Terrorists.........you can't make this stuff up

[G-Man]

My daughter and I had one terrific laugh last evening while watching the O'Reilly Factor.  It still makes me chuckle as I recall this.

They played a montage of folks on the left calling the folks on the right terrorists.  In the montage, a few went as far as saying that what the Republicans were doing was equal to strapping on explosives and holding the nation hostage.  While watching them equate the right to terrorists (they used that exact word) I was becoming horrified until Bill's guest said "This is from the folks who won't call terrorists, terrorists, but they'll call Republicans terrorists".  My daughter and I both broke out in laughter along with Bill.

Like I said, you can't make this stuff up!     You might want to swallow your coffee or soda before viewing this.

Media Coverage of Debt Crisis - O'Reilly Factor	powered by Aeva

[Chrisj CMA]

G-Man......you are a right wing extremist and probably a racist arent you!  anyone that is against raising taxes is a right wing extremist (terrorist now) and if you arent going to vote for "president" Obama you are a racist

[The Anvil]

It's kinda like when right wingers call Democrats "communists" or "socialists" when they're really not either. Oh there might be elements of truth to it and you might be able to make a loose metaphorical connection but it's not really true in either case. It's just party politics. Which is why we need to do away with party politics.

[musclehead]

yep a racist,sexist,homopobic,islamophobic,banjo playing, gun-toting,bible thumping,wife-beating,nascar watcher.

me too

all this in the new age of civility the prez called for. we should try calling those on the left 'economic terrorists' and watch the fur fly

[musclehead]

It's kinda like when right wingers call Democrats "communists" or "socialists" when they're really not either. Oh there might be elements of truth to it and you might be able to make a loose metaphorical connection but it's not really true in either case. It's just party politics. Which is why we need to do away with party politics.

look, Van Jones SAID HIMSELF he is a communist. not all dems are commie rats but some even say they are. when they say it in their own words its hard to dismiss it.

I'm related to dems in the southwestern tip of VA they are more conservative then I am. some realize their party has been hijacked, some still mistakenly believe it the party of the average working class man.

[G-Man]

It's kinda like when right wingers call Democrats "communists" or "socialists" when they're really not either. Oh there might be elements of truth to it and you might be able to make a loose metaphorical connection but it's not really true in either case. It's just party politics. Which is why we need to do away with party politics.

Thank you for opening my eyes to politics.  You're right, equating calling a group terrorists with the whole bomb strapping and hostage taking is perfectly equivalent to calling another group socialists.  How did I not see that?   

[Trynt]

It's kinda like when right wingers call Democrats "communists" or "socialists" when they're really not either. Oh there might be elements of truth to it and you might be able to make a loose metaphorical connection but it's not really true in either case. It's just party politics. Which is why we need to do away with party politics.

Thank you for opening my eyes to politics.  You're right, equating calling a group terrorists with the whole bomb strapping and hostage taking is perfectly equivalent to calling another group socialists.  How did I not see that?   

+1
We should probably start calling Dems child molesters just to even things up .

[The Anvil]

It's kinda like when right wingers call Democrats "communists" or "socialists" when they're really not either. Oh there might be elements of truth to it and you might be able to make a loose metaphorical connection but it's not really true in either case. It's just party politics. Which is why we need to do away with party politics.

Thank you for opening my eyes to politics.  You're right, equating calling a group terrorists with the whole bomb strapping and hostage taking is perfectly equivalent to calling another group socialists.  How did I not see that?   

You miss the point which is that neither is accurate.

Regardless, have you seen the way communists run their operations? I don't think they're preferable to terrorists.

[G-Man]

It's kinda like when right wingers call Democrats "communists" or "socialists" when they're really not either. Oh there might be elements of truth to it and you might be able to make a loose metaphorical connection but it's not really true in either case. It's just party politics. Which is why we need to do away with party politics.

Thank you for opening my eyes to politics.  You're right, equating calling a group terrorists with the whole bomb strapping and hostage taking is perfectly equivalent to calling another group socialists.  How did I not see that?   

You miss the point which is that neither is accurate.

Regardless, have you seen the way communists run their operations? I don't think they're preferable to terrorists.

