Who in the flying f*ck is this asshole?

Overheal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umTITWQuXwY

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20004214-503544.html

Dan Fanelli, a Florida Republican hoping to emerge from a competitive Republican primary field to challenge Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson, has released an ad in which he appears to argue that the United States should engage in racial profiling to fight terror. "Does this look like a terrorist?" he asks in the spot, pointing at a white-haired white man in a tie. Then a darker-skinned man in a black t-shirt enters the frame as Fanelli asks, "or this?"
"It's time to stop this political correctness and the invasion of our privacy," he says. He then goes on to make an apparent joke about how he wouldn't mind being pulled out of line at the airport if "a good looking, ripped guy without much hair was flying airplanes into the twin towers."
The Washington Post's Greg Sargent, who first flagged the spot, interviewed Fanelli about it. The candidate, a pilot, insisted the spot wasn't intended to suggest that people with darker skin are more likely to be terrorists. The point, he said, was that people from countries like Iran and Iraq require more security.
"You can be light and from those countries," he said.
Fanelli also argued that people from the Middle East should support profiling.
"If the people that were doing this kind of thing looked like me, even though I'm not the guy doing the terrorist thing I would want to be examined more closely," he told Sargent.

Contacted for comment, Julie Tagen, a senior advisor to Grayson's campaign, said that "Mr. Fanelli is running in a very crowded Republican field."
"In the highly-unlikely event that he wins the nomination, Congressman Grayson will comment on his ads, however misguided or offensive they are," she said.

I have a mind to fedex him some wiki article printouts about white terrorists.

Pittens

Still though, we should live little old ladies alone, until Al Queda are wise to our ways.

Mr. Incognito

wow,

what an idiot.

Kiwi_knock

Only in America would someone have such a stupid video and policy but still have a chance of being elected.

20Cent

Is that for real?
Looks like something the daily show would make.

Nodin

20Cent wrote: »

Is that for real?
Looks like something the daily show would make.

I suspected the onion meself, but the links and the not-as-good production values seem to indicate its real.

Mind you, for all I know, they might like that kind of thing in Florida.

Dob74

Personally I love these attack ads.
So stupid they put a smile on your face.

Overheal

Nodin wrote: »

I suspected the onion meself, but the links and the not-as-good production values seem to indicate its real.

Mind you, for all I know, they might like that kind of thing in Florida.

Its a swing state, and nobody I know down there even utters the word republican.

Not saying they dont probably have a lot of supporters in the more rural districts. I just remember sitting on the floor of the theatre to watch F-9/11 when I was down in Volusia.

Amerika

Can’t see the video right now, but from the OP, I get the gist. I won't comment on the politican in question, but personally I’m getting tired of political correctness for the sake of political correctness. Someone needs to speak truth to power.

Fact is, every one of the terrorist attacks against the U.S. in the last two years (as I recall) were carried out by Muslim jihadists. That’s a mighty high common denominator (can't really get much higher). So until the US government comes out with a “Really Really No Fly List,” maybe we should at least not be afraid to debate the fact that using racial or religious profiling as an aspect of the screening process would simply be one of the smartest tools at our disposal.

Let the hate posts begin.

billy the squid

Amerika wrote: »

Can’t see the video right now, but from the OP, I get the gist. I won't comment on the politican in question, but personally I’m getting tired of political correctness for the sake of political correctness. Someone needs to speak truth to power.

Fact is, every one of the terrorist attacks against the U.S. in the last two years (as I recall) were carried out by Muslim jihadists.

How many terrorist attacks have there been in the US in the last two years.

European-americans have carried out their fair share of terrorist attacks themselves even as far back as the 1960s right up to the recent planned attack on a tennessee courthouse last week.

Exile 1798

Amerika wrote: »

Can’t see the video right now, but from the OP, I get the gist. I won't comment on the politican in question, but personally I’m getting tired of political correctness for the sake of political correctness. Someone needs to speak truth to power.

Fact is, every one of the terrorist attacks against the U.S. in the last two years (as I recall) were carried out by Muslim jihadists. That’s a mighty high common denominator (can't really get much higher). So until the US government comes out with a “Really Really No Fly List,” maybe we should at least not be afraid to debate the fact that using racial or religious profiling as an aspect of the screening process would simply be one of the smartest tools at our disposal.

Let the hate posts begin.

If you don't know that there is already "unofficial" profiling of Arab and Muslim travelers, you don't know anything. To make this official would be problematic in the extreme.

