The Truth About Radical Christians

[johncwright]

Some of the comments on YouTube concerning this spoof were from people who did not know it was a spoof, or who nodded and agreed that "USA does have a real problem with christian identity groups and superpatriot groups committing terrorism

Comments

[whichferdinand]

The enemy will continue to blow up planes and skyscrapers

[The] West cannot possibly prevail in this struggle. We must either adjust and adapt to the reality as it is, or grant the Jihadists the hegemony they seek.

The Jihdadist strategy for achieving world domination by blowing up planes and skyscrapers is so much worse than even Donald Rumsfeld's strategy for achieving same.

Although it seems that people on the right tend to be sanguine about both, really they're not all that good. So I wouldn't suspend civil liberties or grant the Jihadists the hegemony they seek just yet.

[jordan179]

The Jihdadist strategy for achieving world domination by blowing up planes and skyscrapers is so much worse than even Donald Rumsfeld's strategy for achieving same.

What are you talking about? Do you even know who Donald Rumsfeld is, or the position he held under George W. Bush? In particular, are you aware that he hasn't been the Secretary of Defense for three years?

[whichferdinand]

What are you talking about?
Mostly the viability of the strategy of blowing up planes if your goal is world domination. Also I'm making a joke about Rumsfeld.

Do you even know who Donald Rumsfeld is, or the position he held under George W. Bush? In particular, are you aware that he hasn't been the Secretary of Defense for three years?
Yes and yes.

Motions the frog's eye cannot see

[johncwright]

Frogs have evolved a mechanism in their eye such that motion which does not fit the profile of a fly or other food in motion does not register. The frog does not see and disregard the motion: the optic nerve actually does not transmit the signal at all

Re: Motions the frog's eye cannot see

[whichferdinand]

Two things.

First, I don't see where I "express fear" of the Bush administration. At any rate, I didn't mean to express fear of the Bush admin and don't feel it.

Second,

Let me make a joke of my own. Raise your right hand and repeat after me: "I would rather have you and your loved ones blown to bloody tatters in a preventable airplane bombing, rather than allow for warrantless searches of young Arabic males boarding airplanes."

I assume the joke is that literally nobody believes that there shouldn't be warrantless searches before boarding an airplane?

If you want to argue the trade-off between airplane security and civil rights, go ahead, but that has nothing to do with hegemony.

Re: Motions the frog's eye cannot see

[johncwright]

"First, I don't see where I "express fear" of the Bush administration."

My mistake. I thought the thrust of your joke was that Donald Rumsfeld sought world domination. If your point was that you favored Rumsfeld as the new World Emperor, that was unclear.

Re: Motions the frog's eye cannot see

[jordan179]

Oh, wait ... you think he's trying to argue that Donald Rumsfeld was seeking world domination?

But then he'd be an incredible idiot, because Rumsfeld doesn't even have a position of power any more.

Re: Motions the frog's eye cannot see

[whichferdinand]

You need to work on the distinction between seeking something and achieving it

Re: Motions the frog's eye cannot see

[jordan179]

... and you need to grasp the concept of chains of command and succession. As Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld was only 6th in the line of succession to the Presidency, and was in no position to be plotting to gain control of even the United States of America, let alone the world. Your paranoia has obviously attached itself to a (by your friends) hated name, without even a pretense of considering the practical issues involved.

Re: Motions the frog's eye cannot see

[whichferdinand]

For crying out loud, of course I don't think Rumsfeld was trying to become emperor of the world. The reference was to PNAC. You keep reading me uncharitably and/or just failing to understand what I'm saying.

Re: Motions the frog's eye cannot see

[docrampage]

whichferdinand, when you make obscure references as part of an ironic statement to someone who does not not know your opinions and does share them, then you can pretty much expect to be misunderstood or taken uncharitably. Here's a hint, most people who do not frequent Rumsfeld-hating sights have no idea what PNAC is and would not share your opinion of it if they did.

Re: Motions the frog's eye cannot see

[whichferdinand]

All that was needed to get the joke is that Rumsfeld was an advocate of roughly the ideas that PNAC promotes, and that he was Secretary of Defense in 2001 and resigned from that post at about the election date. Knowing what PNAC is is not mandatory, and my opinion of it is irrelevant.

Long story short, I stand by my joke.

Re: Motions the frog's eye cannot see

[whichferdinand]

Also note that I got accused of both knowing too much about Rumsfeld and knowing too little. There's just no pleasing you guys

Re: Motions the frog's eye cannot see

[docrampage]

You got accused of knowing too little by one person and knowing too much by a completely different person. Furthermore, one accusation came early in the conversation and the other came late. No reasonable person would try to combine these two entirely different statements to try to construct some sort of inconsistency out of it.

As to the quality of your joke, I note three people who didn't get anything from the joke except that you hate Rumsfeld. Even with your further comments, I don't get anything other than that and I'm a relatively intelligent and well-read person. In the other forums that you frequent, an obscure statement that nobody understands except to get that it is a slam against Rumsfeld may be considered high comedy, but in less hate-ridden places, a joke has to have some comprehensible point to it.

Re: Motions the frog's eye cannot see

[whichferdinand]

No reasonable person would try to combine these two entirely different statements to try to construct some sort of inconsistency out of it.

There's no incnsistency. It's just that there's no pleasing you guys

As to the quality of your joke
...There's no pleasing you guys

Re: Motions the frog's eye cannot see

[jordan179]

Oh, I understood that he was making a snide reference to Rumsfeld's alleged attempts to establish an American tyranny. I remember the accusations of this against Rumsfeld back in the early 00's, when they were first made. They were stupid then, and they're even sillier now that Rumsfeld has been out of office for years.