This is likely to get me in trouble with Liz, but......

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/18/bidens-claim-brush-gun-massacre-questioned/

You mentioned something about Democrats always deal in facts??? :D

Michale

BBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

:D

Michale

I can name plenty of agendas that earned Bush disgusting personal attacks..

Whether there were actual policies defeated because of Democrats, yes there were..

Do I recall specifics?? Of course not. I don't even remember what I had for breakfast this morning.. That's why we have the Internet.. :D

"I wrote it in my diary so I wouldn't HAVE to remember!"
-Sean Connery, INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE

:D

If we were in a bar where I knew you couldn't look at the Internet, I'd put some serious money on this bet.

Hello...??? Smart phones :D

But the fact that you won't let me look it up indicates to me that you KNOW that there ARE instances... :D

Michale

Huh? Now that's the funniest thing I've heard all day :)

Can you name one agenda item that Bush wasn't able to pass because of Democrats?

Without looking at the Internet?

If we were in a bar where I knew you couldn't look at the Internet, I'd put some serious money on this bet.

-David

That's good. Apparently they are showing more wisdom than Obama did in 2006 :D

hehehehehehehehehe

Michale

You say "Absolutely" there is valid criticism then go off into some vague IF/Then statement...

Can you pick a specific criticism??

The trouble is that Republicans have opposed everything and often for no other reason than because they want to make Obama look bad.

Just like Democrats did with Bush...

The valid criticisms are overwhelmed by the pettiness of trying to make Obama look bad.

I agree... I felt the same way under Bush.. :D

Michale

This doesn't sound like 'resting' ... :)

Absolutely. I think there's a good case to be made about the debt if tied into the overall economic picture.

The trouble is that Republicans have opposed everything and often for no other reason than because they want to make Obama look bad. Every appointment. Every decision. Every thing.

The valid criticisms are overwhelmed by the pettiness of trying to make Obama look bad.

-David

I rested mine first!

Neener Neener Neener!! :D

Let me put it another way...

Is there ANY criticism of Obama that comes from Republicans that is justified and correct???

Any at all??

Michale

No. I rest mine.

-David

So, you don't believe that ANY of Obama's actions MIGHT have POSSIBLY contributed to that belief??

I rest my case.. :D

Michale

Of course not ... there's lot of other conservative disinformation sources :)

-David

Not a personal attack on me, as I am not a Republican. It's not about me.. Remember?? :D

But it's a reprehensible attack. At least when a Republicans says it about a Democrat.

Apparently, it's OK if a Democrats says it about a Republican or a Left-Winger says it about conservatives..

Like I said above, if the Left wants civility, they have to be civil.. If the Left wants respect, they have to be respectful.

Again though, the focus of Maher's show is not to brand the group 'conservatives' as evil/stupid in order to win elections.

In your opinion..

But your opinion is biased...

Let me put it this way. Maher uses entertainment to inform. Limbaugh uses entertainment to disinform.

A perfect case in point. Maher misinforms as much as Limbaugh...

But you don't see that because you agree with Maher..

This is why some 20% of American people think Obama is a Muslim born in another country.

And you believe that is SOLELY and COMPLETELY because of Limbaugh?? You don't even CONSIDER the possibility that some of Obama's actions and history might support such a conclusion.

Like I said, you take the WORST possibility and conclude that THAT is the intent..

Can you show me where Maher has ever tried to deliberately misinform people?

I could..

But what would be the point? You would just spin it or invoke "context" or some such evasion..

The simple fact is, I have proven beyond ANY doubt that vile and perverse and reprehensible personal attacks are NOT just the domain of the Right..

Now, if you want to equivocate it with a "quantity" discussion or an "intent" discussion, fine. Equivocate to your heart's content..

My original point is and always has been that it DOES happen. And not just from some loudmouth blogger, but from well known Lefties..

The Left has their Hannitys and their Becks and their Coulters and their Limbaughs.

To deny this is to deny reality...

Now, if you want to claim "it's different", that's fine. I know it isn't but I understand why you would think it is...

But whether it's different or not is not my point.

My point is that it IS true...

Michale

Agreed. Moore at his worst is melodrama and omission. However, his focus is still bringing into the public eye issues which otherwise wouldn't receive attention. His focus is not to brand the group 'conservatives' as evil in order to win elections.

Oh come'on... That has happened many times here in Wegantia.

