I Believe I Found a Dangerous Terrorist At the Airport

[Whip]

I agree with much of what you just said.

 

My thoughts are that the DHS Doc is designed to do just what it has done, divide you and me. It was and is an unnecessary exercise to do nothing more than force good folks like me and you to choose sides. Politicians have been using this technique for thousands of years.

 

I have not and will not let a POS doc written by mallet heads to upset me or think less of my fellow Americans because of a bumper sticker, or the opposition to abortion. I known you say it's only 1% that this POS is talking about, but there will be some nit wits that have read or heard parts of this POS that will think every time they pull up to a red light next to a car with a Ron Paul bumper sticker and a gun rack........and WWJD sign in there window is gonna think there next to TM.

 

That is what the DHS and the POS politicians are tryin to accomplish with this "report".

 

You may not believe me.........but I bet I'm right.

 

 

My only hope is that enough folks see through this BS, cause if it works it will just lead to more of the same.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Boone60]

My thoughts are that the DHS Doc is designed to do just what it has done, divide you and me. It was and is an unnecessary exercise to do nothing more than force good folks like me and you to choose sides. Politicians have been using this technique for thousands of years.

 

 

The report was not meant for public review as stated it was unclassified for official use only and for law enforcement services. Not to be released to the public.

[Lawman]

My thoughts are that the DHS Doc is designed to do just what it has done, divide you and me. It was and is an unnecessary exercise to do nothing more than force good folks like me and you to choose sides. Politicians have been using this technique for thousands of years.

 

 

The report was not meant for public review as stated it was unclassified for official use only and for law enforcement services. Not to be released to the public.

 

I would love to see some high ranking DHS official look straight into the camera and tell America they did not expect this report to be made public.. :rofl:

[Whip]

I thought it was sent to law enforcement agencies throughout the nation??????

 

 

They were supposed to keep it a secret?????

 

.....all of them?????

 

 

Come on..........

[Mike]

Speaking as someone who's been in and around federal law enforcement for thirty-plus years, I guess my initial reaction was this: This is the sort of useless crap that those "in the field" are used to seeing . . . and ignoring . . . on a regular basis. Someone was told to present a "study," a "white paper," or a "risk assessment" and this is pretty much what you always see. Here are some of the assessment's earth-shaking conclusions:

 

-"The DHS . . . has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence," and

 

-"Threats from white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical."

 

Translation from government-speak: "We don't really know of any threats, but those KKK guys are saying the same crazy crap they've been saying since before Lincoln was President. We could have told this to anyone who was interested in listening in one sentence, but we had to produce a written 'assessment' that sounded like we really know something."

 

There is at least one other possibility, one that I suggest is more likely: that is, that some credible right-wing extremist threats exist. However, if folks in the business have developed information about those threats, you can bet your sweet bippy that they are classified and are the subject of ongoing investigations.

 

What I would suggest, though, is that this report is not necessarily a reflection of the current (or past) Administration's world view. It is, more likely, the creation of some mid-level bureaucrats who have to justify their continuing existence by cranking out this sort of thing on a regular basis. A while back it was left-wing computer geeks. This time around it's right-wing gun owners.

 

What I will tell you is this--there is in the bureaucracy of the federal government an enormous disconnect from the experiences of the common American. No, it's not everybody. There are many exceptionally bright and perceptive folks working for Mama G.

 

But many others view most Americans as dullards, and they have zero understanding or appreciation for the struggles, values, and viewpoints of ordinary people. People like this confuse concern over day-to-day issues that affect most of us with dangerous tendencies ("Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures."). They find themselves incapable of discerning where disagreement with government policies ends and calls for violence begin ("[R]ightwing extremist groups’ frustration over a perceived lack of government action on illegal immigration has the potential to incite individuals or small groups toward violence."). And they mistake the widespread concern of millions over infringement on their Constitutional rights with preparations for violent revolt ("Many rightwing extremist groups perceive recent gun control legislation as a threat to their right to bear arms and in response have increased weapons and ammunition stockpiling.").

