Obama givin ultimatums?

[phatlip]

Originally Posted by tokenuser

No argument, as is calling someone unpatriotic or un-American.

Agreed. Like I said, this sort of rehetoric is on both sides and needs to stop.

[phatlip]

Originally Posted by loug002

---President George W. Bush, Sept 20, 2001 in a speech to the Joint Houses of Congress.

Words that became the rallying cry for conservatives in the wake of 9/11 for those that did not support the two (now known to be false) wars.

Yet, you condemn me because I believe that symbolic the Tea Party is a home grown terrorist cell and that the likes of Palin, Bachmann, et al are their Bin Laden, Zawaki, et al?

Hi Pot, I'm Kettle. Would you quit calling me black, please?

It's only pot meet kettle if I agreed with what Bush said. I didnt. I'm not a conservative, I'm a liberal who's upset that our president isn't liberal enough. I was very against Bush and was critical of this comment when it was made.

So no, it's not a pot and kettle argument if I'm critical of both situations. Ironically, it is for you though because you seem to be doing the same thing you're criticizing Bush for.

[loug002]

The tea party instills shock and aw..sorry, fear and terror into people's hearts. The definition of terrorism is:

The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims

While they may not be using violence (they let the corporations do that for them.) they do use intimidation.

They intimidate the elderly, they intimidate the racists and bigots--just by making them think something that is not true. Or weren't they the ones talking about death panels, or claiming that Obama is a Muslim, or comparing Obama to a certain Germanic histo-political person, and taking away of this and that right?

Honestly? The Tea Party, in its current carnation feels like either Stalinists or terrorists.

I was all for it when it started as a simple grassroots campaign. The moment it got funding by the Kochs Brothers, and then Sarah Palin and that other idiot woman and then Glenny boy took over..it went down hill.

[loug002]

As for Obama not being liberal enough, that's actually why I like him.

He's trying (that's the keyword) to stay in the middle. Yes, he could do more for GBLT rights including endorse SSM but I respect why he doesn't. The fact that the DoJ won't defend DOMA (even though Boehn-head uses taxpayer dollars to hire a private lawfirm to do so..) and the fact that DADT was repealed is enough for me right now.

It's like I said to someone the other day,

Supposedly no backbone to the Left; crazies and idiots to the Right..and here I am stuck in the middle with you.

[phatlip]

Originally Posted by loug002

They intimidate the elderly, they intimidate the racists and bigots--just by making them think something that is not true. Or weren't they the ones talking about death panels, or claiming that Obama is a Muslim, or comparing Obama to a certain Germanic histo-political person, and taking away of this and that right?

Honestly? The Tea Party, in its current carnation feels like either Stalinists or terrorists.

Violence is part of the definition. You admitted they don't do that and that's part of the definition. You just proved they're not terrorist by definition.

You and these guys have so much in common. You're both pushing the same rehetoric, you would think you're two peas in a pod.

You seriously have no place to complain about this sort of stuff. You're doing the same damn thing as them. Only they call Obama Hitler and you call them Stalin.

[loug002]

Originally Posted by phatlip

Violence is part of the definition. You admitted they don't do that and that's part of the definition. You just proved they're not terrorist by definition.

Only part of the definition. there is still:

and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims

So, you're right. They don't commit violence and in that aspect they are not. BUT even intimidation can cause terror.

[phatlip]

Originally Posted by loug002

Only part of the definition. there is still:



So, you're right. They don't commit violence and in that aspect they are not. BUT even intimidation can cause terror.

You're picking parts of the definition to make it work. It either does or doesn't fit the definition. It doesn't.

[loug002]

Originally Posted by phatlip

You're picking parts of the definition to make it work. It either does or doesn't fit the definition. It doesn't.

But it does. It still does fit the definition. violence AND intimidation. not violence OR intimidation. Not violence and/or intimidation.

You still have intimidation without violence. The KKK (another terrorist group imo) still does intimidation in the South without violence. Or would you say that burning crosses is not intimidation?

Because if that's what you're going to say, I think this conversation is pretty much done.

Plus that was one definition from one dictionary. Let's look at dictionary.com:

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

2.the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.

3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

Number 2 can be ignored because the tea terrorists are not in a state of fear or submission. (actually, upon thinking about it number 2 still counts. They create a state of fear and submission amongst their constituents. Especially when it comes to Obama. If I knew how to strike through I would.)

Number 1 still fits because they have used threats to intimidate ESPECIALLY for political purposes.