Apart from human rights and legal concerns, an official racial/religious profiling policy would only further alienate normal Muslims. More then that, such a program of racial/religious profiling would likely create a huge hole in security measures that would be white terrorists would walk right through.

I'd say you'd have to be extremely naive to believe that Al-Queda or any such group couldn't manage to get the odd white American/European convert to do their bidding. Or perhaps a British-Jamaican guy with an un-suspicious name like Richard Reid as has already happened.

It seems apparent that the calls from the American Right for just such a policy isn't out of any real concern over security, but rather comes from their desire to have their racism officially sanctioned by the Government.

In the practical sense, I'm happy for an experienced profiler to take a second look at the Syrian tourist on my flight named Mahmoud Al-Hussieni and the Pakistani gentleman named Wasim Khattab. What I don't want is someone like Amerika on the job emboldened by an official policy strip searching those guys 5 times and giving a free pass to John Walker Lindh...

wes

Amerika wrote: »

Fact is, every one of the terrorist attacks against the U.S. in the last two years (as I recall) were carried out by Muslim jihadists.

The Hutaree militia and the rising risk of far-right violence

Deadly plane attack in Austin is the latest in long line of tax protests

George Tiller Killed: Abortion Doctor Shot At Church

Fact is, is that you are wrong in your claims.

Also, racial profiling will fail spectacularly. Also, trying to do Religious profiling, won't be a whole lot better, after all a Islamic terrorist, can just thrown in a copy of the God delusion in there bag, and claim to be an atheist, or a Bible and claim to be a Christian, and wear a nice big cross, or any other number of methods to avoid be identified as a Muslim.

Then there are all the other nut jobs, who will slip right on by who belong to various other extremists groups.

Manic Moran

Still, something like the Israeli security system is still considered to be the best in the world by experts, and they profile out the wazoo. But it's not as if they've not had their own Jewish incidents as well.

Honestly, I think the 'not allowed to profile' thing has been taken a bit too far. Security personnel should not be wasting their time giving extra screening to Norwegian families of five with Granny visiting.

NTM

steelcityblues

Dan Fanelli = U.S. answer to Alan Partridge!

kev9100

Amerika wrote: »

We should at least not be afraid to debate the fact that using racial or religious profiling as an aspect of the screening process would simply be one of the smartest tools at our disposal.

Racial profiling would be one of the dumbest things we could do. All it would accomplish is alienate Muslim-Americans and make the lives of non-brown terrorists a lot easier. I'm a liitle bit depressed that you can't actually see that.

billy the squid

Manic Moran wrote: »

Still, something like the Israeli security system is still considered to be the best in the world by experts, and they profile out the wazoo. But it's not as if they've not had their own Jewish incidents as well.

Honestly, I think the 'not allowed to profile' thing has been taken a bit too far. Security personnel should not be wasting their time giving extra screening to Norwegian families of five with Granny visiting.

NTM

The israelis treat everyone, regardless of race as a potential terrorist. you get on an el al flight and they will probably be able to tell you what you had for breakfast at the customs desk.

Black Swan

Overheal wrote: »

Its a swing state, and nobody I know down there even utters the word republican.

You are joking, right? I'm just too tired after pulling an all nighter to see the craic...

Republicans in Florida hold the governorship, one US Senate seat, and 15 out of 25 US House seats.

Source: http://electedlist.com/Florida.html

Overheal

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

You are joking, right? I'm just too tired after pulling an all nighter to see the craic...

Republicans in Florida hold the governorship, one US Senate seat, and 15 out of 25 US House seats.

Source: http://electedlist.com/Florida.html

Al Gore?

Florida carried obama also

Black Swan

Overheal wrote: »

Al Gore?

Didn't GW win Florida by about 500 votes (or so his brother Gov Jeb Bush claimed)? When I read about the dimpled chads and butterfly ballots of Florida's 2000 presidential, I have to laugh at how GW Bush stole the election. It truly must of been a comedy of errors that elected Bush II back then.

Manic Moran

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Didn't GW win Florida by about 500 votes (or so his brother Gov Jeb Bush claimed)? When I read about the dimpled chads and butterfly ballots of Florida's 2000 presidential, I have to laugh at how GW Bush stole the election. It truly must of been a comedy of errors that elected Bush II back then.

There were a couple of different recounts sponsored by the media afterwards. The conclusion was that had the recounts requested by Gore not been stopped by the courts that Bush would have still won.