Please ... the comparison is to tactics and you just love it when you can change it into a personal attack on you.

In fairness, the tactic of threatening the economy in order to try to win cutbacks in social programs would more accurately be compared with extortion :)

So, what "position" was Maher arguing when he called Sarah Palin a "c*nt"?

I think he was out of line. Period. That's why I said Maher is about the closest thing to a Limbaugh on air I've seen.

Again though, the focus of Maher's show is not to brand the group 'conservatives' as evil/stupid in order to win elections. Does this make instances like this right? No. But he doesn't work to dupe people into thinking others are evil in order to advance the agenda of any particular party.

Its a false equivalency though to lump him in with the Limbaughs of the world. It's also funny how you lump Maddow and any other 'liberal' pundit in with Maher when Maddow never ventures into that territory.

Let me put it this way. Maher uses entertainment to inform. Limbaugh uses entertainment to disinform. This is why some 20% of American people think Obama is a Muslim born in another country. Where you see the similarity is the 'entertainment' part.

Can you show me where Maher has ever tried to deliberately misinform people?

-David

Really??

So, what "position" was Maher arguing when he called Sarah Palin a "c*nt"??

What "position" were Liberals arguing when they attacked Palin's kids in the most vile and disgusting manner??

No matter how much you want to spin things, the simple fact is that vile, disgusting and perverse personal attacks are NOT the sole domain of the Right..

Michale

Democrats are against domestic surveillance and against torturing terrorists.

Using your reasoning, that means that Democrats support terrorists...

The flaw in your thought process is you choose the nastiest POSSIBLE outcome of an action and claim that THAT outcome is the intent.

Without ANY evidence to support such a claim, I might add..

Who called Republicans terrorists?

Oh come'on... That has happened many times here in Wegantia. As recently as right in this commentary.

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2013/01/14/obamas-line-in-the-sand/#comment-32120

Now I KNOW yer just funnin' with me.. :D

Michale

moore crafts a great story; partly with fact, partly with myth and misdirection. if you want an interesting perspective on his methods, see the documentary, "Manufacturing Dissent" by rick caine and debbie melnyk. i saw it on netflix; it's a really interesting piece, because it does to moore exactly what he does to everyone else - fairly or not.

~joshua

Roger & Me- Moore uses film to bring attention to the issue of outsourcing and its affects on Detroit.

Bowling for Columbine- Moore uses film to bring attention to the issue of gun violence in schools and the military industrial complex. His attempt to link the two is tenuous.

Sicko- Moore uses film to bring attention to the sorry state of American healthcare.

Capitalism: A Love Story- Moore uses film to bring attention to the role Wall Street banks and the economic order in the U.S. played in the financial collapse.

These are the Moore films I've seen. At his worst, Moore becomes overly dramatic like when he asks Charlton Heston if he wants to apologize for leading NRA rallies in Flint Michigan where a 6-year old girl was shot.

I don't see where he is spewing hate and vitriol against conservatives, however. His style seems more like using drama and film theatrics to try to bring attention to issues which otherwise wouldn't garner much media attention.

Can you give me an example?

Is it rational to say that Republicans want to crash Wall Street?

Economists agree that the effect of not raising our debt limit would be drastic- the stock market could see a 10% plunge, for example.

Yet there doesn't seem to be any concern about this on the Republican side.

You can call it whatever you want but it looks to me as if Republicans care more about their political goals than our economy.

Who called Republicans terrorists?

-David

depends what you mean by "Republicans," what you mean by "poor people," and what you mean by "hate." it's obvious hyperbole - much like: "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what … who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims. … These are people who pay no income tax. … and so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” - but i would say the rational basis for claiming that the two statements correlate is well above zero.

~joshua

I wasn't yelling, I was emphasizing.

But this isn't about me.. :D

Is it rational to say that Republicans hate poor people?

Of course not.

Is it rational to call Republicans terrorists??

Of course not.

Is it rational to say that Republicans want to crash Wall Street??

Of course not.

I'm just sayin'.....

Michale

Hmmmmm.

-David

Ya'all want people to be so indignant, so offended and so angry about what people like Limbaugh and Beck and Hannity say about Liberals, yet ya'all completely ignore what Maher and Moore and Matthews and O'Donnell and Maddow say about Conservatives..

Ya'all AGREE with what they say about conservatives..

Ya'all call conservatives "TERRORISTS", just because of a political disagreement..

