Now it's treason!!

[Tonik]

So after 8 years of the Repubs telling us it was treason for the Dems to criticize the President in a time of war, and the Dems telling us that it was actually Patriotic now the roles and the stories are 100 percent reversed.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/wh-some-critics-serving-the-goals-of-al-qaeda.html

I really wish all these asshats would get their stories straight. I am actually a pretty tolerant person but I have ZERO tolerance for hypocrisy.

[Disclaimer]

Where the f*(k do you get people accusing detractors of treason ANYWHERE in that article?

When Bushie was in office, people came outright and said, quoted, that people are "unpatriotic" and it was "treason" to detract the President... and NOWHERE in that article were either of those words used.

Put your pitchfork down Cletus.

[Tonik]

Where the f*(k do you get people accusing detractors of treason ANYWHERE in that article?

Serving the Goals of al Qaeda

I assumed that most sane people would equate helping al Qaeda with treason. Guess I stand corrected on that.

[Disclaimer]

Serving the Goals of al Qaeda

No no no... see, you're doing the Republican thing and only paraphrasing for political effect.

The entire quote is: "Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda."

Those additional words are important to the context.

I assumed that most sane people would equate helping al Qaeda with treason. Guess I stand corrected on that.

Then you make the false assumption that opposition is equivalent to advocating the opposite.

Just because you're pro-choice doesn't mean you're anti-life.

Edited February 9, 2010 by JRMMiii

[flyboy1011]

[Tonik]

"Politically motivated criticism and unfounded fear-mongering only serve the goals of al-Qaeda."

Our Sec of State was on the talk shows Sunday saying Al-Qaeda is a bigger threat than an nuclear Iran. Is she too a politically motivated fear-monger-er or does the White House spokesman quoted above hold Repubs to a different standard?

[Todd#43]

Our Sec of State was on the talk shows Sunday saying Al-Qaeda is a bigger threat than an nuclear Iran. Is she too a politically motivated fear-monger-er or does the White House spokesman quoted above hold Repubs to a different standard?

Come on now, you know its perfectly acceptable for the dem's to hold republicans to a different standard.

For example, its ok for Harry Reid to say BHO is a "light skinned man with no negro dialect unless he wants one" but its not OK for Rush Limbaugh to own an NFL team because he's "too polarizing"

I could cite several other examples, but you get the idea.

[Disclaimer]

Now you're just changing the subject to find something to be pissed about...

And once again, you're paraphrasing

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/02/07/hillary-clinton-says-al-qaeda-groups-pose-bigger-threat-than-ira/

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Sunday that while North Korea and Iran are the nations that pose the biggest security threat to the U.S. because of their pursuit of nuclear weapons, the greater danger is from the "transnational, non-state networks" of al-Qaeda branches around the world.

Asked on CNN's State of the Union to name the country that is most dangerous to the U.S., Clinton said, "In terms of a country, obviously a nuclear-armed country like North Korea or Iran pose both a real or a potential threat."

Clinton said attempts to engage with North Korea had "brought us a lot in the last year" but "not to the extent we would like to see."

She said that Iran has not yet progressed to possessing nuclear arms, but said "We believe that their behavior certainly is evidence of their intentions, and how close they are may be subject to some debate. But the failure to disclose the facility at Qom, the facility to accept what was a very reasonable offer by Russia, France and the U.S. through the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) to take their ... their low- enriched uranium and return it for their research reactor ... It's like an old saying that if you see a turtle on the fence post in the middle of the woods, he didn't get there by accident, right? Somebody put him there."

But Clinton said, "I think that most of us believe the greater threats are the transnational non-state networks, primarily the extremists -- the fundamentalist Islamic extremists who are connected, al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula, al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, al Qaeda in the Maghreb, I mean, the kind of connectivity that exists."

[ReconRat]

I don't care, both parties are guilty of the same tactics of criticism and patriotism, and will say whatever whenever they want. To be specific, it is to not criticize their own party, or be patriotic to the opposite party. That would not bode well for their own political standing. That's all there is, they are all of the same mold. Everything is for political gain, which is to say.. "money and power". As I am found of saying.