NTM

20Cent

Manic Moran wrote: »

There were a couple of different recounts sponsored by the media afterwards. The conclusion was that had the recounts requested by Gore not been stopped by the courts that Bush would have still won.

NTM

Not recounts its the counts I'd be worried about.
Not to mention the thousands scrubbed off voting lists illegally and dodgy voting machines.

Overheal

Okay, NOT trying to turn this into a recount thread... just saying: Florida is a Swing State.

Agent Smith

Never Underestimate the stupidity of some people. Look at overheal :pac:

Royal Irish

I'd vote for him for the simple reason I hate political correctness.

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

There were a couple of different recounts sponsored by the media afterwards. The conclusion was that had the recounts requested by Gore not been stopped by the courts that Bush would have still won.

If this was in fact the case, and not problematic for many of us reflecting on a decade past (I was 12), do you see the craic in that Gore's popular vote roughly exceeded Bush's by a half million, while the final count in Florida determining the election was a mere 500?

So much for one person, one vote? Federalism wins again with the Electoral College?

Overheal wrote: »

just saying: Florida is a Swing State.

I would have to agree with this statement, because there are a lot of retirees in Florida that probably still dance the swing.

Amerika

Agent Smith wrote: »

Never Underestimate the stupidity of some people. Look at overheal :pac:

I THINK NOT! Overheal is one of the few rational characters in the US Politics section. He can and does try to look a both sides of an argument.

Amerika

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

So much for one person, one vote? Federalism wins again with the Electoral College?

Here, Here! Sometimes good does triumph.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Here, Here! Sometimes good does triumph.

As it pertains to the 2000 election of Bush-Cheney? :rolleyes:

Amerika

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

As it pertains to the 2000 election of Bush-Cheney? :rolleyes:

LOL. I rather think of it as the judilicous defeat of Gore-Liberman.

Overheal

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

dance the swing.

I love going on Charleston craigslist and seeing all the listings for free shag lessons as well.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

LOL. I rather think of it as the judilicous defeat of Gore-Liberman.

Well, I seriously doubt that Gore-Liberman could have done worse than Bush-Cheney. But we will never know, and can only speculate in fiction about "Lock Box" Gore-Liberman had they won.

When future historians look back to the Bush-Cheney presidency, it will not be something that Republicans will take pride in recalling I would bet. Just a few of many failures in judgment:

• Bush appointing Cox to chair the SEC, along with the deregulation decisions (loved by so many Republicans) that occurred in 2004 that allowed investment banks like Goldman Sachs to run wild; plus the employment cuts in SEC regulators to where the investment banks became defacto self-regulating (i.e., the fox watching the chickens).
• Wasting hundreds of billions on the Second Gulf War (Iraq II) lasting longer than WWI or WWII, which was originally justified using fear tactics before Congress and the American people based upon (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction, and (erroneous) connections between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
• Doubling the federal deficit during the 8 years between Clinton and Obama, and doing virtually nothing to mitigate the onset of the great recession other than last minute panic billion dollar taxpayer bailouts in 2008.

Amerika

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Well, I seriously doubt that Gore-Liberman could have done worse than Bush-Cheney. But we will never know, and can only speculate in fiction about "Lock Box" Gore-Liberman had they won.


When future historians look back to the Bush-Cheney presidency, it will not be something that Republicans will take pride in recalling I would bet. Just a few of many failures in judgment:

• Bush appointing Cox to chair the SEC, along with the deregulation decisions (loved by so many Republicans) that occurred in 2004 that allowed investment banks like Goldman Sachs to run wild; plus the employment cuts in SEC regulators to where the investment banks became defacto self-regulating (i.e., the fox watching the chickens).
• Wasting hundreds of billions on the Second Gulf War (Iraq II) lasting longer than WWI or WWII, which was originally justified using fear tactics before Congress and the American people based upon (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction, and (erroneous) connections between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
• Doubling the federal deficit during the 8 years between Clinton and Obama, and doing virtually nothing to mitigate the onset of the great recession other than last minute panic billion dollar taxpayer bailouts in 2008.

WOW! Why does almost everything with you turn to Bush, Cheney, Pailn, or Halliburton in the end?

"Gee, I still can't believe what that darn Grover Cleveland did back in 1888!"

NEWS FLASH: "May 6 (Bloomberg) -- KBR Inc. was selected for a no-bid contract worth as much as $568 million through 2011 for military support services in Iraq, the Army said."

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

WOW! Why does almost everything with you turn to Bush, Cheney, Pailn, or Halliburton in the end?

