Obama administration is tone-deaf to concerns about terrorism

And how is that non-sense?

It is about as ridiculous as the "War" on drugs.

 

YOU CANT! HAHAHA LOLZERS YOU WIN! YAY! I KANT BELEEVZ OUR LEDDERRS THINK TERROR IS LIKE A THING YOU CAN FIGHT HAHAH DUUUUH IS JOHN STEWART ON I THEENK HIS BETTER THAN THE REAL NEWZ!

cmon man, try not to repeat idiotic memes you heard. when people say we are fighting against terror, you know damn well what that means. i dunno what is worse, the idea that you dont understand that words are not always meant to be taken 100% literally, or the idea that you do understand that but ignore it because you want to be terrible.

 

the absurdity and pointlessness of a "war" is not defined by the silly words use to describe it.

war on drugs - terrible

war against poverty and illiteracy - a good idea

see how even though you cannot actually shoot poverty with a gun, the idea that we should try to stop illiteracy or whatever is not instantly rendered idiotic by the choice of words used to describe it? can you see how that works, child?

 

Idiotic is the right word.

Just like those UFC fighters that claim they are going to "War".

The govt. should watch the words they use. If you are going to have "War" on Terror then you should declare war against those enemies that we are fighting. Not doing so makes them look even more moronic.

And glad to see you using SFs way of reasoning by personal attacks. Good job!

 

and you are critical of a policy not based on the actual policy, but the words used to describe the policy. presumably you oppose a war on crime as well.

 

That is correct. It's a political use to drum up sensationalism and appeal to worry / fear mongering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_on_concepts

 

you should care more about actual policy than politics. policy is good or bad regardless of the words used about it.

also you simply wouldnt make this ****ing retarded point if the "war" in question was against poverty.

if the "war on terror" was renamed "our global effort to minimize the damage done to innocent folks by religiously and politically motivated lunatics" would you favor it? no? perhaps because it would be the exact same thing even if phrased in a way that makes it sound like something you presumably want? see how that works, child?

 

"Thus, it is impossible for the opponent to surrender, so it is possible to continue investment forever."

please use your mind.

a "war on crime" will be continued forever. we will always have cops, they will always be needed. terrorism is basically a type of crime. of course we will fight it forever. disenfranchised lunatics will always want to kill people.

the fact that something is hard or takes a long time doesnt mean it isnt worth doing. try to make apoint, child.

do you oppose the policy of job creation if it is part of a "war on poverty?" no? do understand what a counterexample is? no?

 

Wow you are hurting my feeling by calling me something you either A. know nothing about and/or B. know nothing about me.

Maybe I should refer to you as Projects...


And NO I don't agree with you. Actions speak louder than empty words.

You are trying to make a point on an outcome you don't yet know and you fail to see any other side than this outcome that you predict. Go back to your magic crystal ball, Projects.

 

right. so you dont understand what a counterexample is and why it makes your point invalid, or you would blindly oppose job creation if it was marketed as "a war on joblessness", and you oppose cops doing their job if it is marketed as "cops fighting crime".

after all, "crime" is not a thing you can literally fight! yay!