Whether or not there is even a trace of a real American, like ordinary citizens, within any American politician, is questionable to me. It's not that they don't try, it's that the part that gets in the news and made public, is basically disgusting. So I'll blame the media for everything. Fear mongers...

[Tonik]

I don't care, both parties are guilty of the same tactics of criticism and patriotism....

Awesome, someone got my point.

Fear mongers...

Yep, Repubs sell fear of terrorists, foreign governments and high taxes generally. The Dems sell fear of constitutional rights, not getting health care or other social issues for the most part.

Asshats the lot of them.

[Disclaimer]

Awesome, someone got my point.

Yep, Repubs sell fear of terrorists, foreign governments and high taxes generally. The Dems sell fear of constitutional rights, not getting health care or other social issues for the most part.

Asshats the lot of them.

That was your point?? How do you get there -----^ from your OP here -----v ???

So after 8 years of the Repubs telling us it was treason for the Dems to criticize the President in a time of war, and the Dems telling us that it was actually Patriotic now the roles and the stories are 100 percent reversed.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/02/wh-some-critics-serving-the-goals-of-al-qaeda.html

I really wish all these asshats would get their stories straight. I am actually a pretty tolerant person but I have ZERO tolerance for hypocrisy.

[Tonik]

That was your point?? How do you get there -----^ from your OP here -----v ???

So after 8 years of the Repubs telling us it was treason for the Dems to criticize the President in a time of war, and the Dems telling us that it was actually Patriotic now the roles and the stories are 100 percent reversed.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...-al-qaeda.html

I really wish all these asshats would get their stories straight. I am actually a pretty tolerant person but I have ZERO tolerance for hypocrisy.

The hypocrisy on both sides is clearly visible. The roles are reversed, each is doing what the other did just a year or two ago. Subtle, but it is there. You missed it because you thought you saw a Repub and pounced. Pretty much the same thing I did yesterday to someone.

Also consistent with my posting history. I have said several times in the political threads that they all suck.

[fusion]

I must have missed it since I did read it quickly. I'm not sure how you got that out of that article.

[Tonik]

I must have missed it since I did read it quickly. I'm not sure how you got that out of that article.

Maybe I see more of it than is there but I sure remember the Dem's giving Bush crap about how he was running the war and so on, and all the unpatriotic claims by the repubs for doing that. Fast forward to today and the Repubs are all over Obama about the military tribunals vs trials, mirandizing the xmas bomber and then the white house comes out with the statement I linked to.

Just seems like the same crap from two years ago with the roles reversed.

Kind of like the talk about out of control spending. There is no debating that Obama's spending makes Bush look like a cheapskate but that does not change the fact that the so called fiscally responsible Repubs let Bush get away with it. Meantime the Dems that were screaming about Bush's spending are voting for Obama's insane spending.

But the part that really makes me steam are the voters. They are doing the same thing. Bunch of freaking koolaid drinking sheep letting their party of choice play them like a fiddle.

[fusion]

Yeah but Reps were saying if you say anything at all against the president you were unpatriotic and treasonous. What I read (quickly) in that article (about terrorism) was a theme of doing or saying things that attempted to incite unfounded fear or that was purely for politically reasons (again things surrounding terrorism) hurt us in our "war" against terror and benefited terrorists (their mindset?) to a point.

[alienpi]

You're either with Obama, or you're with the terrorists

http://prisonplanet.tv/

Edited February 10, 2010 by alienpi

[Tonik]

What I read (quickly) in that article (about terrorism) was a theme of doing or saying things that attempted to incite unfounded fear...

You missed the context of the White House statement..

The statement from the White House was an attack on or in defense of an op-ed by USA Today saying that the administration had screwed up the Xmas Bomber arrest/investigation and that the White House was playing games with threat levels.

You are right above, that is what the White House was saying, but it was a direct response to a newspaper saying they had messed something up, not done it right and were spreading fear for no apparent reason..