Halliburton is still being paid millions of taxpayer dollars today on their no-bid Iraqi contract arranged by their former CEO Cheney? 2008 elections were only a couple years ago? It's recent history that most Republicans would like to forget, especially when they are proclaiming they should be in office now rather than Democrats.

Republicans were swept from their majority in both houses of Congress and the presidency after Bush-Cheney, not because Obama and the Democrats were better, but rather because Bush-Cheney did such a terrible job. Republican McCain-Palin lost because of the fiscally irresponsible Republican Bush-Cheney administration. The old political saying, "It's the economy stupid!" determined the 2008 election. But now Republicans want the American public to forget, especially us Independents that don't sit in a booth and vote along party lines mindlessly.

I am not a fan of the Democrat-Republican bipartisan system, especially when you look at their records historically up to the present time. Obama is new, but I attacked his approach to health care reform, which was just as bad as Republican Governor Mitt Romney's state health care reform enacted earlier. They are more similar than different, but many Democrats and Republicans do not want to acknowledge their similarities. I am now attacking Obama's nomination for the Supreme Court, because she did not have experience as a judge in a lower court.

And Sarah Palin is still very much in the news today with her book, speaking engagements, Fox News, and the latest scandal at one of our Cal State University campuses (with many Republicans hoping and wishing for 2012), so when you talk qualifications, you cannot conveniently exclude her history, while at the same time pointing fingers at someone nominated for the Supreme Court based upon their history (or the lack of).

And I am just amazed when someone refers to Palin's "executive" qualifications. She has held only two high pressure political offices, Alaska Oil & Gas Commissioner, which she quit after only one year, and Alaska Governor, which she quit half way through her first term of office. Like my Galway Gran used to quote, "If you can't stand the heat in the kitchen, get out!" Well, Sarah Palin got out twice, but for some reason there are Republicans that adore her, and conveniently forget her history, while criticizing anyone that remembers.

Amerika

And they all have to do with this politican's misguided ad how exactly?

BlitzKrieg

guys just so you know...


the original looks to be possible fake

the original file has been pulled claiming that copyright by MG cinema

and a quick google shows:

http://www.mgcinema.com/badmoviemoreinfo.html


and his myspace page is the only site i can find on the guy

http://www.electdan2010.com/

everything else is about this scandel

is he on the republican website?

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

And they all have to do with this politican's misguided ad how exactly?

OP news quote:
"Dan Fanelli, a Florida Republican hoping to emerge from a competitive Republican primary field to challenge Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson, has released an ad in which he appears to argue that the United States should engage in racial profiling to fight terror."

History sometimes repeats itself. Voters too often forget that the US went to war (Iraq II), or surrendered their rights to privacy (millions AT&T phone and internet taps) using similar scare tactics. Such scare tactics helped GW Bush get reelected to a second term, and resulted in distracting the public from the very real fiscal problems that were growing and led to a fiscal meltdown. Although lacking in sophistication, it would appear that Dan Fanelli is appealing to scare tactics, which will generate a lot of attention by the news media. The old book "King Fish" quotes former Louisiana Governor and US Senator Huey Long as saying (paraphrase): It's better to be known favourably; second best is to be known unfavourably; but worst is to be unknown. He is now known, and people will vote for him (hopefully not in sufficient numbers to win the election).

Amerika

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

OP news quote:
"Dan Fanelli, a Florida Republican hoping to emerge from a competitive Republican primary field to challenge Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson, has released an ad in which he appears to argue that the United States should engage in racial profiling to fight terror."

History sometimes repeats itself. Voters too often forget that the US went to war (Iraq II), or surrendered their rights to privacy (millions AT&T phone and internet taps) using similar scare tactics. Such scare tactics helped GW Bush get reelected to a second term, and resulted in distracting the public from the very real fiscal problems that were growing and led to a fiscal meltdown. Although lacking in sophistication, it would appear that Dan Fanelli is appealing to scare tactics, which will generate a lot of attention by the news media. The old book "King Fish" quotes former Louisiana Governor and US Senator Huey Long as saying (paraphrase): It's better to be known favourably; second best is to be known unfavourably; but worst is to be unknown. He is now known, and people will vote for him (hopefully not in sufficient numbers to win the election).

Excellent utilization of "the stretch.” I’m impressed.

Black Swan

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

guys just so you know...


the original looks to be possible fake

What a craic! /facepalm

It's showing up elsewhere on the web, but that does not attest to its authenticity...
Sources:
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/gop-candidate-advocates-racial-profiling-at-airports-in-tv-ad-video.php

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Excellent utilization of "the stretch.” I’m impressed.