And ya'all simply are gabberflasted that not everyone buys into your "Republicans are Evil, Republicans are Terrorsts" meme...

Granted, not every Weigantian is part of the euphemistic "ya'all"... But enough are to be able to make such a blanket generalization...

If ya'all want civil discourse, YOU HAVE TO BE CIVIL...

If ya'all want rational discussions, YOU HAVE TO BE RATIONAL...

If ya'all want your point of view respected, YOU HAVE TO RESPECT OTHER PEOPLE'S POINT OF VIEW...

This isn't rocket science, people.

It's common sense...

Michale
MFCCFL

i would, and i've seen all his films except the most recent.

I never watch or listen to either. But I do read about them when they say something moronic or outrageous..

And it happens often enough and with enough similarity to conclude that Maher and Limbaugh are simply two sides of the same coin..

Michale

So you don't actually know ...

Well, you did admit that you didn't know anything about Limbaugh either.

Where are you getting this conclusion from then if you aren't familiar with either?

-David

Think of Rush Limbaugh and how he talks about Liberals and you'll know how Maher talks about Conservatives..

Michale

That is a good question. What is the Maher version of conservatives?

Religious? Dogmatic? Not open to ideas outside of the conservative sphere?

-David

Bullshit.. Journo-List..

They don't attack conservatives just for being conservative.

Bullshit..

They argue over positions rather than simply attacking conservatives for being 'conservative'.

Bullshit

What they do is different.

And I completely believe that you believe that..

But to an OBJECTIVE person, a person who is neither conservative nor liberal, there is no difference..

While the Right may be more effective in their entertaining (as evidenced by ratings) the actual act and the actual intent, there is absolutely NO DIFFERENCE between the Right pundits and the Left pundits..

I know you will never concede this, so we'll just have to agree to disagree...

Michale

And does the Maher version of conservatives match the statistical reality?

Of course, you will say yes...

But, then again, you are not objective as you believe a lot of the same things that Maher believes...

On the flip side, I think it's what, 11 million people who listen to Rush on a weekly basis. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

You are more of an expert on Limbaugh than I am.. My only exposure to Limbaugh comes from ya'alls spinned (spuned?? spooned??) comments on what Limbaugh says...

Michale

They simply don't do the same thing as what you claim are their "right-wing counterparts".

They don't tell as many lies. And if they do lie, they lose credibility within the 'left'.

They don't attack conservatives just for being conservative. They argue over positions rather than simply attacking conservatives for being 'conservative'.

What they do is different.

-David
-David

Does the Limbaugh version of liberals match the statistical reality?

Are there really 50 million loony lefty Communists? Or even 1 million? Or even 50,000?

Or is it right-wing media pointing to a couple new Black Panthers in Philadelphia?

On the flip side, I think it's what, 11 million people who listen to Rush on a weekly basis. Please correct me if I'm wrong here.

The conservative version of liberals does not match the reality.

-David

But we are not just talking "someone with an extreme view".. You have been hanging around michty too long. :D

I am sure you would agree that Limbaugh is not just "someone with a point of view".

It's just as factual to say Michael Moore is not just "someone with a point of view" or Bill Maher is not just "someone with a point of view"...

Bill Maher is the Left's Rush Limbaugh. Michael Moore is the Left's Glenn Beck.. Chris Matthews is the Left's Sean Hannity.

Of course you will deny this. You will say that they aren't as bad as their Right-Wing counterparts..

But you are not speaking objectively. You are speaking from the position that you AGREE with much of what Maher says, much of what Moore says, much of what Matthews says...

Ergo, you have a conflict of interest..

Michale

If existence is your argument, you win.

It's not a very interesting argument though. Because you can always point to a couple people who have some belief. There's still people who truly in all good faith believe the world is flat.

The more interesting argument to me is the difference between the perception of liberals and actual liberals.

Does the Limbaugh version of liberals match what the majority of liberals are?

Are the 50+ million people who voted for Obama like those 2 new black panthers in Philadelphia?

This, to me, is the more interesting argument. If all you want to argue is 'existence,' it's a pretty short argument since I'd agree (and probably pretty much everyone) that you can always find someone with an extreme view.

-David

We weren't arguing the SIZE of said group.

We were arguing the EXISTENCE of said group..