No YOU missed the point of my original post.  Seems you agrue just to argue.  The point was......that the folks who won't even call real terrorists terrorists, call those that don't agree with them terrorists.  That's the belly laugh, the irony.  You couldn't even see the humor beause you just neeeeeeed to show us all where we are wrong.  Instead you had to say, well one does this and the other does that.  Thank you, Mr. Obvious.

[The Anvil]

It's kinda like when right wingers call Democrats "communists" or "socialists" when they're really not either. Oh there might be elements of truth to it and you might be able to make a loose metaphorical connection but it's not really true in either case. It's just party politics. Which is why we need to do away with party politics.

Thank you for opening my eyes to politics.  You're right, equating calling a group terrorists with the whole bomb strapping and hostage taking is perfectly equivalent to calling another group socialists.  How did I not see that?  

You miss the point which is that neither is accurate.

Regardless, have you seen the way communists run their operations? I don't think they're preferable to terrorists.

No YOU missed the point of my original post.  Seems you agrue just to argue.  The point was......that the folks who won't even call real terrorists terrorists, call those that don't agree with them terrorists.  That's the belly laugh, the irony.  You couldn't even see the humor beause you just neeeeeeed to show us all where we are wrong.  Instead you had to say, well one does this and the other does that.  Thank you, Mr. Obvious.

I don't recall anyone (not on the fringe) having any trouble calling terrorists what they are. You're manufacturing things to make your argument. So ironically, you DID make this stuff up.

[Bobbo]

I was becoming horrified until Bill's guest said "This is from the folks who won't call terrorists, terrorists, but they'll call Republicans terrorists". 

I think it depends on the context of Bill's guest's comment.  If he thinks that all Muslims are terrorists, and some folks won't call all Muslims terrorists, then he might have the view that there are "folks who won't call terrorists, terrorists".

[Trynt]

It's kinda like when right wingers call Democrats "communists" or "socialists" when they're really not either. Oh there might be elements of truth to it and you might be able to make a loose metaphorical connection but it's not really true in either case. It's just party politics. Which is why we need to do away with party politics.

Thank you for opening my eyes to politics.  You're right, equating calling a group terrorists with the whole bomb strapping and hostage taking is perfectly equivalent to calling another group socialists.  How did I not see that?  

You miss the point which is that neither is accurate.

Regardless, have you seen the way communists run their operations? I don't think they're preferable to terrorists.

No YOU missed the point of my original post.  Seems you agrue just to argue.  The point was......that the folks who won't even call real terrorists terrorists, call those that don't agree with them terrorists.  That's the belly laugh, the irony.  You couldn't even see the humor beause you just neeeeeeed to show us all where we are wrong.  Instead you had to say, well one does this and the other does that.  Thank you, Mr. Obvious.

I don't recall anyone (not on the fringe) having any trouble calling terrorists what they are. You're manufacturing things to make your argument. So ironically, you DID make this stuff up.

And on that fringe is Home Land Security Secretary Janette Napolitano , according to her the word "terrorism" is part of "the politics of fear". She prefers "man-caused" disasters.

[The Anvil]

It's kinda like when right wingers call Democrats "communists" or "socialists" when they're really not either. Oh there might be elements of truth to it and you might be able to make a loose metaphorical connection but it's not really true in either case. It's just party politics. Which is why we need to do away with party politics.

Thank you for opening my eyes to politics.  You're right, equating calling a group terrorists with the whole bomb strapping and hostage taking is perfectly equivalent to calling another group socialists.  How did I not see that?  

You miss the point which is that neither is accurate.

Regardless, have you seen the way communists run their operations? I don't think they're preferable to terrorists.

No YOU missed the point of my original post.  Seems you agrue just to argue.  The point was......that the folks who won't even call real terrorists terrorists, call those that don't agree with them terrorists.  That's the belly laugh, the irony.  You couldn't even see the humor beause you just neeeeeeed to show us all where we are wrong.  Instead you had to say, well one does this and the other does that.  Thank you, Mr. Obvious.

I don't recall anyone (not on the fringe) having any trouble calling terrorists what they are. You're manufacturing things to make your argument. So ironically, you DID make this stuff up.

And on that fringe is Home Land Security Secretary Janette Napolitano , according to her the word "terrorism" is part of "the politics of fear". She prefers "man-caused" disasters.

Where and when did she say this?

