I'm Sorry, But I Refuse to Share Your Defeatest Attitude

[Tuckerfan]

I know that you think that if the US pulls out of Iraq before whatever vaguely defined "victory" Bush has in mind is achieved, terrorists will detonate an Iranian built nuke in NYC, thus killing untold number of puppies, kittens, baby beauty queens, and possibly Paris Hilton, some picoseconds after it's announced that we're pulling out of Iraq. And I know that you think if this happens, the first action of whomever might be President will be to surrender unconditionally, force all of us to obey Sharia Law, and then promptly to commit seppuku, along with the other branches of government, but I just can't buy that any of this is going to happen. Why? Because, unlike you, I have faith in the American people!!!!!

Let's just say that terrorist do manage to detonate a nuke on US soil. I can tell you exactly what's going to happen, no matter who is President: The entire world is going to collectively crap their pants and say, "Oh, shit. We're all fucked now." The various governments of the world will be falling all over themselves to try and prove that they had nothing to do with it, except, of course, for the nation who was so stupid as to be involved. They'll probably be able to get off a "neener neener neener" before their country is reduced to radioactive slag.

Oh, but you say, if there's a Democrat in the White House, they'll say we have to be nice to the poor misunderstood terrorists and surrender to them. No, sorry. If we somehow manage to elect Wimpy McPissypanties as President, and they try to pull that shit, I'm confident that someone (probably in the Secret Service or the Joint Chiefs) will sit the President down and show them that lovely little scene in JFK where Kevin Costner keeps saying, "Back, and to the left." over and over again. If President McPissypanties still says we need to send the terrorists a bunch of Rainbow MonkeyTM dolls to try and smooth things over, President McPissypanties will suddenly "be unable to perform their duties as President" and be replaced by the Vice President who will have a firm idea of what needs to be done. (Can you say, "Just witnessed an 'accidental' weapons discharge that incapacitated the President."? I knew you could.) What makes me say this? My faith in the American people.

But, what the hell, let's say that doesn't happen, either. And our government surrenders while a zillion Al Qaeda sleeper cells suddenly become active to take control of our country. While you might think that all of America is simply going to say, "Well, okay." I happen to know that every freakin' redneck in America is going to whip out almost as much firepower as the US military has and begin shooting anyone who looks vaguely middle eastern. (I know that plenty of non-rednecks will do this as well, but let's just stay with the rednecks, shall we?) How can I "know" such a thing, you ask? It's pretty fuckin' simple, really. I live in redneck central, I work with rednecks, I've even slept with rednecks, and I can tell you a good number of them are just itching to go all Rambo on somebody's ass. I can tell you that what you call "civilization" is a very thin veneer over the heart of the beast. (I live not too far from a town that just recently cut down the "lynching tree" which grew in the town square.) So, the islamofascists (or whatever you're calling those folks your paranoid delusions have convinced you are lurking at the gates) can "bring it on" all they want, they'll die like lemmings.

Oh, but what the hell, let's just say that the rednecks capitulate as well. Fine. Then it'll be just me versus the terrorists. Fuck it, I'll kill as many of them as I can, for as long as I can. It doesn't matter to me if I'm one among many going after them, or if I'm the only one. I know that sooner or later people will come to their senses and throw off the yoke of their oppressors. Why? Because, unlike you, I have faith in the American people.

So go ahead, sit in your comfy chair, scream at your TV all you want that anyone who thinks we should pull out of Iraq is going to doom us all, while you crap your pants, I'm not going to join you. Nope. Sorry. I refuse to live my life in fear, and I'm not going to brand anyone who disagrees with me a "traitor." You, however, can do that to your heart's content, thanks to people like me. (You know, the ones who have faith in the American people.)

P.S. You're welcome.

[tomndebb]

The clearest example I have seen why one should not post under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or rage.

Enthusiasm: 9.6
Coherence: 3.0

[PunditLisa]

I know this is a stupid question, but who is "you" in the OP?