Michale

I don't think so, michty. The key words here being 'masses' and working 'to convince them that anyone who is a 'conservative' is evil'.

i'd say people like matthews, maher and jon stewart have all gotten vicious at times, but for the most part their facts tend to check out.

So one key point of difference ... facts. Actual arguments.

the left has a stronger base among intellectuals who don't tolerate the anti-fact brand of wingnuttery

A second key point of difference ... checks and balances.

michael moore strikes me as a particularly good example, because he engages in both over-the-top attacks AND major bending of the facts.

I'd have to see more of his later work to be sure, but I suspect you're right. I heard Fahrenheit 9/11 was pretty 'speculative'. However, again, I heard this from the left. Moore has been 'fact checked' by the left and a lot of his work discredited.

And ... I still wouldn't go so far as to say that Michael Moore was trying to incite people against all conservatives. Not in the way right wing pundits do for liberals.

I would agree with you, nypoet, that a loony left is out there - I've seen 9/11 conspiracy theorists. However, statistically, they are a pretty small group. The majority of liberals do not match the view put forward of liberals by the right. Whereas statistically, some 20% of our population believes that Obama is a Muslim. Partly, this may be because we don't have people spewing hate against conservatives to the masses in the way that conservatives do against liberals.

-David

michael moore strikes me as a particularly good example, because he engages in both over-the-top attacks AND major bending of the facts. at the moment i think he's probably the best candidate for anti-limbaugh. mike malloy is also pretty strong on this front, though he's not as widely publicized. try the daily beast's list of lefty pundits:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/galleries/2010/02/16/the-left-s-top-25-journalists.html

i'd say at least a third of the list have at times taken liberties with the truth and/or taken unnecessarily personal shots. i would tend to agree that maddow is pretty good about attacking public arguments and behaviors rather than getting personal - which is one of the reasons she's stayed on the air while olbermann didn't. but that's not true of everybody. i'd say people like matthews, maher and jon stewart have all gotten vicious at times, but for the most part their facts tend to check out.

i consider it likely that more of the crazy right get a broad public platform than the crazy left, mainly because the left has a stronger base among intellectuals who don't tolerate the anti-fact brand of wingnuttery. but just because the loony left may not get as many nationally syndicated talk-radio shows doesn't mean they aren't out there.

~joshua

Who does it on a national stage nypoet?

Bill Maher is about the closest I can think of. There's a difference between him and most of the Right pundits. The difference is that at the heart of Maher's arguments are arguments (mixed in with a lot of disdain for conservative positions - his big failing in my opinion). Chris Matthews is somewhat similar.

Personae like Rush on the other hand are pure theatrics. If Rush had to argue in a traditional academic style, Rush would lose. It's as simple as that. Therefore, the Rush's of the world switch the fight.

Pundits on the left focus much more on conservative arguments rather than attacking conservatives. Rachel Maddow is probably the best example. BTW- ever notice that many of the pundits on the left are on the comedy channel. The one thing you do not see on TV are what I would call strong liberal evangelists. Comedy plays to those who are already on your side. It rarely convinces people. If there really were a liberal media, why don't we see any strong liberal evangelists? The last I can think of was Keith Olbermann before he left MSNBC. Maddow is getting close. Chris Hayes has the potential.

-David

The NRA created an APP where you can target shoot with a variety of weapons..

Some left wing nutjob created an APP where you can shoot NRA Leadership in the head..

But yer right..

There isn't any hate coming from the Left.. :^/

Michale

Agreed...

Here's the problem..

For a rifle ban to be effective, it would have to be retro-active..

It makes absolutely NO SENSE to ban future sales of rifles and leave the millions and millions of rifles in circulation..

And when you start getting into the area of confiscating people's guns, you get into the area of where there will be armed conflict..

State LEO forces versus Federal LEO forces..

And things will go downhill from there...

Michale....

Seriously, David!??

Rachael Maddow
Bill Maher
Rosie O'Donnell
Keith Olbermann
Chris Matthews
Michael Moore

Those are just off the top of my head. I can Google and find a ton more..

Do you SERIOUSLY believe that there are NO liberals who spew hatred against conservatives and Republicans.

Hell, our very own michty just called Republicans terrorists!!!

I have to say again...

SERIOUSLY!!???

i haven't crunched the numbers and analyzed the data to compare the prevalence of wingnuttery among the right and left, but such things on the left side of the political spectrum are certainly not imaginary.

Thank you, Joshua!

