To: .cnI redruM
I wouldn't.
And I fail to see how the egregiously incompetent manner in which we've handled homeland security up to this point justifies a maneuver that-at best-does not improve it and-at worst-potentially emperils it at some time in the near or remote future.
1,129 posted on
03/09/2006 12:30:15 PM PST by
Do not dub me shapka broham
("The moment that someone wants to forbid caricatures, that is the moment we publish them.")
To: Do not dub me shapka broham
>>>>And I fail to see how the egregiously incompetent manner in which we've handled homeland security up to this point justifies a maneuver that-at best-does not improve it and-at worst-potentially emperils it at some time in the near or remote future
Oh, like telling people in the ME that we completely fail to distinguish between the ones that help us out and the ones who don't. That won't help out our security at any time in the future. That's $billions in investment capital that could buy a whole heck of a lot of nuclear reactor fuel.
1,150 posted on
03/09/2006 12:38:07 PM PST by
.cnI redruM
(We need to banish euphemisms. Period. In fact, we need to employ hyperbole when possible.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson