Republicans have become political terrorists

Bfgrn

Gold Member
Apr 4, 2009
16,829
2,492
245
twp_logo_300.gif

PH2007090901916.gif


Friday, August 7, 2009

...

The recent attacks by Republican leaders and their ideological fellow-travelers on the effort to reform the health-care system have been so misleading, so disingenuous, that they could only spring from a cynical effort to gain partisan political advantage. By poisoning the political well, they've given up any pretense of being the loyal opposition. They've become political terrorists, willing to say or do anything to prevent the country from reaching a consensus on one of its most serious domestic problems.

There are lots of valid criticisms that can be made against the health reform plans moving through Congress -- I've made a few myself. But there is no credible way to look at what has been proposed by the president or any congressional committee and conclude that these will result in a government takeover of the health-care system. That is a flat-out lie whose only purpose is to scare the public and stop political conversation.

...

The Republican lies about the economics of health reform are also heavily laced with hypocrisy.

While holding themselves out as paragons of fiscal rectitude, Republicans grandstand against just about every idea to reduce the amount of health care people consume or the prices paid to health-care providers -- the only two ways I can think of to credibly bring health spending under control.

When Democrats, for example, propose to fund research to give doctors, patients and health plans better information on what works and what doesn't, Republicans sense a sinister plot to have the government decide what treatments you will get. By the same wacko-logic, a proposal that Medicare pay for counseling on end-of-life care is transformed into a secret plan for mass euthanasia of the elderly.

Government negotiation on drug prices? The end of medical innovation as we know it, according to the GOP's Dr. No. Reduce Medicare payments to overpriced specialists and inefficient hospitals? The first step on the slippery slope toward rationing.

Can there be anyone more two-faced than the Republican leaders who in one breath rail against the evils of government-run health care and in another propose a government-subsidized high-risk pool for people with chronic illness, government-subsidized community health centers for the uninsured, and opening up Medicare to people at age 55?

Health reform is a test of whether this country can function once again as a civil society -- whether we can trust ourselves to embrace the big, important changes that require everyone to give up something in order to make everyone better off. Republican leaders are eager to see us fail that test. We need to show them that no matter how many lies they tell or how many scare tactics they concoct, Americans will come together and get this done.

If health reform is to be anyone's Waterloo, let it be theirs.

Read the entire article... washingtonpost.com
 
and anyone who disagrees, needs to be reported and put in re-education camp, got it.
 
and anyone who disagrees, needs to be reported and put in re-education camp, got it.

Thanks for PROVING Pearlstein's point...:clap2:

Ever hear of Pavlov's dogs?...
 
Dems aren't used to having any sunlight on their lies about "Health care reform" How did you expect them to react?
 
There are 265 Democratic House members and 59 Democratic Senators with 2 more supposed Independents that vote with the democrats.

In the house one only needs 218 votes to pass a bill and 51 in the Senate. SOMEONE explain HOW the Republicans are doing ANYTHING to stop bills from being passed.

It requires that 11 Senators vote with a solid Republican block or for 48 House members to vote with a solid block of republicans. SOMEONE, ANYONE, explain this to me? HOW in the hell can the Liberals STILL blame the Republicans for failing to get their agenda passed?

Have our National Press reporters, writers and anchors all gotten so STUPID they can make these claims?

Why is it that when someone protests what the Liberals want they are terrorists, but when they protested what the Conservatives wanted they were patriots? Come on explain it to me?
 
There are 265 Democratic House members and 59 Democratic Senators with 2 more supposed Independents that vote with the democrats.

In the house one only needs 218 votes to pass a bill and 51 in the Senate. SOMEONE explain HOW the Republicans are doing ANYTHING to stop bills from being passed.

It requires that 11 Senators vote with a solid Republican block or for 48 House members to vote with a solid block of republicans. SOMEONE, ANYONE, explain this to me? HOW in the hell can the Liberals STILL blame the Republicans for failing to get their agenda passed?

Have our National Press reporters, writers and anchors all gotten so STUPID they can make these claims?

Why is it that when someone protests what the Liberals want they are terrorists, but when they protested what the Conservatives wanted they were patriots? Come on explain it to me?

do I's get a reward for my explanation?
 
democwats want what they want only theywant to call it "bipartisan" cause they don't have the balls to take responsibility for their actions.. they must absolutely must have somebody other than themselves to blame..how's that sound toya?:eusa_angel:
 
The last time Conservatives got this riled to take action was April 19, 1775

LOL...In America, a country founded on liberal tenets? The age of UN-enlightenment crowd also know as conservatives of that day supported King George...they would NEVER support radical change from the status quo...

Prior to the American Revolution, colonial institutions were generally conservative, including established churches, entailed property ownership, and bondage labor. Local land-owning and merchant elites became powerful through patronage from colonial governors and formed "court" factions in the colonial legislatures, opposed by "popular" factions representing less privileged voters. These conservative elites and their followers are often referred to by modern historians as "Tories", the term later used by leaders of the American Revolution to describe those loyal to the Crown.
wiki
 
Before i even read the article, my initial response to the title was this:

Has the Left become so disingenuous, dishinest, and desperate to silence the opposition that they rely on the use of words like 'olitical terrorism' to try and lump the opposing partyy with the popular images associated with terrorism? Are they so unable to address the Republicans in the political arena that their only response is to attempt to classify them as terrorist alongside bin Laden in order to demonize them?
 