 

If you have a problem with the report, I really don't think you should be focusing on whether it reflects some deep-seated paranoia of the current occupant of the White House. You should be focusing on the fact that it represents the vacuous thinking, and perhaps too-slim access to credible information, of some folks who are entrusted with protecting our domestic security.

 

The pocket-protector, granola-eating crowd should have been pissed when they wrote the earlier assessment, indicating that pencil-necked geeks were likely cyber-terrorists. Now it's the turn of those of us who tilt slightly to the right. That's not to say you shouldn't be pissed, too.

[Polo]

My thoughts are that the DHS Doc is designed to do just what it has done, divide you and me. It was and is an unnecessary exercise to do nothing more than force good folks like me and you to choose sides. Politicians have been using this technique for thousands of years.

 

 

The report was not meant for public review as stated it was unclassified for official use only and for law enforcement services. Not to be released to the public.

 

How is something so confidential so readily available to people like us? No, I don't believe this wasn't meant to be read by the masses and create disinformation and dissention.

[Lawman]

Translation from government-speak: "We don't really know of any threats, but those KKK guys are saying the same crazy crap they've been saying since before Lincoln was President. We could have told this to anyone who was interested in listening in one sentence, but we had to produce a written 'assessment' that sounded like we really know something."

 

 

And that boys and girls pretty well summarizes how big government works regardless of which party is in office...

[leikam]

This thread reminds me of the 11 warning signs that kids might be prone to extreme violence like going on a shooting spree at school. They reflect common themes based on review of past incidents but aren't necessarily predictive in any particular case. Having some of the signs, even most of them, doesn't necessarily mean that a person is about to commit an act of violence. It's just that the next school shooting will probably involve somebody who exhibited the warning signs.

 

When I was studying abnormal psychology, I recall being advised that as we went through the various conditions, we would be tempted to diagnose ourselves, our classmates, friends and family. That's because psychological disorders are distortions of human psychology rather than entirely foreign patterns of thought. I think a little of that is going on here and others are reacting to the assumption that it is.

 

The categories apparently listed in this report (which I haven't read) are likewise general patterns that a lot of people match so I wouldn't worry about somebody who fell into a few of them. But if somebody matches every one of them, that person might warrant a closer look: they're heavily armed, passionate and in a comparatively marginal social position. Maybe they're harmless, but maybe not. That's how psychological profiling works: it gives you guidance about the sort of person you're looking for, not a list of enemies.

[George Brown]

That's how psychological profiling works: it gives you guidance about the sort of person you're looking for, not a list of enemies.

 

At the risk of being put on the list, I must say that I am not sure that everyone in authority who sees this list is a trained enough to know the difference!

[leikam]

Hence the importance of robust civil liberties. I wonder if the ACLU will get a bump in membership because of this?

[Whip]

Hence the importance of robust civil liberties. I wonder if the ACLU will get a bump in membership because of this?

 

Has the ACLU taken a stand yet?????

[DavidEBSmith]

What I will tell you is this--there is in the bureaucracy of the federal government an enormous disconnect from the experiences of the common American. No, it's not everybody. There are many exceptionally bright and perceptive folks working for Mama G.

 

But many others view most Americans as dullards, and they have zero understanding or appreciation for the struggles, values, and viewpoints of ordinary people. People like this confuse concern over day-to-day issues that affect most of us with dangerous tendencies ("Rightwing extremist chatter on the Internet continues to focus on the economy, the perceived loss of U.S. jobs in the manufacturing and construction sectors, and home foreclosures."). They find themselves incapable of discerning where disagreement with government policies ends and calls for violence begin ("[R]ightwing extremist groups’ frustration over a perceived lack of government action on illegal immigration has the potential to incite individuals or small groups toward violence."). And they mistake the widespread concern of millions over infringement on their Constitutional rights with preparations for violent revolt ("Many rightwing extremist groups perceive recent gun control legislation as a threat to their right to bear arms and in response have increased weapons and ammunition stockpiling.").

