Mike Gallagher loves the terrorists

[G.A.C.O.L.B.]

I'm actually more worried about the people in nine other cities who DIDN'T 'see' these things and report them as suspicious. Something tells me not everyone knew what they were in these other cities, but they chose to ignore them anyway. THAT'S the sort of complacency that strikes me as a problem.

No they knew what they were, they just weren't retarded *******s that live in fear.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Read the quote again. He says he "wishes" for another attack. There isn't any sort of ambiguity about it.

I get the feeling if you were to talk to him in person 'wish' isn't the word he would actually use, but that's just a guess on my part.

I'm not saying all the righties feel this way. But I have noticed the only people actively cheering for an attack are on the same side of the fence as those who say that it is us on the left who "hate America" and "want the terrorists to win".

Grim, I think what you're interpreting as 'cheering for an attack on America' is actually some of us trying to get it through the cast iron skulls of certain leftists that just because we HAVEN'T BEEN attacked in the last five years doesn't mean that we can become lax and once again ignore the concept of security as we've begun to do again in the last couple years.

I would agree that the majority of leftists do actually "Hate America"; but I would suggest that more than "wanting the terrorists to win" they actually "want America to lose", which may not really be the same thing.

[cjcdaman]

No they knew what they were, they just weren't retarded *******s that live in fear.

You might want to take "retarded" out of your post. Some people on here take offense to it. To respond to your post, yeah I guess 9/11 was good enough for the terrorists. Maybe we should just relax. They won't try to attack us again.

Fear and "guarded" are different.

[Duckus]

Grim, do you really believe that's what they're saying? Are you really going to tell me that's what your reading comprehension tells you those people have said? Because I've seen the same statements and have come away with a VERY different view on their comments.

Interesting – all of a sudden rational thought and reading comprehension matter when looking at statements from people. I thought you and others on the right only looked at things literally when analyzing statements. Remember that John Kerry thing a few months back? Seemed like everyone on the right did not have the comprehension skills to look at what he was REALLY saying and instead jumped all over a word slip. Here all of a sudden I am supposed to use common sense and be rational?

I think it was a poor choice of words and I honestly believe that he does NOT want another terrorist attack against America. Here I am consistent (and actually using common sense) on the issue and look at the true meaning of people’s statements regardless of party or person opinions. You on the other hand see a miscommunication here (even though this is written, proof read and probably edited) while when it is someone you dislike it was on purpose.

You can now respond with your statement claiming that you really think that Kerry was bashing the US military in public knowing good and well that any statement like that would destroy his political presidential dreams. Because that is rational……

[TMK9973]

MSF - I'm confused. I say that we shouldn't be in Iraq and that the current stratagy is unwinable.

You intrupt that as me rooting for america to loose.

He says that he wishes there was a attack on america to wake people up

You take that to mean he doesn't actually think that, just wants to use a example.

You know - You say things are black and white but you should don't post that way.

For the record - I don't want America to loose and I don't think he actually wants a attack on America.

[No_Pressure]

I am a conservative, some would call me a "right-winger" I don't want any more terror attacks on this country ever again. When I read:

Keep it coming, right-wingers. The more you spew stuff like this, the more America sees that what you have to offer is pure venom and hate, nothing less.

I wonder why it is assumed that every conservative in the country is as dumb as this guy, as meanspirited as this guy, and wants nothing less than to offer hate to this nation.

I am conservative and that isn't me. Not by a longshot. Why must "Mike Gallagher" or better yet, anybody else who claims the same political stance as me be taken as my representative? You can be conservative and not like this guy or anything he stands for can't you? Or are we all to be thrown into the same grouping indiscriminantly?

[spanishomelette]

Sometimes you gotta break a few eggs to make an omelette.

please don't break anything on my account.

[Dan T.]

I am a conservative, some would call me a "right-winger" I don't want any more terror attacks on this country ever again. When I read:

I wonder why it is assumed that every conservative in the country is as dumb as this guy, as meanspirited as this guy, and wants nothing less than to offer hate to this nation.

I am conservative and that isn't me. Not by a longshot. Why must "Mike Gallagher" or better yet, anybody else who claims the same political stance as me be taken as my representative? You can be conservative and not like this guy or anything he stands for can't you? Or are we all to be thrown into the same grouping indiscriminantly?

:applause: Well said. I think much of the problem of political discourse in this country is that political positions are staked out on the radio airwaves by attention-whore, loudmouth extremists from both ends of the poliitical spectrum. When that's the starting point, not much good comes of it.

[Burgold]

I think there is a complacency growing. The "lite bright" fiasco is a good example in some ways. What if it were a wolf in sheep's clothing? If you were going to plant a bomb would you make it look all dark and menacing or plant it in a Scooby Doo lunchbox.