[Serk]

It's kinda like when right wingers call Democrats "communists" or "socialists" when they're really not either. Oh there might be elements of truth to it and you might be able to make a loose metaphorical connection but it's not really true in either case. It's just party politics. Which is why we need to do away with party politics.

Thank you for opening my eyes to politics.  You're right, equating calling a group terrorists with the whole bomb strapping and hostage taking is perfectly equivalent to calling another group socialists.  How did I not see that?  

You miss the point which is that neither is accurate.

Regardless, have you seen the way communists run their operations? I don't think they're preferable to terrorists.

No YOU missed the point of my original post.  Seems you agrue just to argue.  The point was......that the folks who won't even call real terrorists terrorists, call those that don't agree with them terrorists.  That's the belly laugh, the irony.  You couldn't even see the humor beause you just neeeeeeed to show us all where we are wrong.  Instead you had to say, well one does this and the other does that.  Thank you, Mr. Obvious.

I don't recall anyone (not on the fringe) having any trouble calling terrorists what they are. You're manufacturing things to make your argument. So ironically, you DID make this stuff up.

And on that fringe is Home Land Security Secretary Janette Napolitano , according to her the word "terrorism" is part of "the politics of fear". She prefers "man-caused" disasters.

Where and when did she say this?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,613330,00.html

Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

[The Anvil]

It's kinda like when right wingers call Democrats "communists" or "socialists" when they're really not either. Oh there might be elements of truth to it and you might be able to make a loose metaphorical connection but it's not really true in either case. It's just party politics. Which is why we need to do away with party politics.

Thank you for opening my eyes to politics.  You're right, equating calling a group terrorists with the whole bomb strapping and hostage taking is perfectly equivalent to calling another group socialists.  How did I not see that?  

You miss the point which is that neither is accurate.

Regardless, have you seen the way communists run their operations? I don't think they're preferable to terrorists.

No YOU missed the point of my original post.  Seems you agrue just to argue.  The point was......that the folks who won't even call real terrorists terrorists, call those that don't agree with them terrorists.  That's the belly laugh, the irony.  You couldn't even see the humor beause you just neeeeeeed to show us all where we are wrong.  Instead you had to say, well one does this and the other does that.  Thank you, Mr. Obvious.

I don't recall anyone (not on the fringe) having any trouble calling terrorists what they are. You're manufacturing things to make your argument. So ironically, you DID make this stuff up.

And on that fringe is Home Land Security Secretary Janette Napolitano , according to her the word "terrorism" is part of "the politics of fear". She prefers "man-caused" disasters.

Where and when did she say this?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,613330,00.html

Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

Sounds kinda reasonable when you actually think about it. It's not as if anyone's actually denying that terrorism exists. And if you think about it she's actually right. Terrorism is a somewhat specific ethos. Not every act of mass murder or calamity caused by man is an act of terrorism. Sometimes it's revenge, sometimes it's someone who lost their tinfoil hat to a gust of wind and thinks that by blowing something up or driving a busload of kids into a river that they're preventing a worse fate. Is Jared Lee Loughner a terrorist? No, he's not. He's just N-V-T-S.

So if you only focus on textbook terrorism then aren't you kind of leaving the back door open for other calamities?

But rather than think about it, let's just react to the words we hear.

[FLAVALK]

Hmmm...the saying..... "arguing with a liberal and is much akin to wresting a pig in the mud"...comes to mind here .

Why bother?

[The Anvil]

Hmmm...the saying..... "arguing with a liberal and is much akin to wresting a pig in the mud"...comes to mind here .

Why bother?

I'm just pointing out bullshit. Now, it certainly may be splitting hairs or trying to put perfume on a pig to call them "man made disasters" but it's also a far reach to take "Napolitano denies existence of terrorism" from those statements.

[Trynt]

It's kinda like when right wingers call Democrats "communists" or "socialists" when they're really not either. Oh there might be elements of truth to it and you might be able to make a loose metaphorical connection but it's not really true in either case. It's just party politics. Which is why we need to do away with party politics.

Thank you for opening my eyes to politics.  You're right, equating calling a group terrorists with the whole bomb strapping and hostage taking is perfectly equivalent to calling another group socialists.  How did I not see that?  

You miss the point which is that neither is accurate.

