Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You mean like Democrats saying "The GOP is going to shut down Social Security!!!"?
I was actually thinking of how the Republican Party and its fellow travelers - like you dave - use fear to achieve political goals.
The GOP does hope to dismantle SS and Medicare as well as privatize as much as possible. That's not fear mongering or terrorisim, that's simply a policy geared towards their base, the few, the wealthy and the greedy.
That said, Gov. Brewer, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congressional Leadership use fear to terrorize the less bright Americans to garner their votes to help the base; those who take the bait, you Dave and other echo chamber members, simply repeat the propaganda, half-truths and damn lies of the non-violent terrorists which make-up the new right today.
Red baiting, claiming anyone center-left is a "Marxist" or "Socialist" or hates America - it's all bull shit but people like you believe it and repeat it over and over. In a strange way it is funny how stupid the rhetoric which 'your kind' believes.
and the democrats don't? is that your final answer? really?
I was actually thinking of how the Republican Party and its fellow travelers - like you dave - use fear to achieve political goals.
The GOP does hope to dismantle SS and Medicare as well as privatize as much as possible. That's not fear mongering or terrorisim, that's simply a policy geared towards their base, the few, the wealthy and the greedy.
That said, Gov. Brewer, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congressional Leadership use fear to terrorize the less bright Americans to garner their votes to help the base; those who take the bait, you Dave and other echo chamber members, simply repeat the propaganda, half-truths and damn lies of the non-violent terrorists which make-up the new right today.
Red baiting, claiming anyone center-left is a "Marxist" or "Socialist" or hates America - it's all bull shit but people like you believe it and repeat it over and over. In a strange way it is funny how stupid the rhetoric which 'your kind' believes.
and the democrats don't? is that your final answer? really?
My final answer? Nope, I have more answers, do you my fowl feathered friend have more questions?
If not, please enlighten me. What do the Democrats do which mirrors red baiting? Have Democrats invented terms simply for the emotional impact (Islamo-Fascists), or claim the Republicans hope to destroy our economy, or hate America?
...so Lie-ability has cut and run after once again posting partisan bull with an arrogant twist, and getting it stuffed right back at him; and after getting down with my fowl feathered friend, he too seems to have flown the coop.
Shocking.
They threw tea into the water. No one was killed or injured.
Calling them "terrorists" seems kinda silly.
so mailing envelopes of harmless white powder to congress would not be terrorism?
It was a terrorist act.
Or putting a fake bomb in a school would not be terrorism?
How is putting a fake bomb in a school anything like throwing tea in the water in protest of tyranny?
Were children being threatened? Was anyone being threatened? Do you suppose anyone felt "scared" by the fact that the tea was dumped overboard?
Fucking idiot. You deserve a tyrannical government.
No.
Violence is required OR the THREAT of violence to instill fear into a population to compel a government to do the bidding of the terrorist.
Without violence or the threat of violence, what would instill such abject fear (sufficient to be called "terror") into the population?
Don't you ever tire of being wrong?
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf6YKOkfFsE[/ame]
clearly he doesn't.
And the powers that were reacted to the original Tea Partiers in much the same way as have the powers that be.
In that context, Democrat Party = King George and the Torries.
Strange days indeed.
Must terrorism be violent? Isn't a policy of instilling fear into a population a form of terrorism?
No.
Violence is required OR the THREAT of violence to instill fear into a population to compel a government to do the bidding of the terrorist.
Without violence or the threat of violence, what would instill such abject fear (sufficient to be called "terror") into the population?
Don't you ever tire of being wrong?
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf6YKOkfFsE[/ame]
and the democrats don't? is that your final answer? really?
My final answer? Nope, I have more answers, do you my fowl feathered friend have more questions?
If not, please enlighten me. What do the Democrats do which mirrors red baiting? Have Democrats invented terms simply for the emotional impact (Islamo-Fascists), or claim the Republicans hope to destroy our economy, or hate America?
i suggest you watch any of the fearmongering political ads put out by democratic incumbents this year. privatization of SS seems to be a favorite topic, but i'm sure there are others. a look at the nevada senatorial race would also be instructive, assuming that one can see things objectively.
your mistake is in ascribing the negative only to the republicans. the democrats are just as guilty of this behavior, and both parties have done us a great disservice thereby.
My final answer? Nope, I have more answers, do you my fowl feathered friend have more questions?
If not, please enlighten me. What do the Democrats do which mirrors red baiting? Have Democrats invented terms simply for the emotional impact (Islamo-Fascists), or claim the Republicans hope to destroy our economy, or hate America?
i suggest you watch any of the fearmongering political ads put out by democratic incumbents this year. privatization of SS seems to be a favorite topic, but i'm sure there are others. a look at the nevada senatorial race would also be instructive, assuming that one can see things objectively.
your mistake is in ascribing the negative only to the republicans. the democrats are just as guilty of this behavior, and both parties have done us a great disservice thereby.
Yikes. Mea culpa - I thunk you'd punked (out).
In kind, but not in degree. Of course the ads I see are mostly local - as in state campaigns; nothing could be as negative as Whitman's though. She went all negative against her Republican opponent in the primary and went after Brown with ads both negative and false.
As for Carly, the R Senate darling, she even went after Boxer's hairstyle. Given your picture I'm sure you must find such attacks beyond the scope of civility.
I agree negative ads suck and do a disservice to the American voter, as well as dumb down the entire process. Maybe it's perspective, but I find the Republican message ALL hate and fear - they offer nothing but unproven axioms as if true for the ages and no proactive policies.
No.
Violence is required OR the THREAT of violence to instill fear into a population to compel a government to do the bidding of the terrorist.
Without violence or the threat of violence, what would instill such abject fear (sufficient to be called "terror") into the population?
Don't you ever tire of being wrong?
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf6YKOkfFsE[/ame]
I wouldn't know. Unlike you, on this matter, I have not been wrong. You have.
I cannot make you (or Jilly) grasp that words have actual meaning. You are libs, and so this notion offends you.
But still, it's true.
Oh, and sight unseen, your link to a video of something said by McCain is bound to be unpersuasive. I am not bound by things said by Sen. Mccain. He was wrong in McCain/Foolsgold. And to the extent his effort to define "terrorism" differs from mine, then he's wrong on that too. Why? Because words do have actual meaning.
I wouldn't know. Unlike you, on this matter, I have not been wrong. You have.
I cannot make you (or Jilly) grasp that words have actual meaning. You are libs, and so this notion offends you.
But still, it's true.
Oh, and sight unseen, your link to a video of something said by McCain is bound to be unpersuasive. I am not bound by things said by Sen. Mccain. He was wrong in McCain/Foolsgold. And to the extent his effort to define "terrorism" differs from mine, then he's wrong on that too. Why? Because words do have actual meaning.
Nice spin. Yes, words have meaning and an emotional impact - and, you and I (and everyone else) knows it was not one statement made by John McCain which created, 'he's a, ah, an Arab!"
It was the result of a planned, intentional campaign to create an environment of hate and fear. Words over the airways from Limbaugh and Hannity, O'Reilly and dozens of other RW broadcasters; and from the mouths of Palin and Gingrich and Boehner and McConnell and the Reactionary forces of the contemporary RW in America. Same hate and fear rhetoric, same propaganda, same half-truths and lies.
i suggest you watch any of the fearmongering political ads put out by democratic incumbents this year. privatization of SS seems to be a favorite topic, but i'm sure there are others. a look at the nevada senatorial race would also be instructive, assuming that one can see things objectively.
your mistake is in ascribing the negative only to the republicans. the democrats are just as guilty of this behavior, and both parties have done us a great disservice thereby.
Yikes. Mea culpa - I thunk you'd punked (out).
In kind, but not in degree. Of course the ads I see are mostly local - as in state campaigns; nothing could be as negative as Whitman's though. She went all negative against her Republican opponent in the primary and went after Brown with ads both negative and false.
As for Carly, the R Senate darling, she even went after Boxer's hairstyle. Given your picture I'm sure you must find such attacks beyond the scope of civility.
I agree negative ads suck and do a disservice to the American voter, as well as dumb down the entire process. Maybe it's perspective, but I find the Republican message ALL hate and fear - they offer nothing but unproven axioms as if true for the ages and no proactive policies.
they've offered as many proactive policies as the dems; you just don't like them, which is fine by me. i'm not particularly enamored of either party. i try to vote for people rather than party, but nine times out of ten, they get to washington or the state capital and become what they railed against- part of the machine.
I wouldn't know. Unlike you, on this matter, I have not been wrong. You have.
I cannot make you (or Jilly) grasp that words have actual meaning. You are libs, and so this notion offends you.
But still, it's true.
Oh, and sight unseen, your link to a video of something said by McCain is bound to be unpersuasive. I am not bound by things said by Sen. Mccain. He was wrong in McCain/Foolsgold. And to the extent his effort to define "terrorism" differs from mine, then he's wrong on that too. Why? Because words do have actual meaning.