So the White House was calling the USA Today fear mongerer's as far as I can tell.

Which brings us back to my earlier comment about Hillary on the news this weekend. Late last week Hillary and many other administration officials went on a campaign to warn us about an immanent attack. Here is the gist of what the USA Today said that got the White House so PO'd.

"-- CIA Director Leon Panetta and other top officials agreed last week that an attack by al-Qaeda is likely in the next three to six months. The warning is bound to frighten the public, with no obvious benefit beyond the ability to say "I told you so.""

Now it seems to me that it is the White House that is fear mongering. Which brings us full circle. I recall Bush raising the 'threat level' every time his poll numbers went down and there was an election. Let's see, Obama at an all time low and it is an election year that is looking pretty grim for the Dems.

In honor of the The Super Bowl half time show and The Who I leave you with a lyric from Won't Get Fooled Again:

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[Disclaimer]

You're either with Obama, or you're with the terrorists

http://prisonplanet.tv/

What kinda radical blogosphere do you pull your 'information' from?

This ad was in the center of your first link:

, but seriously? Yea, I'm going to take that website serious

[alienpi]

What kinda radical blogosphere do you pull your 'information' from?

, but seriously? Yea, I'm going to take that website serious

I was being sarcastic with the "With Obama or with the terrorists."

But really, I think the previous posts seem to hint at the false left/right paradigm that's highlighted at www.infowars.com.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAaQNACwaLw

[Disclaimer]

I guess I'm missing the paradigm. I know both parties are guilty of certain stereotypical political offenses... but to what extent?

The Brennan letter was a rebuttal to criticism, specifically criticism in the name of political gain that is wrought with unfounded fear, as opposed to legitimate criticisms of a security policy. But, it's the GOP that issues blanket statements regardless of any and ALL criticism when calling Bush's policies into question that had no political motivation behind them, just a desire for answers and information.

That's the difference. It's one thing for me to inquire about why you may've failed to renew your bike insurance. It's another for me to say you've failed to renew your insurance because you're a lazy deadbeat with no fiscal restraint because you spent money on this, that, and the other.

One is an inquiry and the other is accusatory and drawn to a false conclusion based on the political motivation to paint you in a light that I see fit for my own purposes.

[Aerik]

Just because you're pro-choice doesn't mean you're anti-life.

I'm anti-life! It's an awful sexually-transmitted disease with a 100% mortality rate. It should be stamped out once and for all, in a spectacular and preferably humorous fashion!

[alienpi]

I was definitely a skeptic of Alex Jones, but it's interesting to note that without the infusion of flamboyant conclusions much of the facts are correct and tend to make me come to similar conclusions (and make me feel a little crazy in the process).

I think anyone that questions the government should check out www.infowars.com or prisonplanet.tv, and then research some of the claims themselves. I think you'll find that truth is stranger than fiction.

Here's a few links about the H1N1 fiasco.

first-daughters-not-vaccinated-against-h1n1/

Maybe this is why?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHfLfy5UKU0

H1N1 hoax

European-Council-investigates-swine-flu-pandemic-hoax

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1K74Tnrrok&feature=player_embedded

[jporter12]

That's the difference. It's one thing for me to inquire about why you may've failed to renew your bike insurance. It's another for me to say you've failed to renew your insurance because you're a lazy deadbeat with no fiscal restraint because you spent money on this, that, and the other.

One is an inquiry and the other is accusatory and drawn to a false conclusion based on the political motivation to paint you in a light that I see fit for my own purposes.

Just when I thought we were done with Jcroz.....

I'm anti-life! It's an awful sexually-transmitted disease with a 100% mortality rate. It should be stamped out once and for all, in a spectacular and preferably humorous fashion!

Let's start with you. One less flaming liberal, all the better for all!

Seriously though, read my sig. Not the Pauly quote about rep, the other part....

[Disclaimer]

They just mix it in the horse, you're not supposed to drink directly from the tap.

[InyaAzz]

I loved him in Friday's on ABC back in the day. I have to go search for some clips of that show.