[Philster]

You are taking some right wing talking points and turning that into the opinions of all the right and all the conservatives, then go about refuting all of it.

Brilliant.

Should have known that any jackass that doesn't 'get' Ferraris ain't gonna 'get' politics.

[Tuckerfan]

You are taking some right wing talking points and turning that into the opinions of all the right and all the conservatives, then go about refuting all of it.

Brilliant.

Should have known that any jackass that doesn't 'get' Ferraris ain't gonna 'get' politics.
Okay, Einstein, show me where I said that everyone on the right feels this way.

Oh, and I "get" Ferrari's, I just don't like most of them.

[Squink]

Enthusiasm: 9.6
Coherence: 3.0Goddamn Oakminster socks.
Will we never be free of them?

[Duke of Rat]

The rednecks got my back, I'll sleep well now.

[Polycarp]

"You cannot enslave a free man. The most you can do is to get him drunk."
-- Some wag at a Mañana Literary Society party, shortly after Heinlein wrote the lines it parodies.

[jali]

Tuckerfan - are you serving in Iraq right now?

[silenus]

I think somebody forgot to take their meds this morning. Either that, or their radio was stuck on Rush Limburger. Although I do agree with paragraphs 2, 4, and 7.

[Hampshire]

I think some of these "rednecks" seriously picture the day when they'll be making their last stand in their homes ala Ralphie Parker with his Red Ryder, picking off terrorists from their back porch as they climb over their white picket fences dressed in sheets and turbans holding machetes in their mouths.

[plnnr]

I just want to know who Wimpy McPissypants' running mate is ... I want to get a head start on printing the bumperstickers.

[Jodi]

Personally, I would really appreciate it if people could tag their threads "ATAI" (Another Thread About Iraq) or "ATAB" (Another Thread About Bush") or "ATAR" (Another Thread About Religion") so that I'd know which ones not to bother to click open.

Thanks ever so.

[Philster]

Why don't you narrow down who 'you' is in your rant?

If you were addressing a few narrow-minded pompous a-holes that don't actually represent everyone, me thinks you'd call them by name. Okay, we get the whole Tuckerfan refutes-some-right-wing-talking-points, but address your rant towards >insert who you are pitting<.

[Liberal]

Personally, I would really appreciate it if people could tag their threads "ATAI" (Another Thread About Iraq) or "ATAB" (Another Thread About Bush") or "ATAR" (Another Thread About Religion") so that I'd know which ones not to bother to click open.

Thanks ever so.If you hover your mouse pointer over the thread title, you can read a few lines of the OP. You'd have seen both "Iraq" and "Bush" without clicking.

[Omegaman]

Goddamn Oakminster socks.
Will we never be free of them?

Where is that guy ? I miss his unabashed ratings and freewheeling use of "fuckwit". :cool:

[Little Nemo]

I think Tucker may be referring to this thread. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=419779) Or maybe some of the opinions expressed in this one (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=418361).

[Larry Borgia]

As someone who's likely to be killed if AQ gets a nuke, I agree with the OP. Al qaeda simply doesn't pose an existential threat to the U.S. If we abandon Iraq, the threat they pose won't get any worse than it is now.

[Jodi]

If you hover your mouse pointer over the thread title, you can read a few lines of the OP. You'd have seen both "Iraq" and "Bush" without clicking.

I realize. But sometimes I click and open without hovering first, when there's no reason to think the thread is related to the usual dead horses. I don't really expect people to code their tiresome threads with "Warning! Tiresome!" But it would be nice.

[Revtim]

Personally, I would really appreciate it if people could tag their threads "ATAI" (Another Thread About Iraq) or "ATAB" (Another Thread About Bush") or "ATAR" (Another Thread About Religion") so that I'd know which ones not to bother to click open.

