Contessa Brewer = Idiot

[guido911]

MSNBC talking head hoped the Times Square car bomber was not a jihadist:

[waterboy]

I'm just glad he wasn't an Oklahoma Tea Partier. Or state legislator.

[we vs us]

Contessa Brewer = hottie.

Why is she an idiot for wishing it wasn't a jihadist?

[Hoss]

Contessa Brewer = hottie.

Why is she an idiot for wishing it wasn't a jihadist?

Because Gweed wants it to be so he can blame the POTUS for it.

Oh wait, he blames him for everything else....never mind.

[Breadburner]

Bloomberg sounded like an idiot as well.....

[guido911]

Contessa Brewer = hottie.

Why is she an idiot for wishing it wasn't a jihadist?

Because she, along with Bloomberg, and Rep. Nadler desperately wanted this attack to have come from an American so they can finally point to a teabagger (or some other right wing nutjob) as being violent because as of today that meme is as phony as your inquiry.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/05/03/democrat_rep_nadler_speculates_right-wing_behind_ny_car_bomb_attempt.html

Believe it or not, we are at war with radical Islamic terrorists. Those three bozos do not want to accept that fact.

[rwarn17588]

Because she, along with Bloomberg, and Rep. Nadler desperately wanted this attack to have come from an American

Well, the suspect *is* an American.

[guido911]

Well, the suspect *is* an American.

You are correct, but I gather you know what I meant.

[Conan71]

Well, the suspect *is* an American.

Legally, yes.  Pakistani-born.  His purpose in gaining American citizenship in the first place, no idea.

Somehow I don't think he would have fit into the Tea Party movement.

I think it's a shame we are too afraid to go ahead and strip citizenship and deport potential asshat terrorists who wind up on "no-fly" lists because we don't want to hurt their tender wittle feewings. 

[guido911]

This is what I am talking about:

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=Xd6Unz6USU

[Conan71]

This is what I am talking about:

http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/checker.aspx?v=Xd6Unz6USU

His little UFO rant, especially at the end reminded me of a recent thought I had about the irony of the cynics of the Viet Nam era who were saying "don't trust the government" now either directly running or having very good influence on the people who are running the country these days.

[we vs us]

Legally, yes.  Pakistani-born.  His purpose in gaining American citizenship in the first place, no idea.

Somehow I don't think he would have fit into the Tea Party movement.

I think it's a shame we are too afraid to go ahead and strip citizenship and deport potential asshat terrorists who wind up on "no-fly" lists because we don't want to hurt their tender wittle feewings. 

Well, if we'd used the no-fly list, we'd have ended up deporting Senator Kennedy among others.  

It's not about hurting anyone's feelings, despite what Rush/Glenn likes to say.  It's more about protecting Constitutional rights, etc.  But you know that.  It's not a new argument.  It seems like maybe you think some of those rights and protections are extraneous or perhaps not needed in certain cases.  That's actually the argument that Rush/Glenn don't want to get into, which is how much of our rights they actually value, and for whom.  

[Conan71]

Well, if we'd used the no-fly list, we'd have ended up deporting Senator Kennedy among others.  

It's not about hurting anyone's feelings, despite what Rush/Glenn likes to say.  It's more about protecting Constitutional rights, etc.  But you know that.  It's not a new argument.  It seems like maybe you think some of those rights and protections are extraneous or perhaps not needed in certain cases.  That's actually the argument that Rush/Glenn don't want to get into, which is how much of our rights they actually value, and for whom.  

You must listen to Rush and Glenn a whole lot more than I do, I have no clue what you are talking about. 

[guido911]

Well, if we'd used the no-fly list, we'd have ended up deporting Senator Kennedy among others.  

It's not about hurting anyone's feelings, despite what Rush/Glenn likes to say.  It's more about protecting Constitutional rights, etc.  But you know that.  It's not a new argument.  It seems like maybe you think some of those rights and protections are extraneous or perhaps not needed in certain cases.  That's actually the argument that Rush/Glenn don't want to get into, which is how much of our rights they actually value, and for whom.  

This man and perhaps as many as 200 other like him could not be reached for comment re: their constitutional rights:

[nathanm]

This man and perhaps as many as 200 other like him could not be reached for comment re: their constitutional rights:

That's pretty low, even for you, guido. If you can't make a case for doing something (or not doing something) without invoking the memory of dead people, it's a sign you need to come up with better arguments.