 

So how can I get a job in the Federal bureaucracy and be isolated from the struggles, values, and viewpoints of ordinary people? Because in my bureaucratic government job, I'm dealing on a daily basis with construction sites that have been abandoned because the housing market has crashed, people who are being evicted because their landlords can't pay the mortgage, and condo buildings that are sitting vacant and becoming drug houses because the developers engaged in massive mortgage fraud. And in the meantime, we've already had people laid off, the pension fund is going broke, and the water cooler talk is a debate over whether we're going to be required to take more unpaid furlough days, whether we'll be required to go to a 4-day work week (at 80% pay), whether there will be another round of layoffs, or whether our entire department will be outsourced to the private sector, and who will get it if there are layoffs.

 

There is a certain irony in saying that some Feds view most Americans as dullards. Don't ask what our opinion is of you Feds.

[DavidEBSmith]

Has the ACLU taken a stand yet?????

 

The current issues on the ACLU's website are the NSA's actual wiretapping of U.S. citizens, an actual incident in which a sheriff's deputy "chok[ed] and tackl[ed] a black female student and threaten[ed] to shoot the 30 students on the bus between their eyes", some Tennessee school districts that are actually blocking students from getting information on gay & lesbian issues, and the actual overcrowding of mentally ill inmates in the LA County Jail. I don't think they've gotten around to the imaginary or hypothetical issues yet.

[Boone60]

How is something so confidential so readily available to people like us?.

 

Just like a certain CIA agents name as leaked, somebody did what they weren't supposed to do.

 

No, I don't believe this wasn't meant to be read by the masses and create disinformation and dissention.

 

I don't believe that the authors of this report, wrote it to cause disinformation or dissention in the public.

[smiller]

I don't think they've gotten around to the imaginary or hypothetical issues yet.

Un-freakin' believable. I sure hope this helps him get his listeners good and frothed up, otherwise it might end up being a waste of people's time and money.

 

[David]

What I wish for (and this is not directed at you, Seth) is to be able to start a thread and get serious discussion of the issue itself rather than the tiresome pitting of far right wing and far left wing.

 

As I mentioned before, I don't listen to any talk radio, I read no blogs, and it makes me sigh when people jump into threads and pull them to the extreme right or left.

 

Some threads around here have terrific discussions in them--this isn't one of them.

[Polo]

How is something so confidential so readily available to people like us?.

 

Just like a certain CIA agents name as leaked, somebody did what they weren't supposed to do.

 

You mean that it wasn't intentional?

 

No, I don't believe this wasn't meant to be read by the masses and create disinformation and dissention.

 

I don't believe that the authors of this report, wrote it to cause disinformation or dissention in the public.

 

If you do not think it was intentionally leaked, then your point of view would have merit. My comment was based on the premise that the document was either released, or leaked under a guise of confidentiality.

 

I said originally that it seemed like a mere justification of functions. I still am of the opinion that it produced more questions than answers. Yet if there actually was never an expectation that it would be read by people outside the law enforcement arena, I don't see how this would help them prevent terrorism. It's too broad.

 

[DaveTheAffable]

I think the problem for some when they read the document is a sense of disconnect... and unfairness. Of course there are extremist groups. But the document addresses what the BELIEFS of the individuals are.

 

My wife and I have supported a pro life pregnancy clinic in our town for a few years now. We donate clothes, help with babysitting.

 

We've never marched on planned parent hood, don't seek out pro abortion doctors for ridicule. We just try to support young women who are in crisis pregnancy and make a choice to keep their babies.

 

Here comes a document that thinks my wife and I have a view that is EXTREMIST, and we should be watched out for?

 

But at work I cannot talk about the Abu Sayif (a specific group) muslim extremists who beheaded my friend Graham Burnham, and shot his wife Gracia in the Phillipines because he was a christian missionary?

 

Why? I'm told it's racist... hate mongering... and devisive... and muslims might be offended... I mean the NERVE of those Burnhams!

 

But very soon, someone in my government will be watching my wife and I because we help young women with unplanned pregnancies?