Regardless, have you seen the way communists run their operations? I don't think they're preferable to terrorists.

No YOU missed the point of my original post.  Seems you agrue just to argue.  The point was......that the folks who won't even call real terrorists terrorists, call those that don't agree with them terrorists.  That's the belly laugh, the irony.  You couldn't even see the humor beause you just neeeeeeed to show us all where we are wrong.  Instead you had to say, well one does this and the other does that.  Thank you, Mr. Obvious.

I don't recall anyone (not on the fringe) having any trouble calling terrorists what they are. You're manufacturing things to make your argument. So ironically, you DID make this stuff up.

And on that fringe is Home Land Security Secretary Janette Napolitano , according to her the word "terrorism" is part of "the politics of fear". She prefers "man-caused" disasters.

Where and when did she say this?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,613330,00.html

Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

Sounds kinda reasonable when you actually think about it. It's not as if anyone's actually denying that terrorism exists. And if you think about it she's actually right. Terrorism is a somewhat specific ethos. Not every act of mass murder or calamity caused by man is an act of terrorism. Sometimes it's revenge, sometimes it's someone who lost their tinfoil hat to a gust of wind and thinks that by blowing something up or driving a busload of kids into a river that they're preventing a worse fate. Is Jared Lee Loughner a terrorist? No, he's not. He's just N-V-T-S.

So if you only focus on textbook terrorism then aren't you kind of leaving the back door open for other calamities?

But rather than think about it, let's just react to the words we hear.

"Terrorism" is also judgemental and hurtful .

[The Anvil]

It's kinda like when right wingers call Democrats "communists" or "socialists" when they're really not either. Oh there might be elements of truth to it and you might be able to make a loose metaphorical connection but it's not really true in either case. It's just party politics. Which is why we need to do away with party politics.

Thank you for opening my eyes to politics.  You're right, equating calling a group terrorists with the whole bomb strapping and hostage taking is perfectly equivalent to calling another group socialists.  How did I not see that?  

You miss the point which is that neither is accurate.

Regardless, have you seen the way communists run their operations? I don't think they're preferable to terrorists.

No YOU missed the point of my original post.  Seems you agrue just to argue.  The point was......that the folks who won't even call real terrorists terrorists, call those that don't agree with them terrorists.  That's the belly laugh, the irony.  You couldn't even see the humor beause you just neeeeeeed to show us all where we are wrong.  Instead you had to say, well one does this and the other does that.  Thank you, Mr. Obvious.

I don't recall anyone (not on the fringe) having any trouble calling terrorists what they are. You're manufacturing things to make your argument. So ironically, you DID make this stuff up.

And on that fringe is Home Land Security Secretary Janette Napolitano , according to her the word "terrorism" is part of "the politics of fear". She prefers "man-caused" disasters.

Where and when did she say this?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,613330,00.html

Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

Sounds kinda reasonable when you actually think about it. It's not as if anyone's actually denying that terrorism exists. And if you think about it she's actually right. Terrorism is a somewhat specific ethos. Not every act of mass murder or calamity caused by man is an act of terrorism. Sometimes it's revenge, sometimes it's someone who lost their tinfoil hat to a gust of wind and thinks that by blowing something up or driving a busload of kids into a river that they're preventing a worse fate. Is Jared Lee Loughner a terrorist? No, he's not. He's just N-V-T-S.

So if you only focus on textbook terrorism then aren't you kind of leaving the back door open for other calamities?

But rather than think about it, let's just react to the words we hear.

"Terrorism" is also judgemental and hurtful .

It is when applied to people who are not terrorists but are assumed to be because of certain factors.

Not that this was ever said by her. And not that it stopped Obama's administration from executing Osama bin Laden like the dog he was. Something the Bush administration filed to do in almost two full terms.

[Trynt]

Hmmm...the saying..... "arguing with a liberal and is much akin to wresting a pig in the mud"...comes to mind here .

Why bother?

I'm just pointing out bullshit. Now, it certainly may be splitting hairs or trying to put perfume on a pig to call them "man made disasters" but it's also a far reach to take "Napolitano denies existence of terrorism" from those statements.

Who said Napolitano denies the existence of terrorism? She's just so PC she doesn't want to say the word.