On the other hand, at this point what we are doing in Iraq is not really about terrorism or protecting our shores. It's about saving face. Was Iraq origninally about terrorism? I'm going to tentatively say yes, because I would rather believe the Bush Administration was acting over-zealously and being over protective or over reactive than outright manipulating and fabricating and launching a war for personal selfish reasons. They were wrong and hindsight says we probably never should have gone (foresight argued that pretty strongly too and argued even stronger that the mission in Afghanistan was not done) Nevertheless, vigilance is needed on a number of fronts.

Conservatives traditionally state that they mistrust government and their motives (that being one of their chief reasons for being pro-gun) Well, part of vigilance is not being silent and trying to act when you think the government is making a mistake. This country was founded on protest against governmental wrongs. It is necessary to be vigilant when looking outside our borders, but it is also important to be vigilant while looking in.

[headexplode]

I am a conservative, some would call me a "right-winger" I don't want any more terror attacks on this country ever again. When I read:

I wonder why it is assumed that every conservative in the country is as dumb as this guy, as meanspirited as this guy, and wants nothing less than to offer hate to this nation.

I am conservative and that isn't me. Not by a longshot. Why must "Mike Gallagher" or better yet, anybody else who claims the same political stance as me be taken as my representative? You can be conservative and not like this guy or anything he stands for can't you? Or are we all to be thrown into the same grouping indiscriminantly?

That's the problem with labels. Unfortunately, with labels come preconceptions and connotations that are hard to escape from. Any demographic group you can think of, including political milieus, have certain associations with them depending on the observer. Each group also has its fair share of crazy people who tend to get more attention simply because it might sell a few more advertisements.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Interesting – all of a sudden rational thought and reading comprehension matter when looking at statements from people. I thought you and others on the right only looked at things literally when analyzing statements. Remember that John Kerry thing a few months back? Seemed like everyone on the right did not have the comprehension skills to look at what he was REALLY saying and instead jumped all over a word slip. Here all of a sudden I am supposed to use common sense and be rational?

Duckus, I think that maybe you need to separate me and my beliefs from "the others on the right", because they and I are two very separate and different entities that only have a limited amount of commonality when it comes to opinions, beliefs, and tactics.

Personally, I do tend to take people at the direct and literal interpretation of their comments. At least until something sounds REALLY odd and out of place. At that point, I try to take a look and see if there's something there that I missed the first time around. There is a time to take a comment literally and a time to look deeper into what a person has said. In both of these cases, I think the latter is the proper reaction.

You'll notice that I never actually commented on Mr. Kerry's fuax pas when it occured. Personally, I think it was a Freudian Slip. I believe he meant to say what the speach writer had written, and which was a lot less inflamatory than what he actually said, but his real feelings came out of his mouth. I think that's happened to all of us to one degree or another over time.

In regards to Mr. Gallagher's written comments in his blog; I agree with you that the choice of wording was quite poor, and I would guess that the blog is probably not as highly edited as you might believe.

[Sarge]

It's right there on his blog...

http://mikegallagher.townhall.com/blog/g/84e0a183-df0e-47dd-a833-4a2011da123c

Keep it coming, right-wingers. The more you spew stuff like this, the more America sees that what you have to offer is pure venom and hate, nothing less.

Bill O'Reilly wants the terrorists to attack San Francisco. Now Mike Gallagher just wants the terrorists to attack anywhere. He doesn't care where it is, as long as they kill Americans so that his political agenda can be advanced.

Oh please please please will my favorite right-wing posters try and defend this?

Amazing the way you liberals see things. It must be nice to live in Romper Room

The man watched a commie pinko traitor *****, that at the very least should have had her passport revoked while she was in North Vietnam sitting on an anit-aircraft gun, come spout the same crap in DC the other day that helped us lose the war in Vietnam 30 years ago.

And people are listening to her. These same people were probably asleep in history class and never heard of Gen Giap, the NVA general who gave a large amount of credit to Jihad Jane and her ilk for the US leaving Vietnam.

History is repeating itself.

"Give peace a chance"

Make love not war"

"Would you like a flower"

And about the only thing that is going to make these defeatist losers shut up again is another hit

Maybe then they'll realize that there is no making peace with people that want to cut your heads off

Idoits

[Sarge]

http://www.1stcavmedic.com/jane_fonda.htm

On November 21, 1970 she told a University of Michigan audience of some two thousand students, "If you understood what communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees that we would some day become communist." At Duke University in North Carolina she repeated what she had said in Michigan, adding "I, a socialist, think that we should strive toward a socialist society, all the way to communism. " Washington Times July 7, 2000

[No_Pressure]

http://www.1stcavmedic.com/jane_fonda.htm

On November 21, 1970 she told a University of Michigan audience of some two thousand students, "If you understood what communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees that we would some day become communist." At Duke University in North Carolina she repeated what she had said in Michigan, adding "I, a socialist, think that we should strive toward a socialist society, all the way to communism. " Washington Times July 7, 2000

Cause citizens of communist countries usually frolick in meadows of sugary gumdrops and candy rainbows. Everyone is friends crime doesn't happen because everyone is in a constant euphoric state (from the gumdrop meadows and forests of taffy).

...Right?