TEA party terrorists

S

SmarterthanYou

rebel
and the dems whine and cry, full of colorful name calling, nail biting, and impotent rage.

http://www.politico.comVice President Joe Biden joined House Democrats in lashing tea party Republicans Monday, accusing them of having “acted like terrorists” in the fight over raising the nation’s debt limit, according to several sources in the room.

Biden was agreeing with a line of argument made by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) at a two-hour, closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting.

“We have negotiated with terrorists,” an angry Doyle said, according to sources in the room. “This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.”

Biden, driven by his Democratic allies’ misgivings about the debt-limit deal, responded: “They have acted like terrorists.”

Biden’s office initially declined to comment about what the vice president said inside the closed-door session, but after POLITICO published the remarks, spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said: “The word was used by several members of Congress. The vice president does not believe it’s an appropriate term in political discourse.”

Biden later denied he used that term in an interview with CBS.

“I did not use the terrorism word,” Biden told CBS Evening News anchor and managing editor Scott Pelley.[/QUOTE]

The dems/libs only WISH we'd acted like terrorists so they could unleash the jack booted thugs after us. Of course, you'll not see the lame stream media excoriate the dems for their hateful rhetoric like they did when TEA party patriots spoke up at town hall meetings last election cycle. Nor, i expect, will any of the libs here condemn the hateful remarks from their chosen dictators, unlike what they accused conservatives of during the 'hate mongering' pre election campaigning.
 
Yeah, because asking the government to spend less is "terrorism"... :rolleyes:

Can anybody take their whinging seriously any longer? They say that "rhetoric" is causing issues then say this stupid stuff?
 
Next we'll hear about them "targeting" districts where these "terrorists" were elected. Does anybody on the left ever get sick of this rubbish? Remember all the whine porn when the Dixie Chicks pissed off their fans? But heck, call elected Congressmen "terrorists" during a War on Terror because that's the responsible way to ensure solid compromise when something supposedly counts so much. Equate the legislative process with attacks that murder innocent people, because that clearly is Noble Rhetoric unlike that targeting districts to get somebody elected stuff that is so very dangerous...
 
Damocles said:
Next we'll hear about them "targeting" districts where these "terrorists" were elected. Does anybody on the left ever get sick of this rubbish? Remember all the whine porn when the Dixie Chicks pissed off their fans? But heck, call eloected Congressmen "terrorists" during a War on Terror because that's the responsible way to ensure solid compromise when something supposedly counts so much.
Click to expand...


I can't speak for everyone on "the left" but I, and the liberals that I know, are capable of abstract thought and understand the concept of metaphors. So no, I don't get sick of this "rubbish." I kinda like it, actually.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
I can't speak for everyone on "the left" but I, and the liberals that I know, are capable of abstract thought and understand the concept of metaphors. So no, I don't get sick of this "rubbish." I kinda like it, actually.
Click to expand...

So, metaphors are okay when you use them, but when others do they are "dangerous rhetoric" and you don't get sick of wallowing in hypocrisy? I can't stand hypocrisy, I don't want it on me.

If you are going to go all whine porn on our butts for rhetoric much less than this, then there is no excuse for this stupid rubbish. And yes, pointing out hypocrisy is a valid political conversation.

I should keep this around for the next time some idiot on the left starts in on how "dangerous" rhetoric is irresponsible.

One could say that Obama held America Hostage for tax increases... I guess that makes everybody in government "terrorists"...
 
Damocles said:
So, metaphors are okay when you use them, but when others do they are "dangerous rhetoric" and you don't get sick of wallowing in hypocrisy? I can't stand hypocrisy, I don't want it on me.

If you are going to go all whine porn on our butts for rhetoric much less than this, then there is no excuse for this stupid rubbish. And yes, pointing out hypocrisy is a valid political conversation.

I should keep this around for the next time some idiot on the left starts in on how "dangerous" rhetoric is irresponsible.

One could say that Obama held America Hostage for tax increases... I guess that makes everybody in government "terrorists"...
Click to expand...


No, metaphors are OK when liberals and left-wingers are the target audience because liberals and left-wingers understand that metaphors are metaphors. Right-wingers have difficulty grasping the concept.
 
1) The Vice President denied saying it, Id say give him the benefit of the doubt.
2) Even if he said the words attributed to him he did not call them terrorists as is being reported.
3) If he did use the words attributed to him he should not have and should appologise, but he is accused of saying it in a closed door session with elected members of his own party and it was not designed to inflame American voters and if it was said it was comparing tacticts used to those of tacticts used by terrorists... namely to use terror to attain political goals.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
No, metaphors are OK when liberals and left-wingers are the target audience because liberals and left-wingers understand that metaphors are metaphors. Right-wingers have difficulty grasping the concept.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that they do, as evidenced by the increased high pitch of the whine about the "targeting" metaphor that the left attempted to blame when Gifford was shot by a lunatic who hadn't paid any attention to any such rhetoric...