[musclehead]

Hmmm...the saying..... "arguing with a liberal and is much akin to wresting a pig in the mud"...comes to mind here .

Why bother?

I'm just pointing out bullshit. Now, it certainly may be splitting hairs or trying to put perfume on a pig to call them "man made disasters" but it's also a far reach to take "Napolitano denies existence of terrorism" from those statements.

as always it's an attempt to change the dailog, maybe if we call it something else people won't notice.
why would they do it is  more interesting to me. the folks in control don't do things without a reason.

I'll get back to you...... gotta think about it

[musclehead]

It's kinda like when right wingers call Democrats "communists" or "socialists" when they're really not either. Oh there might be elements of truth to it and you might be able to make a loose metaphorical connection but it's not really true in either case. It's just party politics. Which is why we need to do away with party politics.

Thank you for opening my eyes to politics.  You're right, equating calling a group terrorists with the whole bomb strapping and hostage taking is perfectly equivalent to calling another group socialists.  How did I not see that?  

You miss the point which is that neither is accurate.

Regardless, have you seen the way communists run their operations? I don't think they're preferable to terrorists.

No YOU missed the point of my original post.  Seems you agrue just to argue.  The point was......that the folks who won't even call real terrorists terrorists, call those that don't agree with them terrorists.  That's the belly laugh, the irony.  You couldn't even see the humor beause you just neeeeeeed to show us all where we are wrong.  Instead you had to say, well one does this and the other does that.  Thank you, Mr. Obvious.

I don't recall anyone (not on the fringe) having any trouble calling terrorists what they are. You're manufacturing things to make your argument. So ironically, you DID make this stuff up.

And on that fringe is Home Land Security Secretary Janette Napolitano , according to her the word "terrorism" is part of "the politics of fear". She prefers "man-caused" disasters.

Where and when did she say this?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,613330,00.html

Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.

Sounds kinda reasonable when you actually think about it. It's not as if anyone's actually denying that terrorism exists. And if you think about it she's actually right. Terrorism is a somewhat specific ethos. Not every act of mass murder or calamity caused by man is an act of terrorism. Sometimes it's revenge, sometimes it's someone who lost their tinfoil hat to a gust of wind and thinks that by blowing something up or driving a busload of kids into a river that they're preventing a worse fate. Is Jared Lee Loughner a terrorist? No, he's not. He's just N-V-T-S.

So if you only focus on textbook terrorism then aren't you kind of leaving the back door open for other calamities?

But rather than think about it, let's just react to the words we hear.

what about the guy from Norway? in your view is he a terrorist or just nuts?

[sugerbear]

Hmmm...the saying..... "arguing with a liberal and is much akin to wresting a pig in the mud"...comes to mind here .

Why bother?

I'm just pointing out bullshit. Now, it certainly may be splitting hairs or trying to put perfume on a pig to call them "man made disasters" but it's also a far reach to take "Napolitano denies existence of terrorism" from those statements.

i think it's rather funny that "THE ANVIL" is just trying to point out bullshit!!

[The Anvil]

Hmmm...the saying..... "arguing with a liberal and is much akin to wresting a pig in the mud"...comes to mind here .

Why bother?

I'm just pointing out bullshit. Now, it certainly may be splitting hairs or trying to put perfume on a pig to call them "man made disasters" but it's also a far reach to take "Napolitano denies existence of terrorism" from those statements.

Who said Napolitano denies the existence of terrorism? She's just so PC she doesn't want to say the word.

Okay, but that's where the argument loses me. Why is it NOT politically correct to call them terrorists if they are? If you want to attack her for being too cerebral and over thinking it then I'll accept that, even agree with it to a point. But PC? I just don't see it as an issue of political correctness. Who's gonna jump on you for using that word?

As far as the guy from Norway, I don't know for certain. I haven't followed his particular story. But to me a terrorist uses some type of disruption (it may not even be violent) to cause fear and panic among the masses, usually to further a political or religious cause. But there are those who do such things if for no other reason than to just cause mayhem and take delight in the aftermath or to feed their ego. So while an act may be "terroristic", that doesn't necessarily make it the act of a terrorist. The reason why it's important to differentiate at some point is because you can employ different methods for predicting and tracking the pathology of each.

[..]

Hmmm...the saying..... "arguing with a liberal and is much akin to wresting a pig in the mud"...comes to mind here .