Thanks ever so.I generally report threads like this one that have poor titles that do not describe the thread properly. The mods often add some more description like (re:Iraq pullout) to the title. But, even though the other forums will correct these titles pretty consistently, often the pit mods seems to frequently ignore these requests.

[Tuckerfan]

Why don't you narrow down who 'you' is in your rant?

If you were addressing a few narrow-minded pompous a-holes that don't actually represent everyone, me thinks you'd call them by name. Okay, we get the whole Tuckerfan refutes-some-right-wing-talking-points, but address your rant towards >insert who you are pitting<.
Sure, I'll narrow it down, when you can prove that I've painted everyone who is a Republican/conservative (they're not necessarily the same thing, BTW) with a broadbrush, and that I've claimed that all of them are a bunch of defeatist pricks who think we're all doomed unless we blindly follow the Chimp-in-Chief.

Of course, I have a feeling that if I were to actually name one specific individual (which I could) as being the inspiration for this rant, you'd ignore that and claim that I was stating that everyone who's a Republican/conservative (of which this person claims to be neither) thought the same as them.

jali, no I'm not serving in Iraq, nor do I think that the folks serving in Iraq are doing a pisspoor job. Their Chimp-in-Chief, however, is another story.

Hampshire, they do. A former coworker of mine's father and uncles (To name but one example.) have been buying up weapons and ammo by the assload since the 70s, all to prepare "for the coming race war." Give folks like that an excuse, and they'll happily shoot anyone slightly browner than they are.

[Giraffe]

And our government surrenders while a zillion Al Qaeda sleeper cells suddenly become active to take control of our country. While you might think that all of America is simply going to say, "Well, okay." I happen to know that every freakin' redneck in America is going to whip out almost as much firepower as the US military has and begin shooting anyone who looks vaguely middle eastern.Here's where you're wrong. Surely we'll greet them as liberators.

[Menocchio]

I liked the OP.

I have heard plenty of right-wingers who feel that AQ is a threat to the actual existence of the US, or at least would be if we left Iraq.

I disagree, for reasons outlined in the OP.

[LilShieste]

I liked the OP.

I have heard plenty of right-wingers who feel that AQ is a threat to the actual existence of the US, or at least would be if we left Iraq.

I disagree, for reasons outlined in the OP.
Seconded. These talking points are ones that are shared with us by: our president, our vice-president, several presidential candidates, and of course many talking heads.

I never got the impression that Tuckerfan was lumping all conservatives/republicans into this line of thinking.


LilShieste

[John Mace]

Let's just say that terrorist do manage to detonate a nuke on US soil. I can tell you exactly what's going to happen, no matter who is President: The entire world is going to collectively crap their pants and say, "Oh, shit. We're all fucked now." The various governments of the world will be falling all over themselves to try and prove that they had nothing to do with it, except, of course, for the nation who was so stupid as to be involved. They'll probably be able to get off a "neener neener neener" before their country is reduced to radioactive slag.

Oh, but you say, if there's a Democrat in the White House, they'll say we have to be nice to the poor misunderstood terrorists and surrender to them. No, sorry. If we somehow manage to elect Wimpy McPissypanties as President, and they try to pull that shit, I'm confident that someone (probably in the Secret Service or the Joint Chiefs) will sit the President down and show them that lovely little scene in JFK where Kevin Costner keeps saying, "Back, and to the left." over and over again. If President McPissypanties still says we need to send the terrorists a bunch of Rainbow MonkeyTM dolls to try and smooth things over, President McPissypanties will suddenly "be unable to perform their duties as President" and be replaced by the Vice President who will have a firm idea of what needs to be done. (Can you say, "Just witnessed an 'accidental' weapons discharge that incapacitated the President."? I knew you could.) What makes me say this? My faith in the American people.
I don't hear a lot of talk about how the righties and lefties would react differently after such an attack. What I usually hear is what they would do differently to prevent such an attack from happening in the first place. You can disagree about which side is correct, but I think you're focusing on the wrong angle here.

