Curious as to why you chose this over the "puppy" comment :rotflmao:

-spence

Because the pizza comment is a big load of crap. Here's the real story:
http://news.aol.com/political-machin...-pizza-really/

We'll call it Pizza-gate. Add this to Teleprompter-Gate, Lipstick-Gate, Birth Certificate-Gate and Secret Muslim-Gate

And Conservatives wonder why support for their party is dying.


Also, none of the "points" scott mentioned could be defined as childish. But the Conservatives just try to take any negative word they can think of and try to make it somehow applicable without any real evidence like scott and Swimmer have done above.

You forgot flag-pin gate, pledge gate, lack-of-military-experience gate, appology gate, Liberal-wus gate, Ayers-BFF gate etc...

The fundementals of the GOP are strong, the problem is that the liberal mainstream media is reporting things as if there's some confusion.

Michael Steel has been playing his cards perfectly and has a secret plan you'd understand if you had half a brain.

The GOP has a strong record of fiscal restraint (remeber the Contract with America?) that resonates with middle America. The current Republicans in Congress were just running up a tab to make Obama's spending look worse. The media hides this fact because it makes the GOP look too smarter.

This is a Christian Nation after all, and with the Rapture due along any day now, I think we're all going to see who's united and who's not. I'd wager the Starbucks are going to be pretty busy the day after judgement day.

-spence

Question--why should you always take two Republicans fishing with you?

If you take only one, he'll smoke all your pot, but if you take two, they won't smoke any.:humpty:

BSSB is funny.

I'm starting to worry about you Spence Alynski...you used to be somewhat coherent....now you are just babbling:jester:

the MIGHTY O hit the trifecta today...got the Ted Kennedy bred "WATER" Dog on the way(I "HOPE" it pees on his leg)...I think they named it Mary Jo...or Bo Bridges or something like that....found a temporary location to photo-op worship...... and he singlehandedly donned a wetsuit and fins and bubbled over to the pirates Zodiak where he killed three pirates...rescued the evil American tresspasser, took the fourth prisoner and immediately apologized profusely to anyone was offended by our presence in the region, blamed it all on American arrogance and vowed that things would be changing now that he rules America...he is some kinda man!
I can see why you love him so....

This statement says it all, this guy is a %$%$%$%$ing p%&Y^y. It is an act of terrorism, the crew was terrified, the captain is terrified, the us public is
terrified, the world is terrified.

Actually I was making fun of you.

-spence

And now they're dead. In the end, the authorization to shoot-to-kill if necessary had to be provided by that "%$%$%$%$ing p%&Y^y" you mentioned.

That "%$%$%$%$ing p%&Y^y" has also authorized a number of bombings of terrorist camps in Pakistan.

Also, piracy is not the same as terrorism.

The latest outrage is the very word ‘terrorism’ has been banned by the Obama administration and replaced by the phrase ‘man caused disasters’. I kid you not.
SPIEGEL: ‘Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word “terrorism.” Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?’
Janet Napolitano, President Obama’s new Homeland Security Secretary: ‘Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word “terrorism,” I referred to “man-caused” disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.’
Obviously, Obama plans on taking the United States back to a pre 9/11 mentality in dealing with the threat of Islamic terrorism. When one can’t even use the word ‘terrorism’ to describe terrorist incidents, something is seriously wrong.

this is correct, pirates wear eyepatches, have parrots on their shoulders and some have peg legs and/or hooks where their hands once were....


[QUOTE=Spence]
Actually I was making fun of you.

-spence

that's why I love you Spence Alinsky, you have an incredible sense of humor... :uhuh:

I'd like you to please find me something concrete that asserts the word "terrorism" has been banned. I doubt you will...

The context of the interview remark in question was that the DHS has to be prepared for all kinds of disasters, and that the Obama Administration doesn't intend to pepper their prepared remarks with "9/11" and "terrorism" every third word in an attempt to scare the hell out of everyone like the Bush Administration seemed to do.

There are thousands of blog rants on this topic and not a single one of them that I read actually forms a conclusion.

Last week at the airport I noticed the official Security Threat was still at ORANGE or "A HIGH CHANCE OF TERROR ATTACK".

High chance? You think I'm going to get on the effing plane if I think there's really a HIGH chance of attack?

-spence

you must have missed this in your daily talking points from the administration...it's weeks old...get up to speed..

"terrorist" has also been banned...we're now referring to them as "justifiably angry victims of American arrogance"

The ignorance of some that post here shines through as brightly as the sun on a warm day.