Jeezus, I am simply gabberflasted that this is even contested!!!

Michale

At least there are some sensible ones out there...

I'm actually interested.

i can field this one. although it does tend toward a wider variety, the huffington post certainly has its fair share of lefty trolls, who are quite the mirror image of righty trolls.

i haven't crunched the numbers and analyzed the data to compare the prevalence of wingnuttery among the right and left, but such things on the left side of the political spectrum are certainly not imaginary.

~joshua

Point me at a 'left' pundit who spews hate about conservatives.

Really.

If it's such a joke it should be easy right. Yet I notice you didn't answer.

Who?

-David

Even Harry Reid himself has stated that a Gun Ban is a non-starter thru Congress..

that's all i meant, the established precedent of case law, not what some "commentator" (of whatever political bent) says the constitution means according to them. yes, the government certainly can't take away ALL guns in ALL circumstances, that precedent is well established. but just as the right to free speech doesn't allow you to shout "fire" in a crowd, the right to bear arms doesn't permit you to keep weapons in ways that directly endanger your fellow citizens - for example if you are mentally ill or a convicted felon, or if the weapon is a rocket launcher.

there's plenty of grey area between no guns whatsoever and no restrictions whatsoever. being a constitutional scholar, i doubt the president is somehow unaware of the case law or unconcerned with its implications. in that vein, the obama administration's guiding principle seems so far to have been following the precedents of the administration that directly preceded him. any legislative or constitutional tactic that bush used, it's a fair bet obama will as well.

~joshua

SERIOUSLY???

Maybe the liberals who call them "terrorists"...

But I don't see anyone 'spewing hate' in the way you see right wing pundits like Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, Hannity, etc do.

WOW.... The selective optics is simply astounding...

You HONESTLY and TRULY believe that the Left doesn't spew hate???

SERIOUSLY!???

This is another joke, isn't it?? A con like the time you said that we should disband the US Armed Forces...

Right???

Michale

Crap ... I'm out. I totally perform Satanic rituals.

:)

-David

Of course not. Rush told me all Liberals get together every night for satanic rituals. They're evil man. I hate all liberals (except for the ones I've met, who it turned out were actually quite nice and don't perform satanic rituals...).

Heheh. I do every now and then. AM radio here would be hilarious if so many people didn't buy into the whackness.

And you're right, they make up this thing called 'liberal' (which is typically based on some single instance somewhere w/ 1 or 2 people - the 2 new black panthers in Philadelphia was my favorite) and then they tell their audience that this is what all 'liberals' are like.

But it's perfectly OK for liberals to hate conservatives and call them terrorists and such.

Who hates conservatives or spews hate about them, Michale?

There's a lot of people who disagree with conservatives. But I don't see anyone 'spewing hate' in the way you see right wing pundits like Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter, Hannity, etc do.

When liberals say something like the Republican plan to not raise the debt ceiling would crash the economy, it's because this is what the Republican plan would do, not because anyone hates Republicans.

Ask any economist.

-David

Neither are you... :D

Michale

Conspiracy theories, for these very reasons (never mind a guy who runs an entire blog related to them), don't really belong in the liberal world-frame. Fact > theory.

I'd have thought they'd be right up your street though Michale - this seems to me to be exactly the type of guy who believes Obama wasn't born in America...

Yea... He's a liberal whack-job who thinks Bush personally ordered 9/11...

Ya got a lot of crazies in your ideological tent, michty... :D

Michale

Actually, come to think of it, this might be why he wants to take your guns away too. I think we're on to something BIG here.

Professor claims Newtown was a Government ploy to push gun control through: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/professor-won-t-back-down-newtown-massacre-conspiracy-183530799.html

All the pieces are coming together now...

Michale

At least you admit your problem..

That's the first step towards solving it.. :D

But apparently, you have company.. No one but me came down on your bigoted remarks about Republicans being terrorists...

Granted, the day is young... :D

Michale

Actually, come to think of it, this might be why he wants to take your guns away too. I think we're on to something BIG here.

Except, of course, if it's a conservative group you are labeling

Yes this is exactly what I said. Many many many many many many many times. So many times you'll be able to quote me quite easily? You really are a maniac.

On that note, let's get back to Obama conspiracy theories they are way more fun. Let's start with the military. Now I've been thinking that Obama wants to reduce the military budget because he wants the terrorists to win. Thoughts?