I really think the left truly believes these idiotic metaphors and thinks they are reality, I also see a grip of hypocrisy as some of the loudest whiners are the ones with the most insane rhetoric.

I'm good with any rhetoric, because that is what it is. I am not so happy about clear hypocrisy. If you are going to use the rhetoric, don't whine about the rhetoric first then dive into even deeper waters with your own. Basically, before you talk about the splinter in your brother's eye, maybe you should remove that beam in your own...
 
Jarod said:
1) The Vice President denied saying it, Id say give him the benefit of the doubt.
2) Even if he said the words attributed to him he did not call them terrorists as is being reported.
3) If he did use the words attributed to him he should not have and should appologise, but he is accused of saying it in a closed door session with elected members of his own party and it was not designed to inflame American voters and if it was said it was comparing tacticts used to those of tacticts used by terrorists... namely to use terror to attain political goals.
Click to expand...

Yet it seems to be appearing in Editorials everywhere. Interesting how that works.
 
Damocles said:
I don't believe that they do, as evidenced by the increased high pitch of the whine about the "targeting" metaphor that the left attempted to blame when Gifford was shot by a lunatic who hadn't paid any attention to any such rhetoric...

I really think the left truly believes these idiotic metaphors and thinks they are reality, I also see a grip of hypocrisy as some of the loudest whiners are the ones with the most insane rhetoric.

I'm good with any rhetoric, because that is what it is. I am not so happy about clear hypocrisy. If you are going to use the rhetoric, don't whine about the rhetoric first then dive into even deeper waters with your own. Basically, before you talk about the splinter in your brother's eye, maybe you should remove that beam in your own...
Click to expand...

Well that's the thing Laughtner (sp) wasn't a right-winger he was sick in the head which is why the rhetoric was supposedly so irresponsible and thus why this rhetoric today is so irresponsible. I know Dungheap knows that but he's just screwing around.
 
Damocles said:
I don't believe that they do, as evidenced by the increased high pitch of the whine about the "targeting" metaphor that the left attempted to blame when Gifford was shot by a lunatic who hadn't paid any attention to any such rhetoric...

I really think the left truly believes these idiotic metaphors and thinks they are reality, I also see a grip of hypocrisy as some of the loudest whiners are the ones with the most insane rhetoric.

I'm good with any rhetoric, because that is what it is. I am not so happy about clear hypocrisy. If you are going to use the rhetoric, don't whine about the rhetoric first then dive into even deeper waters with your own. Basically, before you talk about the splinter in your brother's eye, maybe you should remove that beam in your own...
Click to expand...


I can't speak for all liberals, but the targeting and "don't retreat, reload" stuff bothers me because extreme right-wing gun nut freaks, the intended audience, are crazy people. I understand that they are metaphors, but the intended audience may not.
 
Damocles said:
Yet it seems to be appearing in Editorials everywhere. Interesting how that works.
Click to expand...

So one editorial in the NY Times is "everywhere?" And why is this interesting? The hostage metaphor was in pretty wide circulation and given the fervor that the extreme right-wing has for Draconian spending cuts and the damage they are willing to inflict on the economy to get them, jihad is pretty spot on.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
So one editorial in the NY Times is "everywhere?" And why is this interesting? The hostage metaphor was in pretty wide circulation and given the fervor that the extreme right-wing has for Draconian spending cuts and the damage they are willing to inflict on the economy to get them, jihad is pretty spot on.
Click to expand...

'Draconian spending cuts'?????? ROFLMAO.... tell us genius... how much is total US government spending going to be cut in the next decade?

I'll save you the time... it isn't being cut. They cut the RATE of growth... so don't worry, your idiots in DC will still be able to outspend revenue to the tune of $7 Trillion over the next decade.... but yeah, those small cuts are draconian.

Bottom line, you once again demonstrate that you will defend Democrats regardless of how utterly moronic they behave.
 
David St. Hubbins said:
So one editorial in the NY Times is "everywhere?" And why is this interesting? The hostage metaphor was in pretty wide circulation and given the fervor that the extreme right-wing has for Draconian spending cuts and the damage they are willing to inflict on the economy to get them, jihad is pretty spot on.
Click to expand...

My guess is you didn't bother researching this in Google before you went into knee-jerk defense. There is more than one editorial. I thought I made that rather clear with the word "everywhere". The prevalence of the term makes me think that somebody sent out some talking points.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top