The last time Conservatives got this riled to take action was April 19, 1775

LOL...In America, a country founded on liberal tenets? The age of UN-enlightenment crowd also know as conservatives of that day supported King George...they would NEVER support radical change from the status quo...

Prior to the American Revolution, colonial institutions were generally conservative, including established churches, entailed property ownership, and bondage labor. Local land-owning and merchant elites became powerful through patronage from colonial governors and formed "court" factions in the colonial legislatures, opposed by "popular" factions representing less privileged voters. These conservative elites and their followers are often referred to by modern historians as "Tories", the term later used by leaders of the American Revolution to describe those loyal to the Crown.
wiki

In Colonial times, Conservatives were making musket ball while Libruls were sucking King George's balls.
 
The above responses point out the problem. The adversaries do not attempt to defend, modify or offer alternatives but only attack the presenter. This achieves nothing but defensive and offensive posturing and totally ignores the problems.
.
If the Democratic plans fail then the Republicans will attempt to claim credit. The danger lies in the fact that if any of the Democratic plans succeed the Republicans can claim no glory and this may be reflected in future elections.

A larger problem looming for the Republicans lies in the fact that the economy will recover. Traditionally the President is given credit/blame for the economy and the Republicans will be viewed as opposing all of the "successful" plans which brought back the economy from the brink. Its not fact but perception which counts.
 
Before i even read the article, my initial response to the title was this:

Has the Left become so disingenuous, dishinest, and desperate to silence the opposition that they rely on the use of words like 'olitical terrorism' to try and lump the opposing partyy with the popular images associated with terrorism? Are they so unable to address the Republicans in the political arena that their only response is to attempt to classify them as terrorist alongside bin Laden in order to demonize them?

Comparing Republicans to terrorists...

Insurgency

Friday, February 6, 2009

Texas Republican Congressman Pete Sessions compares GOP strategy to Taliban insurgency


Pete_Sessions.jpg


"Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban, and that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person's entire processes. And these Taliban -- I'm not trying to say the Republican Party is the Taliban. No, that's not what we're saying. I'm saying an example of how you go about [sic] is to change a person from their messaging to their operations to their frontline message. And we need to understand that insurgency may be required when the other side, the House leadership, does not follow the same commands, which we entered the game with."

Paragraph from hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com.

Congressman Pete Sessions Compares House Republicans To Taliban | Capitol Annex
 
The last time Conservatives got this riled to take action was April 19, 1775

LOL...In America, a country founded on liberal tenets? The age of UN-enlightenment crowd also know as conservatives of that day supported King George...they would NEVER support radical change from the status quo...

Prior to the American Revolution, colonial institutions were generally conservative, including established churches, entailed property ownership, and bondage labor. Local land-owning and merchant elites became powerful through patronage from colonial governors and formed "court" factions in the colonial legislatures, opposed by "popular" factions representing less privileged voters. These conservative elites and their followers are often referred to by modern historians as "Tories", the term later used by leaders of the American Revolution to describe those loyal to the Crown.
wiki

In Colonial times, Conservatives were making musket ball while Libruls were sucking King George's balls.


You need an education.

Conservatism = reactionism
 
The above responses point out the problem. The adversaries do not attempt to defend, modify or offer alternatives but only attack the presenter. This achieves nothing but defensive and offensive posturing and totally ignores the problems.
.
If the Democratic plans fail then the Republicans will attempt to claim credit. The danger lies in the fact that if any of the Democratic plans succeed the Republicans can claim no glory and this may be reflected in future elections.

A larger problem looming for the Republicans lies in the fact that the economy will recover. Traditionally the President is given credit/blame for the economy and the Republicans will be viewed as opposing all of the "successful" plans which brought back the economy from the brink. Its not fact but perception which counts.

The only "Problem" is that we're not letting the NeoNazis change Health Care, er I mean Health Insurance, without a fight.
 
There are 265 Democratic House members and 59 Democratic Senators with 2 more supposed Independents that vote with the democrats.

In the house one only needs 218 votes to pass a bill and 51 in the Senate. SOMEONE explain HOW the Republicans are doing ANYTHING to stop bills from being passed.

It requires that 11 Senators vote with a solid Republican block or for 48 House members to vote with a solid block of republicans. SOMEONE, ANYONE, explain this to me? HOW in the hell can the Liberals STILL blame the Republicans for failing to get their agenda passed?

Have our National Press reporters, writers and anchors all gotten so STUPID they can make these claims?

Why is it that when someone protests what the Liberals want they are terrorists, but when they protested what the Conservatives wanted they were patriots? Come on explain it to me?

I'll give you a "hint"...READ the article, the author makes it clear...CRYSTAL...

The Republicans aren't interested in health care or how it effects We, the People, our economy or our businesses. They are not interested in debating health care issues...They are only interested in spreading FEAR though outrageous lies and defeating President Obama for their political gain.

"If we're able to stop Obama on this [health care reform], it will be his Waterloo. It will break him...
Senator Jim Demint (R) South Carolina

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHV4nDS501Y]YouTube - Sen. Jim DeMint calls defeating Obama like Waterloo[/ame]
 

Forum List

Back
Top