And the idea that a country might supply nukes to terrorists and then stick their tongues out at us afterwards just so we know it was them is.... well, just so stupid I don't know what to say.

[Tuckerfan]

I don't hear a lot of talk about how the righties and lefties would react differently after such an attack. What I usually hear is what they would do differently to prevent such an attack from happening in the first place. You can disagree about which side is correct, but I think you're focusing on the wrong angle here. Obviously, we don't move in the same circles.

And the idea that a country might supply nukes to terrorists and then stick their tongues out at us afterwards just so we know it was them is.... well, just so stupid I don't know what to say.
Admittedly a bit of hyperbole on my part, but not really all that different from what the Taliban did after 9/11. If you'll recall, they first denied having anything to do with Osama, and then threatened to unleash him if we went after them.

[kidchameleon]

You are a pretentious ass wipe. Get yourself fucking stuffed.

[Tuckerfan]

You are a pretentious ass wipe. Get yourself fucking stuffed.
Nice refutation there, kidchameleon. You showed up, posted a bunch of cites from unbiased sources which completely proved that I was talking out of my ass, and then politely suggested that I rethink my position. Oh, wait. No you didn't. You just did a drive-by insult before fleeing.

I'll let you in on a little secret: If Shrub were to suggest that we were going to put 500K combat troops on the ground in Iraq, I wouldn't have a problem with that, since that might actually work, whereas the present "surge" is certain to yield nothing more than more dead people. Admittedly, it's not my preferred solution, but given that that's better than what we have now, I wouldn't bitch about it.

[kidchameleon]

Nice refutation there, kidchameleon. You showed up, posted a bunch of cites from unbiased sources which completely proved that I was talking out of my ass, and then politely suggested that I rethink my position. Oh, wait. No you didn't. You just did a drive-by insult before fleeing.

I wasn't talking about you. The you in my post was referring to the yous that are pretentious ass wipes who deserve to get fucking stuffed.

[Cowboy8467]

As someone who's likely to be killed if AQ gets a nuke, I agree with the OP. Al qaeda simply doesn't pose an existential threat to the U.S. If we abandon Iraq, the threat they pose won't get any worse than it is now.


Well that is certainly comforting. :eek:

[John Mace]

Obviously, we don't move in the same circles.
Most of my friends are pretty hard-core Republicans who supported the Iraq war. But they're not Texans. :)

Admittedly a bit of hyperbole on my part, but not really all that different from what the Taliban did after 9/11. If you'll recall, they first denied having anything to do with Osama, and then threatened to unleash him if we went after them.
I recall the first part but not the second. And that's not supported by the timeline outlined in wikipedia:

The Taliban refused to directly speak to Bush, stating that talking with a non-Muslim political leader would be an insult to Islam. But they made statements through their embassy in Pakistan: the Taliban rejected the ultimatum on September 21, 2001, saying there was no evidence in their possession linking bin Laden to the September 11 attacks. On September 22, 2001 the United Arab Emirates and later Saudi Arabia withdrew their recognition of the Taliban as the legal government of Afghanistan, leaving neighboring Pakistan as the only remaining country with diplomatic ties. On October 4, 2001 it is believed that the Taliban covertly offered to turn bin Laden over to Pakistan for trial in an international tribunal that operated according to Islamic Sharia law.[8] Pakistan is believed to have rejected the offer.

Moderates within the Taliban allegedly met with American embassy officials in Pakistan in mid-October to work out a way to convince Mullah Muhammed Omar to turn bin Laden over to the U.S. and avoid its impending retaliation. President Bush rejected these offers made by the Taliban as insincere. On October 7, 2001, before the onset of military operations, the Taliban made an open offer to try bin Laden in Afghanistan in an Islamic court.[9] This counteroffer was immediately rejected by the U.S. as insufficient. It was not until October 14, 2001, seven days after war had broken out, that the Taliban openly offered to hand bin Laden over to a third country for trial, but only if they were given evidence of bin Laden's involvement in 9/11.[10]
I think your memory is faulty.