Looks like a new day means a new definition needed for the disillusioned:

Terrorism as defined by the US Federal Criminal Code:
... activities that involve violent… or life-threatening acts… appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping

Someone explain to me how the Pirates taking over ships for nothing more than profit is terrorism.

The Somalians are no different than bank robbers on steroids. They aren't trying to affect government policy or incite fear into the population. They are trying to extort money from companies.

They aren't terrorists, they're extortionists.

"


So you are saying that Obama and the Democrats are actually Pirates? OK, I'll go along with that...

So the pirates activities were not violent, or life-threatening, nor were they meant to coerce a civilian population to hand over money?

You libs crack me up...

News
World news
Global terrorism
Obama administration says goodbye to 'war on terror'
US defence department seems to confirm use of the bureaucratic phrase 'overseas contingency operations'
Comments (11)
Oliver Burkeman in Washington
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 25 March 2009 17.40 GMT
Article history
The war on terror, George Bush once declared, "will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated". But Barack Obama's administration, it appears, has ended it rather more discreetly - via email.

A message sent recently to senior Pentagon staff explains that "this administration prefers to avoid using the term Long War or Global War On Terror (Gwot) ... please pass this on to your speechwriters". Instead, they have been asked to use a bureaucratic phrase that could hardly be further from the fiery rhetoric of the months immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The global war on terror is dead; long live "overseas contingency operations".

Rumours of the imminent demise of the war on terror had been circulating for some time, and some key officials have been mentioning "overseas contingency operations" for weeks. The US defence department email, obtained by the Washington Post, seems to confirm the shift, although the Office of Management and Budget, which reviews the public testimony of administration personnel in advance, denied reports that it had ordered an across-the-board change in language.

Tony Blair was an avid supporter of Bush's terminology - "whatever the technical or legal issues about a declaration of war, the fact is we are at war with terrorism", he once said - but experts came to agree that the phrase was unhelpful.

A war on terror was too broad ever to be won, they argued, while defining not a group or ideology but a type of violence as the enemy was incoherent.

Even Donald Rumsfeld, one of the war's architects, tried in vain to persuade Bush to rebrand it the "global struggle against violent extremism", or GSave. Writing in the Guardian in January, the foreign secretary, David Miliband, said it had been a mistake that may have caused "more harm than good".

Since taking office, Obama has taken several concrete steps to shift direction, ordering the closure of Guantanamo Bay and the CIA's secret prisons, and moving to end harsh interrogation practices.

"Declaring war on a method of violence was like declaring war on amphibious warfare," said Jeffrey Record, a strategy expert at the US military's Air War College in Alabama.

"Also, it suggested that there was a military solution, and that we were at war with all practitioners of terrorism, whether they threatened American interests or not. 'War' is very much overused here in the United States - on crime, drugs, poverty. Everything has to be a war. We would have been much smarter to approach terrorism as the Europeans do, as a criminal activity."

But he was not enthusiastic about the replacement term. "I'm not sure it means much of anything," he said. "And I'm not sure we're going to make any great progress by replacing one unfortunate term with another."

The ignorance of some of the Conservatives here is amazing.

On your deluded understanding, bank robbers are terrorists because they want to coerce the teller to hand over money. A speeder is a terrorist because speeding is life-threatening. Someone who gets in a fight is a terrorist because their actions are violent.

The lack of rational and common sense within you conservatives is pathetic.

Meanie :rude:

haha...

By your definition not mine. :rude:

BTW I would not classify a bank robbery as terrorism because most are in and out, not holding the whole bank or customers for hours on end for a ransom.

John I don't think I commented on any of the above alledged childish/immature/inane/foolish acts in any of my posts. Don't lump me in with anyone else. Remember I didn't cite any one reason why I think O'Bowma is childish and naive, thank you. Oh by the way I have voted for Ted Kennedy I believe in every election that he was a candidate.

BY the way your comments reminded of the birth certificate problem. Why is it the hospital in Hawaii wont make public those records? Or did they?

So a bank robbery is only terrorism if they take hostages? Either way they're still coercing a civilian into handing over money and inciting fear into people.

Where exactly do you draw the line of what terrorism is then?

In all aspects, terrorism is motivated to incite fear in the general population in the domestic territory of a country, disrupt government or create anarchy.

Piracy falls into none of the above. The pirates are purely for profit. They don't want to disrupt shipping, just inconvenience the companies enough so that they pay ransom. If they disrupt profit, then their income goes away.

The whole country was talking about the piracy episode, not a bank robbery in boston mass. Therefore I think the piracy episode affected the whole country.

I'm sorry for any confusion. That post was in reply to scott's post about Obama ordering pizza from 850 miles away.