 

Something is very wrong in America. Some see it. Some don't.

[Mike]

The fact is that it is exceedingly difficult to predict who will actually commit acts of violence. The overwhelming majority of individuals who outwardly express dismay with or distrust of government never contemplate killing. Conversely, in most cases of mass or serial murder, the common reaction among acquaintances is more along the lines of "Gosh, I never would have thought that gentle, quiet Bob would ever do something like that."

 

So, in the aftermath we try to dissect the miscreant's personality: he liked cats, he watched MSNBC, and he was a former parking enforcement officer. The media and pseudo-experts then try to extrapolate these known characteristics into a theory of how those who meet these criteria are a "ticking time bomb": People with an undue affection for cats tend to admire their predatory instincts and have difficulty relating to humans or to the suffering of their cats' mouse-victims; an obsession with MSNBC often indicates a single-minded focus on business news, resulting in deep resentment toward those who thrive financially; and parking enforcement officers often suffer from a delusional I-am-God complex, but feel fettered by the fact that they are not allowed to respond to bellicose parking violators with deadly force.

 

So, the media--and in this case, pseudo-experts--develop profiles of those with disturbing characteristics, individuals who may turn to mass violence. Hence, Millie the Meter Maid, who spends eight hours cheerfully dispensing parking tickets, then goes home to feed her cat and watch TV to see what might be happening to her 401(k), becomes branded as a potential terrorist. She is a "killing machine," waiting to be unleashed, and it will only take the slightest provocation to flip the switch.

 

The thought process is all bass-ackwards, but it serves to keep a lot of people employed.

[David]

I wonder if sometimes these reports are issued in order to be able to say, after an event occurred, that we were warned and ignored it. Especially when it's so vaguely defined as this.

 

It's sort of like a psychic saying "there's going to be a road bomb in Iraq this month. You all be careful out there."

[Lets_Play_Two]

I wonder if sometimes these reports are issued in order to be able to say, after an event occurred, that we were warned and ignored it. Especially when it's so vaguely defined as this.

 

It's sort of like a psychic saying "there's going to be a road bomb in Iraq this month. You all be careful out there."

 

Are you accusing a bureaucrat of "CYA"? Seems plausible and fits right in with the sort of tunnel vision the report implies.....

[Mike]

I wonder if sometimes these reports are issued in order to be able to say, after an event occurred, that we were warned and ignored it. Especially when it's so vaguely defined as this.

 

It's sort of like a psychic saying "there's going to be a road bomb in Iraq this month. You all be careful out there."

 

That may be part of it. The only thing I can relate it to directly is some of the intelligence briefings I received back in USAF days. There were a lot of discussions of the capabilities and motivations of individuals and groups operating in other countries, but the folks on the intelligence side didn't really engage in much speculation--generally, they were along the lines of "Joe Blow's in Obfuskastan, he's been buying RPGs, explosives, and detonators, and he has said he'd like to blow up a Wal-Mart."

 

The last thing the intel folks wanted to do was to fail to pick up or report activities that related to potential threats . . CYA, I guess. But, this sort of thing had legitimate uses to commanders: even lacking more specificity, the scope of the information offered was beneficial to understanding the environment in which they might be operating, and it might also result in those in the field being better able to spot, synthesize, and report additional information that would help build a more complete picture.

 

That sort of thing is probably the one useful aspect of things like the DHS report--it might heighten the awareness of a potential threat and cause a local yokel to "upchannel" information that, by itself, might not paint a full picture. However, where I see the distinction is in the fact that the DHS threat analysis really doesn't point to any facts supporting the proposition that a general body of discontent exists across a wide range of issues . . . to me, it doesn't contribute meaningfully to any copper's ability to identify potential terrorist threats. And, in the process it appears to malign plenty of people whose political viewpoints are fairly mainstream.

[David]

Besides that, I'd venture a guess that many INSIDE the law enforcement field at the state and local level might even meet a lot of the criteria!