[Duke of Rat]

Most of my friends are pretty hard-core Republicans who supported the Iraq war. But they're not Texans. :)




What the fuck do Texans have to do with it?

[lowbrass]

If we somehow manage to elect Wimpy McPissypanties as President
Hey, c'mon - I like Kucinich. ;)

[Tuckerfan]

I wasn't talking about you. The you in my post was referring to the yous that are pretentious ass wipes who deserve to get fucking stuffed.
IOW, you're one of the defeatest pricks who thinks that if we pull out of Iraq now (or at any time other than when the Chimp-in-Chief says it's okay to), we'll all be dead within a fortnight 'cuz the terrarists will have taken over, but you're too chickenshit to say so.

John Mace, actually, the person who inspired the OP was born in Berkley and currently cowers in San Jose. Oh, and my memory may be faulty, but I wasn't talking about a back channel declaration that the Taleban had made, but a public pronouncement. I'm sure you'll agree that it's entirely possible that the Taleban would publicly say one thing and do another? (As would we, nor does that prove I was right about what the Taleban said.) You would agree, however, that the Taleban's requests for evidence and offers to try Osama in an Islamic court were less than genuine, would you not? Do you have any reason to believe that if, for example, Iran were to give Osama a nuke, which he then detonated in the US, that the Iranians would act any different than the Taleban did when we demanded that Osama be turned over to us?

[kidchameleon]

IOW, you're one of the defeatest pricks who thinks that if we pull out of Iraq now (or at any time other than when the Chimp-in-Chief says it's okay to), we'll all be dead within a fortnight 'cuz the terrarists will have taken over, but you're too chickenshit to say so.

No, I was commenting on your[Tuckerfan's] rediculous stance over your[Tuckerfan's] vague use of 'you[unspecified boogieman/men]' in the OP.

Of course, the fact that you act in a Bush-like manner when criticized really says something.

I think pulling out now is a bad idea because of the escellation of warfare that will occur in Iraq resulting in increased civilian deaths. Iraq is almost insignificant compared to our presence on the Arabian peninsula as far as AQ is concerned, IME.

[Fear Itself]

I think pulling out now is a bad idea because of the escellation of warfare that will occur in Iraq resulting in increased civilian deaths. And what makes you think this will not occur if we stay for another 2 years, or 5 years, or 50 years? If the greatest military power in the world is incapable of qwelling sectarian violence, what makes you think the much less well trained and equipped Iraqi forces have any more chance of achieving what has eluded our forces?

[lowbrass]

defeat, defeater, defeatest. Does that mean the most defeat? ;)

[AHunter3]

a) I agree with the general sentiment of the OP, and given a sufficient supply of decent amber beer or some añejo tequila could have written it myself.

b) And if the OP was indeed posting while intoxicated, you gotta admire anyone who can repeatedly render McPissypanties sans typos while under the influence.

[NurseCarmen]

My reading in the OP was that the "you" was actually 28% of Americans.

tied with Carter for the all-time low!

[Tuckerfan]

No, I was commenting on your[Tuckerfan's] rediculous stance over your[Tuckerfan's] vague use of 'you[unspecified boogieman/men]' in the OP.Riiiiight. Of course, were I reacting to something a specific poster here had said, I'd have no problem naming them (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=385433), were it inspired strictly by something the Chimp in Chief (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=411379) said, I'd have no problem naming him, and while it was a specific individual who inspired this thread, they don't post here, plus they were just parroting shit they'd picked up from innumerable sources (if you go to rantburg, you can probably find a compendium of their sources, footnoted, cited, crossreferenced, indexed, annotated, hyperlinked, and backed up with paranoid ravings from people of both parties), so tell me, how the fuck I could make a readable OP if I listed all that in place of "you"?

