclusion).

However, the British, Spanish, etc. have proved that despite that, it is possible to live a normal life when the chances of damage have gone up from one day's traffic death toll per decade to two. The British, somehow, are forgetting that lesson, but that's neither here nor there.

I gamble with my life every day. I worry about traffic, thieves, robbers, and homicidal players who don't like my rulings (well, okay, not really). Because of where I work my day job, I also worry about drug-addled or mentally disturbed street people (but not much, they know if they do anything to the real world, the police get called and they get hassled. If they don't do anything, they're usually left alone. Of course, if some of that money put into making terrorists by killing and maiming their families went to properly housing and treating those two diseases, I would have less of that problems as well), and Seamstresses (cf. Terry Pratchett). It is simply not worth my time, and still wouldn't be if we had only 2000-era legal and existent border protection, to worry about terrorist attacks.

I'll be sorry if I get blown up by a bomb? Well, yes. I'll also be sorry if I get struck by lightning, or if my condo complex burns down (as one did just last week here), or if my plane to next onsite becomes the plot for Airport '08. I choose not to live in a bubble. I choose to live free - and that includes the risk of dying free or being maimed free. It is not just the military that have made that choice.

Michael.

[han]

I got it wrong.

[Winstonm]

Quote

luke warm,Jul 30 2007, 05:45 AM]i have a question winston... if the things stated in the quote are true, why do you consider it fear mongering?

First, it is hard to accept all of the statement as true, and you did say if it is true.
It is difficult to capture the dead - which is most likely Osama's fate.

Quote

There is not a moment to spare to take the steps necessary to keep the American people safe,”

However, this is the repugnant part in my view - this breathtaking immediacy that "there is not a moment to spare".

Obviously, there was not a moment to spare to read the Patriot Act before passing it, either.
Nor a moment to spare to investigate the lies that led us into Iraq to begin with.
Not a moment to spare to close Guantanemo or stop renditions and torture.

I believe before we go off half-cocked and start WWIII, we damn well better take a moment to spare and take a hard look at who and what we have become chasing a security that is impossible to attain. Is this the America you want, propelled by fear so great we have to abandon freedom and the rule of law?

Isn't it odd that the armies of Germany, Italy, and Japan could not change the face of America, but 17 Saudis with boxcuttters could. This is not America as I knew it.

"Good morning Miss America, how are ya', don'tcha know me I'm your native son..."

[Winstonm]

Quote

The Fear Factor

by Rep. Ron Paul
While fear itself is not always the product of irrationality, once experienced, it tends to lead away from reason, especially if the experience is extreme in duration or intensity. When people are fearful they tend to be willing to irrationally surrender their rights.

Thus, fear is a threat to rational liberty. The psychology of fear is an essential component of those who would have us believe we must increasingly rely on the elite who manage the apparatus of the central government.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Jul 31 2007, 06:27 PM, said:

Quote

The Fear Factor

by Rep. Ron Paul
The psychology of fear is an essential component of those who would have us believe we must increasingly rely on the elite who manage the apparatus of the central government.

If we are not going to rely on the elite in central government who are we going to rely on?

Is Ron Paul for less government and not more?
Welfare?
Nat health care
CIA?
Defense Dept?
Education?

I thought we have the central government do all of the above because we are too scared to do it some other way.

Is he for smaller spending in central government or what?

Or is he just trying to scare us and end all of our entitlements?

If we are not going to have the elites rule us, who is left, Bush?

[helene_t]

mike777, on Aug 1 2007, 08:47 AM, said:

If we are not going to rely on the elite in central government who are we going to rely on?

Ourself. The civic society. Our friends. Our families. Etc.

[mike777]

helene_t, on Aug 1 2007, 02:06 AM, said:

mike777, on Aug 1 2007, 08:47 AM, said:

If we are not going to rely on the elite in central government who are we going to rely on?

Ourself. The civic society. Our friends. Our families. Etc.

Well not in Europe.

See France for starters. Get rid of the central government and who has a job.
Who is in school? Who has health care? Who has a defense?

Add on getting rid of the elite and who else is left?

Where are all the Phd's working if not getting a check from the government directly or indirectly through their school or company, which gets its payroll from the central government?

Does your paycheck not come direct or indirectly from a government?

If not how about the rest of your family?

Please note even the Banking industry gets an indirect subsidy in the form of FDIC from the central government..It is everywhere.

Take away FDIC and just see how many lose their jobs in banking.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Is Ron Paul for less government and not more?

My understanding is that Ron Paul is supportive of the constitutional priciples spelled out in the 10th amendment:

Quote

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

[Fluffy]

I only know Bush from the options, I thin I heard Cheney before but not quite sure.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Aug 1 2007, 06:53 AM, said:

Quote

Is Ron Paul for less government and not more?

My understanding is that Ron Paul is supportive of the constitutional priciples spelled out in the 10th amendment:

Quote

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

yes, it was a fine old amendment at one time