Nice spin. Yes, words have meaning and an emotional impact - and, you and I (and everyone else) knows it was not one statement made by John McCain which created, 'he's a, ah, an Arab!"
It was the result of a planned, intentional campaign to create an environment of hate and fear. Words over the airways from Limbaugh and Hannity, O'Reilly and dozens of other RW broadcasters; and from the mouths of Palin and Gingrich and Boehner and McConnell and the Reactionary forces of the contemporary RW in America. Same hate and fear rhetoric, same propaganda, same half-truths and lies.
Yikes. Mea culpa - I thunk you'd punked (out).
In kind, but not in degree. Of course the ads I see are mostly local - as in state campaigns; nothing could be as negative as Whitman's though. She went all negative against her Republican opponent in the primary and went after Brown with ads both negative and false.
As for Carly, the R Senate darling, she even went after Boxer's hairstyle. Given your picture I'm sure you must find such attacks beyond the scope of civility.
I agree negative ads suck and do a disservice to the American voter, as well as dumb down the entire process. Maybe it's perspective, but I find the Republican message ALL hate and fear - they offer nothing but unproven axioms as if true for the ages and no proactive policies.
they've offered as many proactive policies as the dems; you just don't like them, which is fine by me. i'm not particularly enamored of either party. i try to vote for people rather than party, but nine times out of ten, they get to washington or the state capital and become what they railed against- part of the machine.
Proactive policies from the contemporary Republicans? I'm surprised, I'm hearing cut taxes, cut regulations, repeal healthcare and Wall Street reform, stepback and get out of the way and let the 'markets' rule.
Please, enlighten me.
I wouldn't know. Unlike you, on this matter, I have not been wrong. You have.
I cannot make you (or Jilly) grasp that words have actual meaning. You are libs, and so this notion offends you.
But still, it's true.
Oh, and sight unseen, your link to a video of something said by McCain is bound to be unpersuasive. I am not bound by things said by Sen. Mccain. He was wrong in McCain/Foolsgold. And to the extent his effort to define "terrorism" differs from mine, then he's wrong on that too. Why? Because words do have actual meaning.
Nice spin. Yes, words have meaning and an emotional impact - and, you and I (and everyone else) knows it was not one statement made by John McCain which created, 'he's a, ah, an Arab!"
It was the result of a planned, intentional campaign to create an environment of hate and fear. Words over the airways from Limbaugh and Hannity, O'Reilly and dozens of other RW broadcasters; and from the mouths of Palin and Gingrich and Boehner and McConnell and the Reactionary forces of the contemporary RW in America. Same hate and fear rhetoric, same propaganda, same half-truths and lies.
IIRC, it was the clinton campaign that spread the photo of obama in traditional garb. that's my first recollection of anyone "claiming" he was a closet muslim. the others ran with it
Ahhh, the old "No, YOU!!!" defense.You mean like Democrats saying "The GOP is going to shut down Social Security!!!"?Must terrorism be violent? Isn't a policy of instilling fear into a population a form of terrorism?
I was actually thinking of how the Republican Party and its fellow travelers - like you dave - use fear to achieve political goals.
The GOP does hope to dismantle SS and Medicare as well as privatize as much as possible. That's not fear mongering or terrorisim, that's simply a policy geared towards their base, the few, the wealthy and the greedy.
That said, Gov. Brewer, Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich and the Republican Congressional Leadership use fear to terrorize the less bright Americans to garner their votes to help the base; those who take the bait, you Dave and other echo chamber members, simply repeat the propaganda, half-truths and damn lies of the non-violent terrorists which make-up the new right today.
Red baiting, claiming anyone center-left is a "Marxist" or "Socialist" or hates America - it's all bull shit but people like you believe it and repeat it over and over. In a strange way it is funny how stupid the rhetoric which 'your kind' believes.
so mailing envelopes of harmless white powder to congress would not be terrorism?
It was a terrorist act.
Or putting a fake bomb in a school would not be terrorism?
How is putting a fake bomb in a school anything like throwing tea in the water in protest of tyranny?
Were children being threatened? Was anyone being threatened? Do you suppose anyone felt "scared" by the fact that the tea was dumped overboard?
Fucking idiot. You deserve a tyrannical government.
You know I wonder what really did happen there?
The history we are taught was written by the victors.
It seems like they would have had at least some guards for the ships full of valuable cargo?