I apologize if you thought I was lumping you in with the likes of scott. I know you are not at all ridiculous in the way he is.

The whole country was talking about the murder of Caylee Anthony. Does that now make her murderer a terrorist?

haa, you keep making foolish comments like this and call me rediculous....:rollem:


ahhh..the whole country was talking about the monkey that ate the lady's face off...does that now make the monkey a terrorist?

geez....get a grip....

"Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. "

So if a group of pirates, run around taking ships and hostages, influence companies and governments to pay the ransom money. Their acts have influenced the US government enough to increase naval patrols in the area, not only that their actions have influenced a host of governments to send warships to combat their actions. Instead of political reasons behind them they are doing it for cash. Coercing fro money, isn't that different from coercing for political change. The pirates actions instill terror into their victims and have influenced several countries into changing the positions of our warships and are Terrorists.

[QUOTE=Cool Beans;681388]"Terrorism: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons. "

sounds like your average Acorn organized, union funded bus trip tour of executives homes...

By this reasoning then gangs, the mafia etc... are all Terrorists.

I think it's important then to understand what this really means. What can you do to a terrorist that you can't do to a criminal?

Under the Bush Doctrine it means we could strike pre-emptively without regard to Internation law or territory. Even if the Terrorist was a US citizen they could be detained indefinately without council or heabus corpus.

To date most of these attacks appear to have been simple for profit robberies with no loss of life. Their goal certainly isn't terrorism, for if people and shipping companies were afraid to travel their waters they wouldn't have anyone to hold hostage! Their business model would be obsolete.

Now if we have evidence that money from piracy is being funneled to al Queda for instance, now we have a different situation entirely. I'd be curious to see if the Obama Administration looks to make this connection before using hard military force on the Somalia mainland. Even if nobody really cares about Somalia, the thought of dropping bombs to preempt more robberies has many legal and ethical pitfalls.

-spence

By this reasoning, none should work in high-rises, or travel by airplane, there for 9/11 was not a terrorist act. :biglaugh:

Well, no.

The point of 9/11 wasn't to scare people from flying in planes, it was to hurt the US economy and influence our foreign policy.

The pirates are more akin to violent extortionists.

-spence

That is precisely my point. Just because it got national attention does not mean it actually affects us nationally.

affects

damn you... I'll give you that on.

you are funny, we should fish sometime, I just got back from the pluggin' at the beach for a while...this weather will cheer everyone up!

Mexican cartels, mafia
 

[quote=spence;681399]By this reasoning then gangs, the mafia etc... are all Terrorists.
Spence losely all criminal organizations are terrorists. They take over and control large pieces of territory in cities and the suburbs. They take over blocks at a time and protect them fiercely. Everyone is in fear of them. I think the only reason as a society we don't look at this as being as a certainty is because most gangs, mafia types prey on their own kind. All the Italians used to and many still do pay protection money in the big cities. But since its a way of life in a romantic way, as portrayed on TV and in movies, to some its as much a social issue as it is a criminal enterprise.
Next time I attend gang training I'll see if there is an empty seat for you.
Simple put, you can kill a terrorist.
Once probable cause was presented that the person was a terrorist they become enemy combatants. We didn't provide lawyers for all the Germans we took as POW's.
Its only a matter of time before they try killing people as a way of garnering more extortion from the owners of the vessels they have been hijacking.
Actually thier is a group in Somalia that is an organized terrorist organization that has been loosely linked to Al Queda. It would not surpirse me to hear that some of the money is funneled to them from the hijackings.

I'd love to. While in this forum, many people are nutbag, psycho republicans, outside of it I still respect you and see you all as peers.

Yea, I understand all of that.

The point is that "terrorize" is a verb and "terrorist" is a noun. Terrorist with a big "T" is something special that as a society has meaning. I can terrorize my neighbor all year long but that doesn't make me a "Terrorist" (note the big T). Same goes for the mafia unless you think we should firebomb Providence and waterboard Uncle Louie to know where the next hit is going down.

Hell, even think about some of what you read on this board. Brand someone a "Terrorist" (note the big T again) and all gloves are off. Kill them, torture them etc... with no evidence necessary.

Say someone might not be a "Terrorist" and you get a similar response. It's like a drug...

All this will result in is more security and dropping margins in the pirate business. There are diminishing returns here that are not very attractive. Just because they're pirates doesn't make them dumb, they'll have to really innovate their business model to continue to succeed.

It's quite possible that taking a US ship was a strategic mistake.

It's certainly possible but I've not heard anything that really offers any proof either. If there is it would make the legitimacy of any such military action much easier to justify.

-spence