Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Rick Santorum vs. Reality

"As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else," Santorum said. "It's being drawn to Iraq and it's not being drawn to the U.S. You know what? I want to keep it on Iraq. I don't want the Eye to come back here to the United States."
says Rick Santorum, a man frothy with metaphor.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Wormtongue" would not quite capture my disdain for Santorum; he is too stupid and unclever for that. His bumbling and callous disregard for the lives of innocents is what really disgusts me.
So our government decides it is perfectly OK to act like the "pied piper" and draw murderous jihadists to that land, while the Iraqi populace pays the price in blood daily. Of course, as long as those Iraqis are dying, and therefore Americans are not dying, the Iraqis are expendable and the loss of their lives are justifiable. So we export terrorism to another land, savage their population, and congratulate ourselves: Hallelujah and Hosannas. What a heap of immoral bullcrap this is. Those who say that Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, et.al., are the real terrorists are absolutely correct. Shame on America.

ill show you mine when you show me yours said...

Lets deconstruct you little pathetic attempt to get the readers here to like you. First, at least have the balls to sign your name. Second, if the analogy is stupid and "unclever", why do you continue it? All you did was say that the analogy was good enough for you to use. Third, we did not draw off murderous jihadists to slaughter innocent Iraqis. Either the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terror, as your camp has been saying for years in which case these deaths are caused by the little civil war that is going on between the Shiites and Sunnis and has been going on since before the USA existed, or the war in Iraq is essential to the war on terror in which case we are causing the "murderous jihadists" to retreat. Next, if we leave Iraq right now, the civil war at least continues if not gets worse. Finally, we did not "export terrorism." Exporting terrorism is creating it in your country and sending it to others, i.e. Saudi Arabia. We are fighting terrorists. And while I grant you we are not fighting terrorists who had anything to do with 9/11, we are still fighting terrorists. So while I think it great that the government can't silence you, I as a private citizen can ask you to shut up. Not because I disagree with your inane mutterings, but because they are so full of poorly thought out repetitions of other people's ideas. Bring your own ideas next time and maybe there will be a real discussion.

Drew You Too said...

I have some ideas ill show you mine when you show me yours and none of them involve trying to antagonize someone. By the way, is it ill or I will? Ill certainly would seem more appropriate. As for exporting Terror we are not, that much ill was correct about. We are not Exporting Terror, WE are GENERATING and PROPOGATING it. The United States has been responsable for more acts of Terrorism in the last Decade than any other Nation on Earth (look up the Definition of Terrorism). Just because a bunch of Hypocrits in power choose to call our actions by another name (i.e. Pre-emptive Military Action, Spreading Democracy, Diplomatic Sanctions, etc.) doesn't change the nature of the actions or their intent. How's that for an "inane muttering"? Now I'm waiting patiently for some "real discussion".

Arfanser said...

"I have some ideas ill show you mine when you show me yours and none of them involve trying to antagonize someone."

So share your ideas, but everything you have written that I have read is antagonistic of someone. Just cause they dont read what you write doesnt make it antagonistic.

"The United States has been responsable for more acts of Terrorism in the last Decade than any other Nation on Earth (look up the Definition of Terrorism)."

So I did look up the definition of terrorism. Here is what I found, "1 : the unlawful use or threat of violence esp. against the state or the public as a politically motivated means of attack or coercion
2 : violent and intimidating gang activity." Since I am assuming you are not saying that the government is behind the gang wars, definition #1 is the one that best fits your argument. So your argument boils down to whether the actions are lawful or unlawful. Here is where your argument falls apart. The United States has been involved in two types of violence. The war in iraq and afganistan, and the violence done to individuals. The wars were done lawfully, and therefore do not meet the definition of terrorism. Even if I grant you the violence against individuals was unlawful, the violence doen to individuals, abughraib, guantanamo, etc. was not done as "a politically motivated means of attack or coercion." So even disagreeing with the war as I do, it does not fit the definition of terrorism.

"Just because a bunch of Hypocrits in power..."

Just thought I would highlight this in light of your, "My ideas dont antagonize anyone" stance.

"How's that for an "inane muttering"? "

I still find you pedantic and boring without an iota of original thought.

"Now I'm waiting patiently for some "real discussion". "

You misunderstood me. I said bring your own original ideas and we will discuss them. For me to present my ideas to you I would have to at least respect you. I am not saying that is impossible, I am just saying you haven't shown me anything yet that would make me want to do any more than antagonize you.

Arfanser said...

Oh, I forgot to say thanks for being patient. I have been a little busy these last few days, but I really wanted to get back to you. So thanks.

Anonymous said...

"Lets deconstruct you [sic] little pathetic attempt to get the readers here to like you. First, at least have the balls to sign your name."

I would deem your reponse as a success at vitriol but a failure at deconstruction. First, do a spell check next time; misspelling leaves a bad impression. Second, you committed the logical fallacy of Argumentum Ad Hominem by engaing in vituperation against the person rather than the argument. Your tone of your retort was irrelevant to the truth or falseness of my comment.
You have no manners towards strangers and do not know how to engage in polite discourse; you are one of those people who think it is clever to bully.
I consider myself fortunate for prefering to keep myself anonymous. If you stalked me to my e-mail address, I would considered it unwelcome spam.

Drew You Too said...

This will be THE ONLY time I attempt to reach out with reason to arfanser. You got the definition of Terrorism correct. What you don't seem to realize is that U.S. actions HAVE been determined to be criminal by every Nation EXCEPT the United States. In other words, We're Right so the rest of the World must be wrong. This is the same kind of thinking that put "God is my Co-Pilot" in charge and allows things like The Military Commisions Act to become reality. An estimated 675,000 Iraqis have died since the "Liberation of Iraq" began. That means that as a result of slightly over 3,000 U.S. Casualties incurred by an organization based and funded out of Afghanistan, our Nations response has been to exterminate pushing up on three quarters of a million people in a country that was not directly involved. If that kind of mortality rate and broodish bullying isn't designed to unlawfully coerce and incite fear, I don't know what is.