Of course, the fact that you act in a Bush-like manner when criticized really says something.Funny, I don't remember any exchanges like this happening:

Me: I have giant flaming testicles.

You: Cite that you have giant flaming testicles.

Me: I never said that I had giant flaming testicles.

You: Yes you did, right up there.

Me: You're taking my words out of context and twisting them.

Find where I did that and you'll have a point.

I think pulling out now is a bad idea because of the escellation of warfare that will occur in Iraq resulting in increased civilian deaths.Let's see here, the current estimate of civilian deaths since the war began is up to 650K, and so far, it looks like surge or no surge we're on a pace to continue the same rate of civilian deaths. I don't like the idea of innocent people dying (as surely most of them in Iraq are), but I don't see where we've done much good at stopping anything. Put 500K combat troops in Iraq, and we most likely will see a rapid decline in civilian deaths, but where the fuck are we going to get the troops? Maybe ol' Georgie boy can whip them out of his ass? Iraq is almost insignificant compared to our presence on the Arabian peninsula as far as AQ is concerned, IME.Meh, if they weren't bitching about us being in the Mid-East, they'd find some other reason to complain. Whackjobs always find a reason to bitch, no matter how much you try to appease them.

AHunter3, the only thing I'm intoxicated on is the rabid, allnight nihilism of the Church of the SubGeniusTM! Kill "Bob" or kill me!

NurseCarmen, shhhh! You'll get us on some kind of federal watch list for implying such a thing. Even though you're completely right.

[Ludovic]

defeat, defeater, defeatest. Does that mean the most defeat? ;)Only an athiest would nitpick like that!

[Der Trihs]

I don't hear a lot of talk about how the righties and lefties would react differently after such an attack. Well, I hear it fairly often; I hear people say that Gore or any other Democrat would have done nothing about 9-11, except perhaps lobbed a missle somewhere and complained. Of course, these are the same sort of people who claim the CIA is stuffed full of Democrats who are sabotaging the war in Iraq in order to make Bush look bad.

[Duke of Rat]

Well, I hear it fairly often; I hear people say that Gore or any other Democrat would have done nothing about 9-11, except perhaps lobbed a missle somewhere and complained. Of course, these are the same sort of people who claim the CIA is stuffed full of Democrats who are sabotaging the war in Iraq in order to make Bush look bad.

Which ones claim that the Secret Service will stage a coup on any president who doesn't retaliate with nuclear slag?

[Autolycus]

Me: I have giant flaming testicles
You: Cite that you have giant flaming testicles.


Goodness gracious GREAT balls of fire!

[Tuckerfan]

Which ones claim that the Secret Service will stage a coup on any president who doesn't retaliate with nuclear slag?
Probably the same ones who have a President who thinks that sending terrorists Rainbow MonkeyTM dolls is a good idea. (i.e. None.)

[John Mace]

Oh, and my memory may be faulty, but I wasn't talking about a back channel declaration that the Taleban had made, but a public pronouncement.
So, what public announcement did the Taliban make that you were referring to?

I'm sure you'll agree that it's entirely possible that the Taleban would publicly say one thing and do another? (As would we, nor does that prove I was right about what the Taleban said.) You would agree, however, that the Taleban's requests for evidence and offers to try Osama in an Islamic court were less than genuine, would you not?
Probably so. But that's still exactly what you said all the other governments (those not involved) would be saying in the OP. So it doesn't distinguish the Taliban in any way.

Do you have any reason to believe that if, for example, Iran were to give Osama a nuke, which he then detonated in the US, that the Iranians would act any different than the Taleban did when we demanded that Osama be turned over to us?
I suspect they would, but how is that saying "neener neener neener"? Had we accused Canada of being involved, they would also claim that they had nothing to do with it.

