Documented proof Republican fear mongering

[rightwinger]

You keep using that word , It doesnt mean what you think it means.

Inconceivable!

 

[drsmith1072]

Again point out one thing that is IN the "playbook" that isn't true. Also point out this so-called fear mongering.

And yes Obama is a socialist. Socialism according to Karl Marx is the transistion between capitalism and communism and Obama is certainly out to transform this nation. Obama believes that labor unions should be allowed to organize without a secret ballot. The Socialist Party USA calls for unions to be recognized without a secret ballot. If you would do a little research into the Socialist Party USA you would find that their ideology and Obama's are very similar. But of course you won't because you satisfied staying ignorant and believing everything your masters tells you. If you're anything, you're an obediant peon.

LOL So based on your degrees of seperation and things you claim he has in common with a group you wish to label him something based on a few pixels in the picture because it suits your needs to do so. LOL

I beleive in and support the right to bear arms does that make me a conservative republican?? LOL After all, I hold a belief that most conservative republicans do so that must mean that I am a conservative republican. right??

Interesting, you talk about being open minded and then show yourself to be so narrowminded.

I base it on his actions, his past rhetoric and the fact that he holds much of the same ideas as a known socialist party. I gave one shared view that he has with the socialist party, it wasn't the only view, there are many. If I'm narrow-minded then you are close-minded.

So it's only your biased opinion and you have nothing reall and or specific. Thanks. LOL If there are many why not provide them instead of merely making the unsubstatiated claim??

Again, you taking a few pixels out of the photo and trying to define the whole on those few pixels shows that you are far more close-minded than you wish to believe. Don't take my word for it, read your own posts. LOL

 

[drsmith1072]

Dude, was I addressing you ? No I wasn't so shut the fuck up!

So you are talking about him and he calls you out for being obsessed with him personally, which you appear to be, but you try to tell him he has no right to defend himself??

WOW! Really??

Yes really. And I'm not obsessed with him or anyone else.

methinks thou doth protest too much. That and the fact that you are focused on the person and not the content of his posts shows that you kind of are obsessed with him to the point that you actually believe that you can talk about him to another person on an open message in a thread that he started and then tell him that he has no right to defend himself. LOL

 

[KMAN]

Old news is old but yeah, they layed it all out.

With this knowledge one would think people wouldn't be so hoodwinked by the tactics of the GOP.

That's why the tea party is going like gang busters. People are tired of career politicians who only care about themselves... Dems and Repubs are all the same for the most part.

 

[KMAN]

Oh I just read more of the article.... and um..... he IS taking us to complete socialism... So yes, people should be fearing that this country everyday becomes more like Europe.....

 

[drsmith1072]

It's been pointed out, but I guess your not bright enough to have understood it, that both sides uses fear and scare tactics, it has been going on since the dawn of politics. Beating up on Obama about his policies are also justified, so what's your point?

Speaking of honesty, I doubt you have that capability. Under Obama the size of government has increased by 25 percent, you can't say the same about Bush. And not all of the States took all the stimulus money that was offered them.

Have i denied that both parties use fear tactics?? NO, so once again you attack the messenger and this time over a comment that I never made. GJ hack.

Furthermore if you beat up obama over his REAL policies then I ahve no problem with that. hwoever, the death panels spin was not real, the socialist claims are nothing but the new red scare tactics coming from the right and as you tried to spin will lead to communism as you go back to the original red scare.

Personally I thinks it's hilarious that you try to come at me claiming I am dishonest in a post where you dishonestly try to attribute a statement to me so you can try to justify your baseless personal attacks.

Not all of the States took all the stimulus money?? That's the best defense that you have?? LOL How many didn't take ANY of the money?? Got a list??

Did I say that you denied anything you stupid fuck? No, I said it has been pointed out and that you may not have understood it. More dishonesty on your part.

Speaking of dishonesty and comments never made, I never made one comment about "death panels" so it appears you're doing the same thing you wrongfully accused me of doing. The socialist claims are valid whether you choose to accept it or not.

It's not defense it's the facts. I don't know of any state that didn't take any money at all, but I wouldn't be surprised if that may be the case. Find your own list.