And yet, you feel it's perfectly OK to spew a bunch of hatred and vomit and then say 'this is how conservatives think and you should hate them'

Even when you try to justify your position, you end up proving my point perfectly...

Labelling any group or anyone is a bad thing.

Except, of course, if it's a conservative group you are labeling....

You keep digging yourself in deeper and deeper..

Like I said before.. It's just too damn easy...

Michale

The point is that it is NOT ok, as far as I'm concerned, to basically spew a bunch of hatred and vomit and then say 'this is how liberals think and you should hate them'. That leads to really bad places (see history). Labelling any group or anyone is a bad thing. Like 'the majority of Muslims are terrorist because 0.0001% of Muslims have committed terrorist acts' is a good example (one that I have seen from you). Any 'journalist' or blogger or anyone spewing this nonsense should not be taken seriously.

But it's perfectly OK for liberals to hate conservatives and call them terrorists and such..

You guys should REALLY step outside yourselves and see how self-righteous and hypocritical ya'all look...

Ya'all act EXACTLY as you accuse conservatives of acting.

EXACTLY...

Michale

The point is that this is EXACTLY what Rush Limbaugh (et al) advocate. You should read his show blogs they are highly entertaining - although if you wanted to save time just read most of Michale's posts on here as he summarises Rush pretty well ;)

But yeh Rush has this massive 'anti-liberal' campaign and a bunch of his stuff is like 'liberals believe X/Y/Z (usually a bunch of complete and utter bullshit' so the reason people get these attitudes is they believe what he is saying; then they meet you and they're like 'oh I don't like liberals (read: what Rush Limbaugh tells me a liberal is) but you're ok (read: that is, what a liberal is actually like)'.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/16/koch-brothers-debt-ceiling_n_2486191.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics

Pretty soon it will be official Republican policy. Now they just have to find a way to save face.

Watch for it :)

-David

Hay, whatever helps you sleep at night...

No biggie to me...

Michale

Hey michty- I know many conservatives in person here in the U.S. and one of the funny things about them is that when they trust you (or you get them drunk enough) a lot of them will say that they don't really believe a lot of the Rush Limbaugh-like garbage. What it comes down to most of the time is that they just don't like 'liberals'.

So anything they can say to 'annoy' a liberal is a win. They're not fighting in the rational, logical universe as academics know it but in this kind of trolling, poke you universe. Because ... somehow or other they think that you're different from them. Or, quite often, they think they can somehow 'win' this way.

What I hear a lot of the time from my conservative friends is "I hate liberals, but you're ok ..." :) And then they'll say they don't really believe such and such but they just know liberals are wrong.

A lot of it I think has to do with identity. But sometimes it seems like the oddest thing.

-David

That's what I like about you michty..

You aren't afraid to double down on stupidity, no matter how ridiculous it makes you look..

Such reckless abandon is refreshing in a way...

Michale

Luckily the President has made it clear that, on the subject of the debt ceiling, he will not negotiate with terrorists...

Accusing people of being terrorists solely on the basis of political disagreement is also no laughing matter.

Accusing people of being racist solely for the purposes of silencing dissent is also no laughing matter..

But, it's documented fact that Democrats have done both....

Pattern of behavior...

Michale

So, what else is new.. You rarely make any sense at all.

But I think everyone will agree with me that you went off the deep end when you called Republicans terrorists...

Or, maybe not.. :^/

Michale

So, by your OWN criteria, you have just proven that Republicans are NOT terrorists, despite your earlier claim that they were..

Lol what? I don't think you understood anything I have posted...

It's not in his quote..

Further, Republicans are also demanding something in return. A slow down of the Democrats Orgasmic Spending.

So, by your OWN criteria, you have just proven that Republicans are NOT terrorists, despite your earlier claim that they were..

It's just tooo damn easy... :D

Michale

For the record it was YOU who called the leader of the Democratic Party a terrorist.

Not I... :D

Michale

You missed the part where Obama demanded something in return for his vote.

Saying I am not going to increase the debt limit does not meed the definition of terrorism.

Saying I am not going to increase the debt limit because I want to cause economic chaos unless you give me X/Y/Z does.

The latter applies to the Republican party of today, the former to the Obama of the past.

This is a point that has been continually repeated over and over again in here and continually you ignore it.