You should see my cut-and-paste and wrap-around, especially after a couple pints.

BlitzKrieg

ok fake suspicion retracted

I found him on the register for district 8

http://www.uselections.com/fl/fl.htm

Manic Moran

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

So much for one person, one vote? Federalism wins again with the Electoral College?

Depends on how much you like the concept of the Electoral College and the 'uneven' distribution of its votes.

Personally, I'm rather keen on it. Keeps the smaller States relevant.

NTM

Memnoch

Manic Moran wrote: »

Depends on how much you like the concept of the Electoral College and the 'uneven' distribution of its votes.

Personally, I'm rather keen on it. Keeps the bible thumping, conservative backwaters relevant.

NTM

Slight correction.

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

Depends on how much you like the concept of the Electoral College and the 'uneven' distribution of its votes.

Personally, I'm rather keen on it. Keeps the smaller States relevant.

Yes indeed, if you lived in Wyoming (and not California), and wanted to have extraordinarily disproportionate influence upon the Senate confirmation of the next member of the US Supreme Court?

According to US Bureau of Census 2009 population estimates:
California 36,961,664 (2 US Senators)
Wyoming 544,270 (2 US Senators)

36,961,664 / 544,270 = 67.9 suggesting that the weight of each represented Wyoming resident is worth 67.9 Californians? Representative democracy in the US is a sad joke. What is the cliche' saying about this? Oh... "All people are equal, but some people are more equal than others."

Source: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0658072.html

Manic Moran

Memnoch wrote: »

Slight correction.

With respect, small states are not purely Conservative. Rhode Island comes to mind.

NTM

Memnoch

Manic Moran wrote: »

With respect, small states are not purely Conservative. Rhode Island comes to mind.

NTM

I'll confess I don't remember the value of every single state in the electoral college system, but unless I'm mistaken, the GOP would really struggle to win an election if the "smaller states" could only vote in proportion to their populations.

Manic Moran

That may well be the case, but I don't think it should affect the principle. It's a union of fifty equal States, not a union of 300million equal people. You have to keep the smaller States relevant. The two ways this are done are the EC and the Senate.

NTM

Amerika

To abolish the Electoral College by admendment (another move towards the nationalization of our central government) would mean that in a nationwide election, states would have no meaning. And if we abolish the Electoral College, wouldn’t it also make sence to abolish the US Senate?

Memnoch

Manic Moran wrote: »

That may well be the case, but I don't think it should affect the principle. It's a union of fifty equal States, not a union of 300million equal people. You have to keep the smaller States relevant. The two ways this are done are the EC and the Senate.

NTM

I disagree. I think a large part of the problem in American politics is the disproportionate amount of power wielded by a minority of nut job idiots.

It should be a union of 300 million equal people, because extremists tend to be in the minority and right now, in the states, extremists hold far too much sway.

Manic Moran

Eliminating the EC or not wouldn't fix that, though. You need to find a system which permits the election of third parties, since the current two are very polarised and are firmly entrenched. Of course, the only way to do that would be to have the legislature enact something like single transferable votes, which would effectively mean that they're voting themselves out of office.

I think there's more chance of an armed revolution in the US. And since there's not much chance of that, we're pretty much stuck with the two parties.

NTM

Memnoch

Manic Moran wrote: »

Eliminating the EC or not wouldn't fix that, though. You need to find a system which permits the election of third parties, since the current two are very polarised and are firmly entrenched. Of course, the only way to do that would be to have the legislature enact something like single transferable votes, which would effectively mean that they're voting themselves out of office.

I think there's more chance of an armed revolution in the US. And since there's not much chance of that, we're pretty much stuck with the two parties.

NTM

You might be stuck with the two parties, but you could reduce the need for them to pander to extremists. Also by making the bible belt backwaters irrelevant (as they should be) the GOP will be forced to modernise and abandon some of it's moronic stances, such as on separation between religion and state, homosexuality, and maybe even torture etc.

Manic Moran

And instead pander to the population centres which lean Democrat?

At least rural issues get their due weight under the current system. There may be fewer people living in the rural areas, but one farmer in Idaho or miner in Wyoming is probably more important to the US overall than a tax attorney in Boston or a barrista in Seattle. Without that balancing, the only candidates which will get the votes will be those which have policies which benefit the cities, increasing migration to those cities at the cost of the rural areas.

NTM