 

I can see a sheriff rushing out to remove the bumper sticker before he conducts a briefing for officers on the street.

[DavidEBSmith]

I think the problem for some when they read the document is a sense of disconnect... and unfairness. Of course there are extremist groups. But the document addresses what the BELIEFS of the individuals are.

 

My wife and I have supported a pro life pregnancy clinic in our town for a few years now. We donate clothes, help with babysitting.

 

We've never marched on planned parent hood, don't seek out pro abortion doctors for ridicule. We just try to support young women who are in crisis pregnancy and make a choice to keep their babies.

 

Here comes a document that thinks my wife and I have a view that is EXTREMIST, and we should be watched out for?

 

 

 

Sigh. The whole notion that the DHS report is saying that YOU should be watched out for is based on faulty logic.

 

You are saying:

 

- I am pro-life.

 

- The DHS report says that dangerous right-wing extremists are pro-life.

 

- Therefore the DHS report says I am a dangerous right-wing extremist.

 

Applying the same logic:

 

- I am a man.

 

- George Clooney is a man.

 

- Therefore I am George Clooney.

 

This is obviously false. Or another example I found:

 

- Catholics believe in God.

 

- Muslims believe in God.

 

- Therefore Catholics are Muslims.

 

I believe this would be the fallacy of the undistributed middle. More examples here.

 

But very soon, someone in my government will be watching my wife and I because we help young women with unplanned pregnancies?

 

Something is very wrong in America. Some see it. Some don't.

 

Something is very wrong. It's that there are some extremely intelligent people who are highly skilled communicators telling you things that they should know are false, to make you afraid of the government and make you afraid that something is very wrong in America.

 

 

 

[philbytx]

quote

Something is very wrong. It's that there are some extremely intelligent people who are highly skilled communicators telling you things that they should know are false, to make you afraid of the government and make you afraid that something is very wrong in America.

unquote

 

Hmmm! Hang on a mo! Doesn't that describe the intentions of most of our elected representatives! Well, they ARE elected but are they truly representative of the feelings of the majority of the U.S. populace?

 

[smiller]

Well, they ARE elected but are they truly representative of the feelings of the majority of the U.S. populace?

They won a majority of the votes so I'm going to guess... yes?

[David]

Don't confuse a democracy and a republic.

[smiller]

Don't confuse a democracy and a republic.

Point taken, but the only person who would make every decision exactly as I would is me, and I'm not running.

[DaveTheAffable]

 

Sigh. The whole notion that the DHS report is saying that YOU should be watched out for is based on faulty logic.

 

You are saying:

 

- I am pro-life.

 

- The DHS report says that dangerous right-wing extremists are pro-life.

 

- Therefore the DHS report says I am a dangerous right-wing extremist.

 

Applying the same logic:

 

- I am a man.

 

- George Clooney is a man.

 

- Therefore I am George Clooney.

 

This is obviously false. Or another example I found:

 

- Catholics believe in God.

 

- Muslims believe in God.

 

- Therefore Catholics are Muslims.

 

 

I understand that fallacy. I didn't go there. THEY did!

 

If I say, in the name of homeland security that there may be SOME people of a certain heritage, that have SOME religious belief, that imigrate from a certain place, that SOME of them may have a propensity for terrorism... Our government and some on the 'Left' cry "FOUL!, You can't profile and stereotype and say watch out for THEM based on that criteria!"

 

I don't have nearly the problem with people "watching out", as I do with the double standard. It gets old.

 

When Cindy Sheehan and a few of her friends marched on George Bush's ranch in protest of the Iraq war, they were labeled by many as, Patriots and hero's for "expressing their beliefs".

 

Now, thousands of people are expressing their beliefs in regards to current events and they are not labeled as Patriots, but as extremists.

 

David, I would ask of you not to argue the position of either side, but to help me understand the disconnect and difference between how the two groups are being treated differently.

[smiller]

No one is being treated any differently. Leftist groups have been the subject of similar warnings and 'many' considered Cindy Sheehan nothing short of a traitor for her actions. Any one-sidedness comes from individual perspective, generously aided by those with the motive to do so.