Dictionary.com. There is no legal criminal law definition of 'terrorism'. What most people (I'm going to guess you fall into this) associate with the word terrorism (especially in America) is 'Al Queada' type terrorism. This could not be further from what the definition of terrorism is.

The UN definition is similar (just a less concise version)= "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act"

"If we don't get our way, we are going to destroy your business"

I guess you would call it economic terrorism, right???

Lololol once again you completely miss the point.

Boycott = we won't be using your product
Terrorism = we will destroy your company and product.

One is exercising your freedom of choice; the other is applying economic terrorism.

Basically under your misconception anyone who doesn't eat at a particular company is a terrorist lolololol.

"Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."
-Barack Obama

So, I guess what you are saying is that, in your opinion, Obama is a terrorist...

Oh wait.. 'It's different', right??

:D

Michale

Where did you come up with that bonehead ignorant definition???

You don't think saying 'If we don't get our way we will crash the entire economy' is intimidation? Seems like it to me.

Hmmmmmm

"If we don't get our way, we are going to destroy your business"

Most people call that a boycott.

I guess you would call it economic terrorism, right???

But, as I said.. Don't sweat it..

You simply articulated what everyone (with a few exceptions) here thinks..

Michale

But, that side, lets look at the definition of terrorism: "The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims."

You don't think saying 'If we don't get our way we will crash the entire economy' is intimidation? Seems like it to me. Especially when 'their way' would cause massive harm to people on the lower social ladders of society (i.e. those unable to defend themselves most). That the aims of the Republican party are political is without question...

THEN it's perfectly acceptable...

Don't worry too much about it, michty. I am sure everyone here in Wegantia (sans the Grand Poobah Himself) feels the same way.

Some have even come right out and state it..

But let someone accuse Democrats of coddling terrorists and furthering the terrorist agenda??

Watch the go beet red with hysteria...

Hypocrisy, thy name is Democrat...

Michale

Funny how the "context" always favors the Democrats around here. :D It defies logic.. :D

Obama isn't perfect and there's a lot of things I disagree with him on.

Yet you refuse to articulate such disagreements, even when prompted..

Further many of the things you disagree with him on are fundemental to the principles of your political ideology...

It's like someone saying they disagree with a lot of things about Ted Bundy, but they still support his election to city council...

So the choice the American public has right now is basically Democrats or some people who are willing to crash the economy just because they're not in power.

No. It's between those who want to reign in spending to SAVE the economy (Republicans) and those who are on an orgasmic spending binge that will result in ruining the economy (Democrats).

We each have our own spin, but mine is supported by facts and reality and yours is supported by wishful thinking and political ideology..

Going to have to correct you here. You mean 'willing to crash the economy unless a bunch of poor/unemployed/sick/veterans (that they don't and have never liked) are killed through cutting their services. Exactly like terrorists.

Why am I not surprised... :^/

It's completely unacceptable to compare an American to a terrorist solely on the basis of a political disagreement..

Unless, of course it's the Hysterical Left who does it to the Right.

THEN it's perfectly acceptable...

And ya'all wonder why Democrats have the hypocrisy label down pat...

Michale

Going to have to correct you here. You mean 'willing to crash the economy unless a bunch of poor/unemployed/sick/veterans (that they don't and have never liked) are killed through cutting their services. Exactly like terrorists.

Consider the context. Obama's vote at the time was a protest vote (against the Iraq War) which meant nothing. And ... even he has admitted it was a mistake.

Obama isn't perfect and there's a lot of things I disagree with him on.

But what you and the GOP don't seem to understand is that you're not offering a better alternative. All you're doing is Obama/liberal bashing.

So the choice the American public has right now is basically Democrats or some people who are willing to crash the economy just because they're not in power.

When the Republican party does something constructive is the day when I'd look at them as a serious party again. Offer a better alternative! would be my advice to them.

-David

The fact that he was running for President MIGHT have a little bit to do with that, no?? :D

I'm just glad that some Republicans are finally starting to voice some reason around this whole debt ceiling idiocy.

"Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. I therefore intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt limit."
-Barack Obama

So, you are saying that Obama was an idiot??? :D

Michale

Who's gloating? It's just interesting that someone who was a daily headline for well over 6 months before the election has now completely disappeared from the media.

You're probably right though, I guess Romney will probably do the talk show circuit in another year or so. He'll star in a Viagra commercial or something and everyone will talk about his comeback.

"There is no Right v Left" attitude that you usually trot out just to annoy me.

