I've never heard a valid argument prefaced by the call to "be mature."
OTOH, “Cowboy Up, Buttercup” strikes me as valid...
The Narrative progresses:
[The CwordinC:]
“[w]e can absorb a terrorist attack. We’ll do everything we can to prevent it, but even a 9/11, even the biggest attack ever ... we absorbed it and we are stronger,"
Yep—that’s a MediaMatters [Soros©] link. Worth reading for the comments that see absolutely nothing wrong with the conclusions Ace drew:
...The Obama and the leftist media will attempt to spin this as merely descriptive, and as a tribute to America’s resiliency....
The idea, of course, is that America overreacted to 9/11 [2996 deaths], and 50,000 people die every year in car crashes, and we don’t freak out about that, do we? No, we accept these as acceptable losses in the bigger picture (that is, we want to drive places) and we take the exchange. We drive, some of us will die. Sound bargain.
That’s the killer notion here—the idea of bargain. Of what is being exchanged for these deaths. ...peace ...a multicultural country and global economy, ... good citizens of the world ... be mature about mass murder.
Read Ace’s argument: it’s more complex than a tease quote can convey.
Is this really the discussion the revisionists want to have? Now? [Hey—it’s not about the economy, stupid...]
Are we really “stronger” since/because of the 9/11 attack? Is the trade-off between highway deaths or [if MOread: Cass Sunstein] has her way] french-fry deaths and the end achieved the same as a trade-off between deaths from attacks by foreign nationals and the chance to be “good citizens of the world?”
What is the requirement of other “good global citizens” not to attack US? ...if any?
Next entry: ToDaZeD Teh Narrative
Previous entry: Learned. Nuanced.