 

As far as the efficacy of any of it, I think Mike has it right.

[DaveTheAffable]

No one is being treated any differently. Leftist groups have been the subject of similar warnings, and 'many' considered Cindy Sheehan nothing short of a traitor for her actions. Any one-sidedness comes from individual perspective.

 

As far as the efficacy of any of it, I think Dave has it right.

 

Which "Dave"?

 

I guess I continue to be DTA.

 

Individual perspective does taint it. I'm willing to hear that. But with all candor, I heard people on the "right" while disagreeing with Cindy Sheehan on topic, they openly supported her right to do so. Just because I have not heard any support of the "rights" dissent of current events doesn't mean it's not there. I hope to hear some at some point

[DavidEBSmith]

No one is being treated any differently. Leftist groups have been the subject of similar warnings, and 'many' considered Cindy Sheehan nothing short of a traitor for her actions. Any one-sidedness comes from individual perspective.

 

 

But with all candor, I heard people on the "right" while disagreeing with Cindy Sheehan on topic, they openly supported her right to do so. Just because I have not heard any support of the "rights" dissent of current events doesn't mean it's not there. I hope to hear some at some point

 

DTA, you must get a different Internet than I do. When Cindy Sheehan was in the news on a daily basis, I regularly saw people on the right calling for her to be imprisoned for treason, executed for treason, and to meet even more violent ends.

 

Have you ever seen a "Conservative Hunting Permit"?

 

 

Have you ever heard some of these quotes, like

 

Rush Limbaugh: "I tell people don’t kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus -- living fossils -- so we will never forget what these people stood for."

 

or "Sock" Sokolowski, to Stephanie Miller:

 

"As with Cindy Sheehan the best thing that could happen to you would be seeing some WONDERFUL activist sticking an AK-47 up your Glory Holes and sending you into eternity. But this is not a threat as I am a paci-fist preferring to confront dumb f***s like you two with words rather than violence. But I would gather my 1st amendment rights permit me to HOPE (!) and PRAY (!) that someone decides you're better off as statistics. Honestly, should I hear of either you leaving this earth prematurely I would initiate a personal celebration that would make Animal House appear to be just another quiet Sunday in church.

 

... Therefore, I trust the both of you mother f*****s will continue to show yourselves on TV shows, exposure to more and more people, as GUARANTEED your words will someday possibly accelerate your demise again not on my hand but by someone who believes in such finalizing action. ... Would love to celebrate and would for days one end as I always would and will when still another America HATER meets his/her maker."

 

 

No doubt, you can find the same crap from left-wingers aimed at right-wingers. Which makes both sides wrong and neither side right. But compared to some of the stuff that was thrown around over the last eight years - liberals are traitors, they should be executed, they should be sent to concentration camps - to say that the DHS report expresses a threat to the right-wing, frankly, makes the right-wing out to be pretty easily frightened. Darn near swooning over a vacuous government document. And if you feel you're being treated poorly because you're being criticized somehow and you should have an uprising to protect your rights - I guess one answer would be what anti-PC folks have been saying for years: stop being so sensitive and to stop trying to stifle criticism and just get over it. The bar for what constitutes unfair treatment from the other side is set very, very high.

 

Of course, if dissent by the right is ever seriously threatened (which its not by the DHS report), you can always turn to that organization that the right reviled for all these years, the ACLU.

 

Speaking of which, can we hijack this thread to discuss how the right-wing extremist opinions of beauty queens are being oppressed by the gay liberal socialist leftist conspiracy. This is a much better right-wing extremist spokesperson than Rush:

 

 

(I even picked the sort-of-sexy evening gown picture instead of the sexy bikini picture so as not to offend any more sensibilities).

[DaveTheAffable]

Eebie,

 

I saw plenty of that. And I denounced it. I still do. It was offensive then. It's offensive now.

 

I said, "Just because I have not heard any support of the "rights" dissent of current events doesn't mean it's not there. I hope to hear some at some point."