By claiming that i didn't understand it you are implying that I am denying that both parties do it. Are you really this dense??

Please learn to keep up, The topic is scare tactics of the right, so I listed a few and not once did I attribute the argument to you specifically. So thanks again for showing how dishonest you truly are.

Oh now that is rich. You make the claim, then proclaim that "it's the facts", then you refuse to and apparently can't provide proof of your own claim despite your certainty, and then you tell me to go find proof of your claim. LOL

YOU made the claim, so where is your proof??

 

[martybegan]

I am not saying that the left doesn't engage in fear tactics too but I was concerned with how you tried to use global warming and yet the examples that you listed were facts that most experienced with the field attribute to global warming. So how is stating the facts considered scare tactics?

The fact that you didn't address the republican tactics is part of the problem seeing as how that was the actual topic of the thread. Socialism was one of the fear tactics used by the right in the "playbook" that is why I brought it up.

Furthermore, when corporations can't be trusted to be protectors of the environment as they choose profits over protecting it then there needs to be increased regulations to make sure that they act in the best interests of the public.

It's scare tactics because most of it is speculative. It isnt a direct casual link, such as if you add too much nitrogen to water, algae blooms form, and you get hypoxia. its "higher CO2 may cause higher temps which may cause hurricanes/floods/blizzards/dogs and cats, living together. And since the average person doesnt undertand the science proponents have to go with ZOMG THE WATERZ ARE COMING TO GET YOU!

And plenty of people have brought up the republican scare tactics, I dont have to acknowledge it every single time.

And finally, yes you need regulation, but what level? A carbon tax/trade system/ hard cap isnt regulation, its an attempt to dramatically shift how energy is produced in the country, with the preferred "clean" methods being woefully under-developed for the task.

Honesty would be saying we think climate change is a real problem, thereofre we have to ask you to radically change how you live, and pay tons more for things you take for granted as affordable.

Thanks for the OPINIONS but I still don't see how arguing that IF the icecaps melt that the oceans will rise, which is NOT debatable, is considered a scare tactic. IF global temps continue to rise then the ice caps will continue to melt. And right wingers proclaiming that because it gets cold therefore global warming isn't real is about all the right usually offers in a debate. However, look at the highs now and those same wackos aren't proclaiming that it's real because it's hot now are they?? LOL

So you would rather stay off topic. Got it. LOL

So you agree that we should have regulation? so your previous slam against the left over regulation was pretty much pointless? Got it. I just think it's funny that you think regualtions aren't regulations. LOL

You are obviously good at presenting your opinions as fact, such as your "most of it is speculative" argument, but you seem to be lacking in the substance department.

I noted my thread deviance previously, this whole thread is a meandering clusterfuck at this point. Also the answer to the first paragraph in a laconic sense is "if."

Debate on regulation of anything is not aristotilian in nature, not black white, all or nothing. To me things like regulating levels of SOx and NOx in powerplant emissions is true regulation. The main reason is that it can be treated, and is not an intrigal part of the combustion process. Regulating CO2, however is basically limiting the very product of combustion, that cannot realistically be scrubbed or cleaned out. You are then not regulating, you are trying to force the end of combustion based power generation into something else.

As for your last paragraph, in the end unless we are all standing in a circle and watching a ball fall due to gravity, most complex science IS a wedding of opinion and fact, no matter how much people don't want it to be.

 

[ConHog]

I didn't read this thread at all other than the OP, so perhaps this has been said... BUT, it's a good thing the Dems never tried to make people afraid of the BOOSH!!

 

[Bass v 2.0]

What does "I voted for Obama not the Democratic Party, the same way I voted for a religiously conservative candidate in my area, not the party he belongs to" have to do with the topic and the link posted?

You called me a Democrat and I had to slap you back to reality by showing you that I am not affiliated with any political party and I vote for the person and what they bring to the table, not what the party brings to the table since their are moderate and extreme elements within any political party.

Boy are you stupid!

No monkey, you are stupid, you blindly accept any garbage that rightwingers and the GOP spit out and see it as Holy Gospel instead of carefully evaluating everything thats said with an objective and open mind, political monkey see monkey do from a retarded monkey like yourself.