Why bother?

I'm just pointing out bullshit. Now, it certainly may be splitting hairs or trying to put perfume on a pig to call them "man made disasters" but it's also a far reach to take "Napolitano denies existence of terrorism" from those statements.

i think it's rather funny that "THE ANVIL" is just trying to point out bullshit!!

He is ???

I can't see it to read it.  

[Trynt]

But PC? I just don't see it as an issue of political correctness. Who's gonna jump on you for using that word?[/quote]

 It's a certainty the "politics of fear" (her words) will offend the sensibilities of someone on the left. Hell, today I heard the story of "The Three Little Pigs" is racist because the brick house (which is portrayed positively) is Eurocentric as opposed to the stick and straw house which are indigenous to Africa (and portrayed as inferior).

[The Anvil]

But PC? I just don't see it as an issue of political correctness. Who's gonna jump on you for using that word?

 It's a certainty the "politics of fear" (her words) will offend the sensibilities of someone on the left. [/quote]

I see that as open to interpretation. This administration replaced one that was rightfully criticized for fear mongering and using tactics like vague "terror alerts" and arbitrarily altering the status of the color coded threat level indicator to the manipulation of evidence in an effort to build a case for a major war.

Preying on fear and the skillful use of buzzwords like "WMD" and "sleeper cell" sold us on a war that has become the Titanic to Vietnam's Andrea Doria. Vietnam was  a lost battle in a greater war against communist proliferation, a war that we won. Only time will tell but I don't see Iraq as having the same long term benefits.

So I don't have a real big problem with trying to break from that philosophy. Could she have done it a little more skillfully? Yeah, I'll give you that she probably could have. But I don't think it's because anyone over there wants to coddle terrorists.

[Chattanooga Mark]

Rand Paul referred to himself as being more of a Freedom Fighter for wanting the Federal government to live within its means. Just any other person or business does. Seems perfectly logical to me. Sad, but perfectly logical. Anyone who argues against a balanced budget needs to be required to explain why the Federal government needs to continue and increase borrowing $0.42 on every dollar they spend.

Mark

[98valk]

It's kinda like when right wingers call Democrats "communists" or "socialists" when they're really not either. Oh there might be elements of truth to it and you might be able to make a loose metaphorical connection but it's not really true in either case. It's just party politics. Which is why we need to do away with party politics.

maybe u should go to the socialist party websites and see how many elected officials are members.

a small lie and a big lie, both are lies, sin is sin and the wages of sin are death.

if a person believes in only 1 step of the 10 steps of the communist manifesto, that person is a communist.

if a person abuses or molests their child only once per yr, they are a child abuser or child molestor.

if u steal once per yr, your a thief

do u understand now?

[G-Man]

I don't recall anyone (not on the fringe) having any trouble calling terrorists what they are. You're manufacturing things to make your argument. So ironically, you DID make this stuff up.

I hate being called a liar.  And I'm fed up with you.  I'm not going to defend myself to you any longer.  My statement and posts are totally acurate as my fellow brothers have demonstrated. 

You are demonstrating the method of operation of the liberal left to a perfect "T"!  You are wrong and have no agrument so you resort to name calling.  We ALL see through you!  YOU are not what's right with conversation and debate,...you are what's wrong with it.  You're small minded and unworthy of further acknowledgment.  Have at it, I won't be seeing your posts any longer.

[The Anvil]

Rand Paul referred to himself as being more of a Freedom Fighter for wanting the Federal government to live within its means. Just any other person or business does. Seems perfectly logical to me. Sad, but perfectly logical. Anyone who argues against a balanced budget needs to be required to explain why the Federal government needs to continue and increase borrowing $0.42 on every dollar they spend.

Mark

First of all, individuals and businesses often do not live within their means. That said, a certain amount of borrowing is smart. The lending system is part of a healthy, motive economy. Very few businesses became successful without going into debt at some time or another just as very few individuals get the things they want without doing so.

It's okay for the US to borrow SOME money, but the amount is absolutely out of control.