 

I thought that was a fair and gracious response.

 

Be well.

[philbytx]

quote

Speaking of which, can we hijack this thread to discuss how the right-wing extremist opinions of beauty queens are being oppressed by the gay liberal socialist leftist conspiracy. This is a much better right-wing extremist spokesperson than Rush:

unquote.

 

Eebie, I wholeheartedly agree on both counts :clap:

 

[Polo]

Sad.

 

She was asked for HER opinion, and when she offered it, then she got pummeled because it wasn't what would aid the hidden agenda of the judge. Then she was called a "Stupid b**ch"...

 

It is frequent that we see beauty contestants portrayed as clueless and shallow. This girl spoke her mind, had a clear opinion on a subject and stood by her word. What's not to admire?

[DavidEBSmith]

I only have a couple of comments:

 

- The judge, Perez Hilton, is openly gay. Some might say flamingly. No hidden agenda there.

 

- Her statement was "We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised." I would disagree that it's clear, especially if she's saying that people have the option of choosing same-sex marriage, which they don't in most states.

 

- If you're trying to win a beauty pageant, giving an answer that is a verbal f-u to the judge is probably not the best strategy. There are times to speak your mind, and there are times to be diplomatic, gracious, and non-committal. If she didn't know that this was one of the latter, or if this was her unsuccessful attempt to be diplomatic, that's an indication she didn't have what it takes to wear the heavy crown of Miss USA. This is not a job where you're trying to change people's minds; this is a job where you're supposed to be unoffensive to everybody. She failed the job interview.

 

- The columnists and bloggers who are complaining about how unfair this was are a bunch of whiny babies who are making much ado about less than nothing, and have lost the credibility to ever complain again about the Al Sharptons of the world being professional victims and complainers.

[Mike]

Well, I don't get too worked up over beauty pageants, but it does seem that Mr. Hilton was trying to use this as a platform, rather than test her ability to communicate . . . or whatever it is that these inane questions are supposed to test. In other words, it seems like it was all about him and his agenda, and not about her qualifications.

 

Still, the all-time best ever answer by a beauty pageant contestant has to be

[Polo]

- If you're trying to win a beauty pageant, giving an answer that is a verbal f-u to the judge is probably not the best strategy. There are times to speak your mind, and there are times to be diplomatic, gracious, and non-committal. If she didn't know that this was one of the latter, or if this was her unsuccessful attempt to be diplomatic, that's an indication she didn't have what it takes to wear the heavy crown of Miss USA. This is not a job where you're trying to change people's minds; this is a job where you're supposed to be unoffensive to everybody. She failed the job interview.

 

Of course your first phrase is said in a rhetorical sense. If I was trying to win a beauty pageant, the judge's question would be: "WTF do you think you're doing here? Get the F**k out!!!

 

I understand your point, but what's the purpose of asking a participant for her opinion if the only correct answer is "Peace on Earth for everyone", or agreeing with the judge's agenda?. I thought that these questions were meant to evaluate the contestant's character.

 

So she didn't win, perhaps her self-respect was more important than a meaningless crown. I sure would hope more politicians were of this mettle. Granted; I don't know much more about her than what has been discussed and what I read in connection with the comment, so I won't rush to exhault her in every way. Also, I admit to be speculating as to her actual intent. Perhaps she actually is as dumb as a doornail and didn't think the implications of her answer.

 

I can't imagine an answer that would be actually inoffensive to everybody. I can accept rather that a different answer would have been offensive to another segment that wouldn't have made such a racket over the issue though.

 

If she indeed chose to speak her mind instead of compromising her values, I, for one, see that as refreshing.

 

Perhaps the pageant belongs to babling clueless babes like the one in Mike's video link.

 

[Mike O]

Wow.... This has got to be a near first on this board....

 

From this:

 

 

to this:

 

 

in the same thread...

 

I'm impressed. Keep up the good work folks.