[Tuckerfan]

So, what public announcement did the Taliban make that you were referring to?That they'd unleash Osama on us.
Probably so. But that's still exactly what you said all the other governments (those not involved) would be saying in the OP. So it doesn't distinguish the Taliban in any way.Somehow, I don't think that on 9/11 the Taliban bothered to call the White House and say that they were genuinely sorry such a fate had befallen us and that if there was anything they could do to help for us to just ask.
I suspect they would, but how is that saying "neener neener neener"? Had we accused Canada of being involved, they would also claim that they had nothing to do with it.Canada would also volunteer to allow us to inspect their facilities unconditionally and go out of their way to make the inspection easy. Do you really think Iran would do the same kind of thing if they'd given Osama & Co a nuke to use against us?

[Frank]

Canada would also volunteer to allow us to inspect their facilities unconditionally and go out of their way to make the inspection easy.
:dubious:

[Zoe]

Tuckerfan: I happen to know that every freakin' redneck in America is going to whip out almost as much firepower as the US military has and begin shooting anyone who looks vaguely middle eastern. (I know that plenty of non-rednecks will do this as well, but let's just stay with the rednecks, shall we?) How can I "know" such a thing, you ask? It's pretty fuckin' simple, really. I live in redneck central...

Not really. Gallatin is on the outskirts of Nashville which voted liberal in the 2004 Presidential election. I believe that Nashville also voted in support of Democrat Harold Ford in the Tennessee Senate race in 2006. Tennessee's governor, a Democrat, won reelection by a huge majority.

Further, Nashville has one of the highest concentrations of Iraqis outside of Iraq itself. Three years ago it was cool to witness the Iraqi election taking place in my own neighborhood.

If you want to live in "redneck central," you are in the wrong place. You need to get away from work more. Seriously.

You have nothing to fear but beer itself.

[Tuckerfan]

Not really. Gallatin is on the outskirts of Nashville which voted liberal in the 2004 Presidential election. I believe that Nashville also voted in support of Democrat Harold Ford in the Tennessee Senate race in 2006. Tennessee's governor, a Democrat, won reelection by a huge majority.

Further, Nashville has one of the highest concentrations of Iraqis outside of Iraq itself. Three years ago it was cool to witness the Iraqi election taking place in my own neighborhood.

If you want to live in "redneck central," you are in the wrong place. You need to get away from work more. Seriously.

You have nothing to fear but beer itself.
Gallatin's a lot closer (at least philosophically if not geographically) to Lafayette, where men are men and sheep are nervous.

Frank, the Canucks are our buddies, and I'm sure we wouldn't bother asking them to allow us to inspect their facilities, since we'd know damn good and well the nuclear material couldn't have come from there, but if we did ask, I'm sure that they'd be cool with it. After all, they happily put up with a bunch of us surly 'Merkins on 9/11.

[Larry Borgia]

Well that is certainly comforting. :eek:Don't get me wrong. There are a lot of things the U.S. should be doing to fight terrorism, and it's doing almost none of those. The very first thing we should be doing is going after loose nukes as best we can, using diplomacy and pressure in the Former USSR, Pakistan and other places. Reforms in intelligence and counter-terrorism wouldn't hurt too. Neither of the major parties seems to be making counter-terror a priority, for reasons that escape me. The stupid war is only making things worse.

[Brainiac4]

Frank, the Canucks are our buddies, and I'm sure we wouldn't bother asking them to allow us to inspect their facilities, since we'd know damn good and well the nuclear material couldn't have come from there, but if we did ask, I'm sure that they'd be cool with it. After all, they happily put up with a bunch of us surly 'Merkins on 9/11.
Back in late 2001 or early 2002, before Bush squandered the goodwill of the ENTIRE FUCKING PLANET to pursue his desire to wage war in Iraq, I think most other nations would have allowed America to inspect their top-secret facilities if a nuclear weapon had been detonated in America.

These days, not so much. I get the impression our national image has been somewhat tarnished by our four-year fuckup in Iraq.