You can't whip anyone in a debate, as a matter of you never engage in debates. You spout off bullshit and when challenged you either runaway, change topics or ignore the challenge altogether. You are nothing but a clown

I stayed on topic, you personally attacked and started catching feeling getting emotional acting like a psychotic gorilla on crack. You don't even know whats in that playbook yet you believe everything in there, can you say "space cadet?"

 

[Bass v 2.0]

I didn't read this thread at all other than the OP, so perhaps this has been said... BUT, it's a good thing the Dems never tried to make people afraid of the BOOSH!!

Because of Bush and his failures, John McCain isn't office and who's the blame for that? Republicans, people saw through their BS and it was Bush and his cronies who hoodwinked Americans into fear mode with their lies of WMD in Iraq to start a war by using fear of a terrorist state and links with al-Qaida. It was Bush and his cronies who used fear of terrorists to enact the Patriot Act and other measures against out liberties as well as to torture people.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

lol! Fear Mongering about Fear Mongering. Yea the Dems are pretty desperate. The iceberg is now in sight. See Ya Dems.

 

[drsmith1072]

It's scare tactics because most of it is speculative. It isnt a direct casual link, such as if you add too much nitrogen to water, algae blooms form, and you get hypoxia. its "higher CO2 may cause higher temps which may cause hurricanes/floods/blizzards/dogs and cats, living together. And since the average person doesnt undertand the science proponents have to go with ZOMG THE WATERZ ARE COMING TO GET YOU!

And plenty of people have brought up the republican scare tactics, I dont have to acknowledge it every single time.

And finally, yes you need regulation, but what level? A carbon tax/trade system/ hard cap isnt regulation, its an attempt to dramatically shift how energy is produced in the country, with the preferred "clean" methods being woefully under-developed for the task.

Honesty would be saying we think climate change is a real problem, thereofre we have to ask you to radically change how you live, and pay tons more for things you take for granted as affordable.

Thanks for the OPINIONS but I still don't see how arguing that IF the icecaps melt that the oceans will rise, which is NOT debatable, is considered a scare tactic. IF global temps continue to rise then the ice caps will continue to melt. And right wingers proclaiming that because it gets cold therefore global warming isn't real is about all the right usually offers in a debate. However, look at the highs now and those same wackos aren't proclaiming that it's real because it's hot now are they?? LOL

So you would rather stay off topic. Got it. LOL

So you agree that we should have regulation? so your previous slam against the left over regulation was pretty much pointless? Got it. I just think it's funny that you think regualtions aren't regulations. LOL

You are obviously good at presenting your opinions as fact, such as your "most of it is speculative" argument, but you seem to be lacking in the substance department.

I noted my thread deviance previously, this whole thread is a meandering clusterfuck at this point. Also the answer to the first paragraph in a laconic sense is "if."

Debate on regulation of anything is not aristotilian in nature, not black white, all or nothing. To me things like regulating levels of SOx and NOx in powerplant emissions is true regulation. The main reason is that it can be treated, and is not an intrigal part of the combustion process. Regulating CO2, however is basically limiting the very product of combustion, that cannot realistically be scrubbed or cleaned out. You are then not regulating, you are trying to force the end of combustion based power generation into something else.

As for your last paragraph, in the end unless we are all standing in a circle and watching a ball fall due to gravity, most complex science IS a wedding of opinion and fact, no matter how much people don't want it to be.

LOL "IF" you are going to try to show off by throwing in your word of the day in a desperate attempt to make your arguments appear to be valid or intelligent at least make sure you spell the word correctly. LOL

Furthermore, "IF" isn't a valid response but instead is nothing more than the typical avoidance tactic similar to those seen daily from right wingers who wish to avoid answering a question or responding to a comment that they can't spin.

So, in your second paragraph are you actually trying to argue that there is NOTHING that plants can do to limit or control their CO2 emissions?? Seriously?? I believe that you need to rethink that spin and try again.

And to your last paragraph, it's nothing more than spin. No one is talking about the "wedding of opinion and fact" but instead I was referring to your attempts to present your opinions as if they are fact when they are NOT.