 

Mike O

[Boone60]

I understand your point, but what's the purpose of asking a participant for her opinion if the only correct answer is "Peace on Earth for everyone", or agreeing with the judge's agenda?. I thought that these questions were meant to evaluate the contestant's character.

 

I always thought those questions were just fluff to fill up show time, the question was a below the belt shot.

 

So she didn't win, perhaps her self-respect was more important than a meaningless crown. I sure would hope more politicians were of this mettle. Granted; I don't know much more about her than what has been discussed and what I read in connection with the comment, so I won't rush to exhault her in every way. Also, I admit to be speculating as to her actual intent. Perhaps she actually is as dumb as a doornail and didn't think the implications of her answer.

 

I'd still like to believe this country to be a republic were the rights of the individual come before a gang of voters. Her answer was unclear, and inaccurate. We have more than enough politicians that operate in such an manner, and I would not like to see her as one.

 

I can't imagine an answer that would be actually inoffensive to everybody. I can accept rather that a different answer would have been offensive to another segment that wouldn't have made such a racket over the issue though.

 

The internet/media makes a lot of noise, her answer would have done so either way. Just surf around and you'll find what you're looking for.

 

 

[Ken H.]

'many' considered Cindy Sheehan nothing short of a traitor for her actions.

There is no such thing as a "traitor" in a true democracy.

[DavidEBSmith]

I thought that these questions were meant to evaluate the contestant's character.

 

So she didn't win, perhaps her self-respect was more important than a meaningless crown.

 

Um, this is a beauty pageant, right? The categories are Evening Gown, Swimsuit, and Interview? It's owned by Donald Trump? They have awards for Miss Congeniality and Miss Photogenic? Halle Berry didn't win when she competed in 1986? They used to hold the competition in Gary, Indiana? Part of her job is to walk around like this:

 

 

It's not like this is Meet the Press or the Charlie Rose show she's appearing on.

 

 

[SeanC]

Why do you care so much about the opinions of a beauty pageant contestant?

[SeanC]

'many' considered Cindy Sheehan nothing short of a traitor for her actions.

There is no such thing as a "traitor" in a true democracy.

There is no such thing as a true democracy.

[Lawman]

'many' considered Cindy Sheehan nothing short of a traitor for her actions.

There is no such thing as a "traitor" in a true democracy.

There is no such thing as a true democracy.

 

http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

 

click on "close" to play video..

[Whip]

'many' considered Cindy Sheehan nothing short of a traitor for her actions.

There is no such thing as a "traitor" in a true democracy.

There is no such thing as a true democracy.

 

http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

 

click on "close" to play video..

 

 

 

Very nice video Billy, it's prolly already too late.

[Paul_Burkett]

Thanks Billy, I never tire form watching that video.

[Ken H.]

'many' considered Cindy Sheehan nothing short of a traitor for her actions.

There is no such thing as a "traitor" in a true democracy.

There is no such thing as a true democracy.

True.

 

But if there was...

 

A person is usually accused of being a traitor for voicing or acting their opinion of disagreement with an ideology. Usually the ideology of the person doing the accusing (of someone being a traitor).

 

But yet the hallmark of a democracy is that everyone is entitled to their opinion, so by definition in a true democracy doing so can’t be being a traitor. The ideology requires unconditional allowing of disagreement with the ideology.

 

[smiller]

But yet the hallmark of a democracy is that everyone is entitled to their opinion, so by definition in a true democracy doing so can’t be being a traitor. The ideology requires unconditional allowing of disagreement with the ideology.

So people who call someone a 'traitor' for disagreeing with the government are themselves... traitors.

[SeanC]

A person is usually accused of being a traitor for voicing or acting their opinion of disagreement with an ideology. Usually the ideology of the person doing the accusing (of someone being a traitor).

 

But yet the hallmark of a democracy is that everyone is entitled to their opinion, so by definition in a true democracy doing so can’t be being a traitor. The ideology requires unconditional allowing of disagreement with the ideology.

I would say the hallmark of democracy is mob rule, which offers little hope for those wishing to express disagreement unconditionally. Mobs always have conditions.