The Enemy within. Time to wake up America and defend your country. Watch this.

http://tinyurl.com/p88vr

Hot Air seems a very fitting name

Yeah it does.

Malkin likes to make the assumption that protestors for peace support terrorism. That's a direct contradiction. If they supported terrorism, they would want to terrorize.

Dissent is patriotic, Alias. It is sad that you would consider dissenters in a democracy to be domestic enemies.

They're just like you two. They don't know we have an enemy or who the real enemy is. I'm all for peace, but not at the hand of appeasement. That is where you and others falter. You equate appeasement with peace. I equate appeasement with defeat and that is how the enemy sees it. Therefore, you are the enemy within. I am not alone in my analysis. A vast difference of opinion between us.

See, I can debate without name calling and flaming. Let's see who is the first to go over the edge.

To quote you...
"Attack the messenger instead of listening to the message."

To point out the obvious, "hot air" would be a commentary on the message itself, not the messenger...

Hardly.

But to point out the VERY obvious, every time there is an issue, it can be guaranteed that YOU, HEVUSA and KATZINSKY will ALWAYS SIDE WITH THE TERRORISTS.

But you claim to be peace-seeking, civil-minded Americans.

No. Actually exactly.
But I don't expect much from you in the way of English translation...


That's crap.
My personal issue is simply that I demand that we HAVE THE SAME BURDEN OF PROOF FOR CONDEMNING them as terrorists as we do for any other crime.

What is wrong with that?

And regarding specifics, we need to nail al Qaeda to the wall. Bush has declared he is no longer interested in where bin Laden is, but I don't see you or Alias giving a crap about that. And if the recent Britain airline attempt turns out to be al Qaeda, what will be your response then???

Is that "always siding with the terrorists"?


If YOU tried claiming that, now THAT would be funny...

You assume because Bush said he doesn't care where Ben Hiden is that that automatically means Bush doesn't care about fighting terrrorism. The war is against terrorism and that includes more than just knowing where Bin ladin is. The point is that it doesn't matter where Bin Ladin is. What matters is that we fight terrorism in all its forms. You take far too much for granted and assume too much. Your priority is not fighting terrorism. Your priority is doing all you can to undermine and weaken the president. Why not just admit it and quit the phoney bullshit.

Man. Talk about WAYYYYY too much propaganda.
I mean, I could maybe listen to a point if I didn't have to wade through so much crap to get there.

"Radical" this and "liberal" that. "Extremist" this and "bloody resume" that...
Yeah. "bloody resume".
You get the picture.

If she had just stopped trying to proclaim her opinion on how she had judged these people and JUST LAID OUT HER CASE, it would have been a lot better of an article. But instead, ironically much like Alias, she primarily put forth a case of name-calling and labelling.

I swear. I think she spent more time talking using propagandic labelling than she did actually making a point.

I found two of the event video interviews incredibly interesting.

1) The first was an interview of a man where the interviewer was asking the man if he thought that the 9/11 event was sponsored by George Bush. Or possibly by Zionists.
The man kept saying "no-no-no-no... Study. Just study."
Incredibly piss poor editing. I have no clue what the interviewer thought he was proving. The interviewee seemed to be replying "no" to both his stupid allegations. (Maybe the interviewer thought he had "LucidThoughts"?)
What the heck did the man supposedly think? Nobody can tell watching that video interview. The interviewer came off looking like an idiot without a point.

2) The second was an interview with a young woman who thought Hugo Chavez is a "true Arab leader". (Hugo Chavez: President of Venezuela?)
She even had the audacity to claim that Israel was the only nation committing war crimes. One of her seeming selling points was that her side was supposedly killing more of the soldiers than they were killing civilians.
That and she claimed Israel's kills were 90% civilians.


Now THAT was more to the point of the video article's attempted point.
But quite frankly, one protestor does not a consensus make.