Read the post again, you are not understanding it. It says nothing about being quiet or not having a discussion. It is simply pointing out a partisan hypocrisy.
I love this!You are already riding yours. it's called: ObamBam Jr.
and you are saying it is partisan hypocrisy because they gave their opinion on how to handle it.
I think it is completely fine to give their opinion on how to handle the security/terrorism issues. I think it is a good and necessary discussion that we should all be working together on. Similarly when the left reacts the same way to a gun violence event, I think their opinions should be heard and solutions explored. The hypocrisy lies in both parties demonizing each other when each uses an event to open discussion about something on their agenda. The pointless demonizing needs to evolve to productive collaboration.
ahhh...But I did. The fact that you did not understand my response....or not willing to understand the point I was making is not my problem.
I think you don't understand that national security isn't just politics. It's survival. Politicizing something is like blaming guns for murder.You call the OP a moron then completely misinterpret his post. Oh the irony. Nobody said anything about ignoring the immigration issue. He was simply stating the obvious hypocrisy of the right who jumps on the insult train accusing the left of politicizing world events. Sometimes it's a good thing to take a look in the mirrorThe OP is a moron. Loose immigration has led to it and it isn't the fault of the right, or politicizing and event if that particular detail is mentioned. It's a fact that would be stupid to ignore. The real problem is why the left prefers to wring their hands and point fingers instead.Spinning a terrorist attack to promote immigration policy is politicizing, similar to promoting gun control after a mass shooting. The OP is pointing out the hypocrisy of the Rights criticism of the left for politicizing gun control with this recent event... Do you really not understand his point? It's not very complicated.True, but a political event and politicizing an event are two very different things. You funny.
You can't politicize something that is already political. That's like saying don't politicize the election. Nice try though.
National security vs personal security... Terrorist bomb vs gun attack... Both lead to one thing... Feeling safe. Many different opinions on how to get there... We aren't talking about apples and oranges here... It's all applesI think you don't understand that national security isn't just politics. It's survival. Politicizing something is like blaming guns for murder.You call the OP a moron then completely misinterpret his post. Oh the irony. Nobody said anything about ignoring the immigration issue. He was simply stating the obvious hypocrisy of the right who jumps on the insult train accusing the left of politicizing world events. Sometimes it's a good thing to take a look in the mirrorThe OP is a moron. Loose immigration has led to it and it isn't the fault of the right, or politicizing and event if that particular detail is mentioned. It's a fact that would be stupid to ignore. The real problem is why the left prefers to wring their hands and point fingers instead.Spinning a terrorist attack to promote immigration policy is politicizing, similar to promoting gun control after a mass shooting. The OP is pointing out the hypocrisy of the Rights criticism of the left for politicizing gun control with this recent event... Do you really not understand his point? It's not very complicated.True, but a political event and politicizing an event are two very different things. You funny.
You can't politicize something that is already political. That's like saying don't politicize the election. Nice try though.
Since your Tea Party members can't even spell socialism obviously they've never read anything about it so all they are doing is parroting slime like Rush Limbaugh. Since you will probably be to lazy and fearful to study it, here is is defined.
so·cial·ism: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated democratically by the community as a whole.
In 2007 when the original Tea Party was the Ron Paul patriots it was a good thing. Slime like Republican Dick Armey co-opted you guys and the Ron Paul people left. The tea party today is a joke. What you guys are now are rebels without a clue. The Dems openly mock you while the Republicans are laughing behind your backs.
The tea party is pathetic and as stupid as the Black Lives Matter movement. Just like Black Lives Matter movement is an embarrassment to most educated Blacks, the Tea Party is an embarrassment to anyone with an IQ of 90.
The tea party message contradicts itself.
Teabaggers can't spell. Here are some examples.
Joe the plumber was not even a licensed plumber. Plumbers have to have average IQs.
This is an anti-capitalist statement. Slavery is forced upon people. Taking out a loan is a choice.
Here is an example of how the baggers contradict their message. They want the "gubbermint" to stay out of people's personal lives yet they want the gubbermint to tell people who they can marry.
Clearly if the baggers were smart enough and motivated enough read the constitution they would be smart enough to know how to spell the word constitution. Most of you baggers are barely literate.
The teabaggers have no problem with corporate welfare and again if they were knowledgeable about socialism they would know how to spell it.
And replace it with what? Anarchy? You baggers don't just hate the American government you hate the very idea of democratic government. You guys are playing right into the hands of the very forces that are screwing you... the corporate criminal elite. "The top one-tenth of 1 percent" of Americans "own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent." Do you think that is fair?
Not only did this teatard spell medicaid wrong she's against socialism and medicaid is socialism.
I have no idea what you are going on about. Having a gun handy has nothing to do with feelings. Calling it gun violence is ALL about feelings. Guns aren't capable of violence.
Come on man, do I really need to explain this again? It isn't very difficult. Both the attack in Brussels and Gun Violence threaten our feeling of safety and create insecurity so they both warrant discussions about how to improve our security. Sure, guns don't kill people, people kill people, just like bombs don't kill people, terrorists do... That has nothing to do with this discussion. It is a simple observation about demonizing the opposition and the hypocrisy in our political party system. I don't understand why you are arguing about it.