Yep. It's all about you :)

I'm just glad that some Republicans are finally starting to voice some reason around this whole debt ceiling idiocy.

-David

I don't think I've ever seen someone disappear so completely from the public view. I can't remember this happening to Kerry, Gore, Dole, Dukakis, etc.

Well, after Gore got his ass kicked in court, he disappeared for a year or more..

Kerry?? He was gone from the public consciousness even before the votes were finished counting. Of course, his place in the Senate insured he couldn't completely disappear..

Dole?? Dukakis?? Each had public sector jobs that they went back to..

You are comparing Apples and Eskimos.

While I acknowledge that you have every reason to gloat, it does kind of belay your usual "There is no Right v Left" attitude that you usually trot out just to annoy me. :D

Michale

the actual constitution? or the constitution according to FOX?

The Right Of The People To Keep And Bear Arms Shall Not Be Infringed

Now, that's the REAL Constitution as far as I am concerned..

Now, YOU might be referring to the HuffPo/DailyKos/MSNBC Constitution.. Not sure I can go with you there...

. since there's a pretty wide gap between the two, perhaps the roberts court isn't quite done judging this president's policies just yet...

Every time the SCOTUS has ruled on the 2nd Amendment itself, they have ALWAYS (EVERY TIME) ruled against the hysterical Gun Control fanatics

I am also constrained to point out that recent rulings by the SCOTUS establish beyond doubt how they would rule on the 2nd Amendment...

Even Harry Reid himself has stated that a Gun Ban is a non-starter thru Congress..

Which is why Obama will likely try to do it by ignoring Congress and issuing an executive order.

Any rifle ban will HAVE to be retro-active or it will be as useless as the 1994 Rifle Ban...

If Obama tries to enforce a Gun Confiscation Executive Order.... Well, what do YOU think will happen???

http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=119078&article=10700507

Michale

I don't think I've ever seen someone disappear so completely from the public view. I can't remember this happening to Kerry, Gore, Dole, Dukakis, etc. It's almost as if he never ran for President.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/01/15/another-gop-senator-recognizes-the-inevitable/

Kinda like finding out your parents aren't perfect... :D

Heheh ... you mean there is no Santa Claus?

:)

-David

the actual constitution? or the constitution according to FOX? if it's the former, i'm right there with you. if it's the latter, pardon me while i stifle a yawn. since there's a pretty wide gap between the two, perhaps the roberts court isn't quite done judging this president's policies just yet...

~joshua

On the other hand (credit where credit is due) you did state for the record that Obama has been "incompetent" in handling the economy...

So, we DO have some common ground in that...

Tomorrow is going to be a fun day.. Obama announces his end run around Congress Gun Control measures..

As I said in a previous comment, there are a few good ideas there. Some that I can completely get behind..

But if he actually tries to issue an executive order that violates the Constitution, there will be blood, of that I am certain...

Michale

Or maybe he was right back then and he is just playing politics now, now that he has a taste of what it's like to be King.

"You can't just discard a theory, simply because you don't like it."
-Martin Sheen, THE FINAL COUNTDOWN

Michale

Where I will point out your errors are when you make the suggestion that any party in the history of either party, in the history of the USA has played politics with the debt ceiling to the extent the current batch of Republicans are. It LITERALLY cost the USA BILLIONS in 2011, slowed down the economic recovery and led to a downgrade in credit rating.

Their lesson from this? They don't care. They will use the debt ceiling as hostage again and consider it 'leverage' in any debate. This speaks to how lunatic, moronic and downright stupid the current Republican party is.

And, by extension, the fact that ya'all give him a pass on such blatant and utter hypocrisy solely and completely because of that '-D' after his name...

It's disappointing...

Kinda like finding out your parents aren't perfect... :D

Michale....

Yea, but we still kicked yer asses and got rid of your frak'in king... :D

Looks like we're going to have ANOTHER "king" problem again real soon...

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
-Thomas Jefferson

It's a shame that it has come to this, but it certainly looks like that's the road we are heading down...

http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/mainheadlines3.html?feed=119078&article=10700507

Michale

I agree with this though. Where 1 party is willing to hold the entire country hostage and is completely seriously contemplating destroying the entire American and World economy essentially using terrorist tactic - they will do this if a bunch of poor/unemployed/sick/veterans that they want killed aren't killed - you really do live in a sad sad sad country.