[The Anvil]

It's kinda like when right wingers call Democrats "communists" or "socialists" when they're really not either. Oh there might be elements of truth to it and you might be able to make a loose metaphorical connection but it's not really true in either case. It's just party politics. Which is why we need to do away with party politics.

maybe u should go to the socialist party websites and see how many elected officials are members.

a small lie and a big lie, both are lies, sin is sin and the wages of sin are death.

if a person believes in only 1 step of the 10 steps of the communist manifesto, that person is a communist.

if a person abuses or molests their child only once per yr, they are a child abuser or child molestor.

if u steal once per yr, your a thief

do u understand now?

You know John Wayne was once a member of the communist party, right?

[Serk]

You know John Wayne was once a member of the communist party, right?

Reference for this please? I searched, and couldn't find any corroborating commentary on it, even from moon bat sites...

[98valk]

It's kinda like when right wingers call Democrats "communists" or "socialists" when they're really not either. Oh there might be elements of truth to it and you might be able to make a loose metaphorical connection but it's not really true in either case. It's just party politics. Which is why we need to do away with party politics.

maybe u should go to the socialist party websites and see how many elected officials are members.

a small lie and a big lie, both are lies, sin is sin and the wages of sin are death.

if a person believes in only 1 step of the 10 steps of the communist manifesto, that person is a communist.

if a person abuses or molests their child only once per yr, they are a child abuser or child molestor.

if u steal once per yr, your a thief

do u understand now?

You know John Wayne was once a member of the communist party, right?

there really is something wrong with u, right?
he was an anti-communist and
"Joseph Stalin ordered the KGB to assassinate John Wayne because he considered his anti-communist rhetoric a threat to the Soviet Union, "

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=999&bih=559&q=john+wayne+anti+communist&oq=john+wayne+commun&aq=3b&aqi=g1g-v2g-b1&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=2000l8296l0l12765l17l15l0l1l1l0l281l1564l0.1.6l7l0

[The Anvil]

You know John Wayne was once a member of the communist party, right?

Reference for this please? I searched, and couldn't find any corroborating commentary on it, even from moon bat sites...

I'm sorry, I got him confused with someone else. He was a socialist, not a communist party member.

[The Anvil]

Oh, and I find the idea that John Wayne "survived KGB assassination attempts" to be pretty far-fetched.

Warning: it's a Playboy site so there's bewbs and vajeen: Page 5 towards the bottom. http://www.playboy.co.uk/article/16295/playboy-interview-john-wayne#texttop

Once a socialist, always a socialist, right?

[98valk]

You know John Wayne was once a member of the communist party, right?

Reference for this please? I searched, and couldn't find any corroborating commentary on it, even from moon bat sites...

I'm sorry, I got him confused with someone else. He was a socialist, not a communist party member.

for one yr while in college?  your a deceiver, and a trouble maker or your one of those people who read the first few lines of a paragraph and then think they know everything on a subject.
if your easily confused, u shouldn't cut back on your meds.


Titus 1:10 
 10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers,

2 Timothy 3:13 
 13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.


"Wayne once claimed to have been a Socialist during his Sophomore year in college, though in later years he was clearly a conservative Republican and spoke critically of Socialism in interviews. He was also vocal about his anti-communist beliefs and a supporter of the actions of the House Un-American Activities Committee. In 1944, he participated in the creation of the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals and served as their president in 1947.


Read more at Suite101: Biography of John Wayne: America's Favorite Western Film Hero | Suite101.com http://www.suite101.com/content/biography-of-john-wayne-a136007#ixzz1TysJaPqD"

[The Anvil]

"if a person believes in only 1 step of the 10 steps of the communist manifesto, that person is a communist."

YOUR words.

You see, believing in one thing or another does not make one an ideologue when that "thing" is loosely attached to an ideology. I mean in YOUR world maybe it does but this is the real world. People come in all shapes and sizes and different ideas. Some fall in line with the masses that tend to divide into groups. Others take the best ideas from those groups and reject the drivel or form new ideas and make the best of it. That's obviously not you.

It's funny, I get called a liberal by conservatives and a conservative by liberals all the time. I can only assume that I'm doing something right. 

[musclehead]

It's funny, I get called a liberal by conservatives and a conservative by liberals all the time. I can only assume that I'm doing something right. 

you are annoying the crap out of everyone and that is 'doing something right'? ???

it's an interesting world you live in

[The Anvil]

it's an interesting world you live in

I am NEVER bored.