Number 3 is exactly what they've done. (Eric Cantor is famous for this one: "Sure, we can get aid to these people..but we've got to cut more!" he's held funds to help people move on for a natural disaster (Joplin Tornado, Hurricane Irene.) just to get his demands. That sounds exactly what a terrorist would do to me.)

I think the problem is, phatlip, you're hung up on the violence aspect. Terrorism does not need to be violent. You can still be a terrorist and only appeal to the mental side of it.

As token pointed out, yes in 9/11 physical buildings fell, people died--in fact they died about 50 miles away from me--but it was also a psychological thing.

For the Tea Party, this has been purely psychological. Seriously. The Tea Party, and by extension the GOP, has decided that if they can make people THINK the government--even them--is horrible then they're sure that people will vote for the GOP across the board.

Let's also not forget that the FBI lists many LGBT organizations as terrorist organizations yet they committ no violence but merely protest. The Tea Party, and GOP, has labeled this 'Occupation' movement as terrorists because they do not (supposedly) support captialism and therefore are un-American.

...in fact, that last part is exactly what I'm talking about when I say the psychological aspect still counts.

They are saying these Occupywhatever movements are terroristic in nature because they don't support capitalism and the (supposedly) free market and therefore are unAmerican.

No one wants to be called unAmerican. Therefore, no one that's not already apart of it will get involved. Why? Because of the psychological intimidation on the part of homegrown terrorists.

[phatlip]

Originally Posted by loug002

But it does. It still does fit the definition. violence AND intimidation. not violence OR intimidation. Not violence and/or intimidation.

You still have intimidation without violence. The KKK (another terrorist group imo) still does intimidation in the South without violence. Or would you say that burning crosses is not intimidation?

Because if that's what you're going to say, I think this conversation is pretty much done.

Plus that was one definition from one dictionary. Let's look at dictionary.com:



Number 2 can be ignored because the tea terrorists are not in a state of fear or submission. (actually, upon thinking about it number 2 still counts. They create a state of fear and submission amongst their constituentsXu. Especially when it comes to Obama. If I knew how to strike through I would.)

Number 1 still fits because they have used threats to intimidate ESPECIALLY for political purposes.

Number 3 is exactly what they've done. (Eric Cantor is famous for this one: "Sure, we can get aid to these people..but we've got to cut more!" he's held funds to help people move on for a natural disaster (Joplin Tornado, Hurricane Irene.) just to get his demands. That sounds exactly what a terrorist would do to me.)

I think the problem is, phatlip, you're hung up on the violence aspect. Terrorism does not need to be violent. You can still be a terrorist and only appeal to the mental side of it.

As token pointed out, yes in 9/11 physical buildings fell, people died--in fact they died about 50 miles away from me--but it was also a psychological thing.

For the Tea Party, this has been purely psychological. Seriously. The Tea Party, and by extension the GOP, has decided that if they can make people THINK the government--even them--is horrible then they're sure that people will vote for the GOP across the board.

Let's also not forget that the FBI lists many LGBT organizations as terrorist organizations yet they committ no violence but merely protest. The Tea Party, and GOP, has labeled this 'Occupation' movement as terrorists because they do not (supposedly) support captialism and therefore are un-American.

...in fact, that last part is exactly what I'm talking about when I say the psychological aspect still counts.

They are saying these Occupywhatever movements are terroristic in nature because they don't support capitalism and the (supposedly) free market and therefore are unAmerican.

No one wants to be called unAmerican. Therefore, no one that's not already apart of it will get involved. Why? Because of the psychological intimidation on the part of homegrown terrorists.

Don't take up computer programming. A quick lesson in logic. And would imply both conditions of violence an itimidation having to be true. The use of the word or means one could lack violence or intimidation to be true. It says and meaning both conditions must be true to meet the defenition. Both conditions aren't true as we both agree in the lack of violence. Therefore it doesn't meet the defenition.

Not addressing g anything else you said because the root of your logic is so faulty as I just proved. Anything else is merely your attempt at grasping for straws while ignoring the lack of sound logic in your root argument.

[loug002]

Originally Posted by phatlip

Not addressing g anything else you said because the root of your logic is so faulty as I just proved. Anything else is merely your attempt at grasping for straws while ignoring the lack of sound logic in your root argument.

Then you're ignoring the Bush-era (and naturally the Obama-Era using the same rules) FBI uses the same definition that I do about terrorism when it concerned LGBT groups.

Or I guess you could say I'm using the same definition as the government. Which actually supports my argument.

I knew there was a reason I put you on ignore, and I'm glad I corrected that problem.