We're Terrrorists.

Do these people not understand what kind of backlash they are risking-
or are they counting on it?
 
They live in a vacuum. Remember, these are the same people who just bought 8 new G class corporate jets after blasting the CEOs for having corporate jets.
 
That's ok. I became a terrorist when I protested the anti-Muslim violence in American following 9-11. People told me I was un-American at best and a terrorist at worst for protecting my "Muslim terrorist friends." (They were a few calculus students looking to go into engineering and were about as dangerous as a pair of dirty socks).

It's not so bad being a terrorist. You get used to it, and after a few months people forget anyways. So it happened under the previous administration, so it will happen now. The Public has a short memory.
 
Calabrio said:
Earlier today, disagree with Pelosi and Obama was merely "un-American."
Click to expand...

Lets just start with that mis-statement. What Pelosi stated was:

“However, it is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue,” the two leaders write. “These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American.”
Click to expand...

So you've willfully taken this out of context and are trying to twist its meaning to state that disagreement is "un-American".

You've blown your credibility in the first sentence. Therefore nothing else in your post is relevant.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
You've blown your credibility in the first sentence. Therefore nothing else in your post is relevant.
Click to expand...
Troll here often?
There's a thread with the Pelosi article in it, explained in further detail. It's unfortunate, you didn't follow the story arc of the day.
http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showpost.php?p=553937&postcount=29
(I'll even add the link to the original post, as a courtesy to you.)

I also disagree with Pelosi and Hoyer's claim that views are being "drowned out" as much as I find the gross hypocrisy of those two making such a statement following decades of such attacks being employed by their supporters, as well as the fact their supporters are currently sending out paid protesters and union 'muscle' to intimidate those that disagree with them.

But thanks for trying, Johnny.
I hope you enjoyed the offensive television clip I provided of that foul TV personality... the one that you won't condemn, but know you'll look foolish to endorse.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Calabrio said:
I hope you enjoyed the offensive television clip I provided of that foul TV personality... the one that you won't condemn, but know you'll look foolish to endorse.
Click to expand...

And Cal, why did you feel that you had to post a clip that was full of editorial comment - all the little asides and cuts to the YouTube poster's little anecdotes...

It is pretty telling that you felt you had to post this edited version, rather than the straight version -

Foxpaws, I guess you're a terrorist too?
Click to expand...

Oh, I have been a terrorist for a while, before it was popular even... you get used to the label...
 
foxpaws said:
And Cal, why did you feel that you had to post a clip that was full of editorial comment - all the little asides and cuts to the YouTube poster's little anecdotes...
Click to expand...

Do you have a problem with the asides?
Did the guy edit it in such a way to make Olberman sound like he was saying something that he hadn't?
But if you have a link to a "clean" version of that monolog, go ahead and posted. I don't happen to have one. Will Olberman still misrepresent, name call, and label American's who oppose the theft of their liberty "terrorists" in that one?

Oh, I have been a terrorist for a while, before it was popular even... you get used to the label...
Click to expand...
Where you hanging out with Bill Ayers or any of his associates?
 
Calabrio said:
Do you have a problem with the asides?
Did the guy edit it in such a way to make Olberman sound like he was saying something that he hadn't?
But if you have a link to a "clean" version of that monolog, go ahead and posted. I don't happen to have one. Will Olberman still misrepresent, name call, and label American's who oppose the theft of their liberty "terrorists" in that one?
Click to expand...

Here is a ‘clean’ YouTube Link

If you look – it is over 8 minutes – your source Cal removed the last 4-1/2 minutes of the conversation where Olbermann brings in Newsweek’s editior, and they talk about what “End of Life” really means. So Olbermann's commentary certainly remains the same - but the bulk of the bit, that actually educates people on what end of life really entails was edited out - heck, why needlessly educate people when you can scare them instead.

I don’t need someone spouting rhetoric to form my own opinions of Olbermann. However, I guess Cal, you wanted to make sure that everyone knew what the ‘right’ way to think about this was, that extra ‘reassurance’ that they are thinking they way they should, so you posted the truncated - and 'commentated' version :p

Where you hanging out with Bill Ayers or any of his associates?
Click to expand...
I ‘know’ Mark Rudd… never did any real ‘hanging out’ with him, mostly a cross-over of people we both know, ended up at couple of the same events, he is of an older generation than I am… Never 'hung out' with any of the other members of the Weather Underground (I assume you are talking about them when asking about Ayers’ associates). Although, no doubt that skirting contact with Rudd is enough to damn my soul forever…
 
foxpaws said:
your source Cal removed the last 4-1/2 minutes of the conversation where Olbermann brings in Newsweek’s editior, and they talk about what “End of Life” really means.
Click to expand...
That's fine... maybe you could post a link to the guest he had on after the commercial break too. I'd suggest doing so in a different thread though, because I was taking issue with his representation of Americans that disagree with him as terrorists.

I don't have any interest in posting content to his entire show or guests because I think they are at best wrong, more likely, misleading, and worst, complete liars.

However, I guess Cal, you wanted to make sure that everyone knew what the ‘right’ way to think about this was
Click to expand...
Actually, I'll let you in on a secret.
I didn't watch the video.... I only listened to it, so I wasn't aware of the additional images.

I ‘know’ Mark Rudd… never did any real ‘hanging out’ with him, mostly a cross-over of people we both know, ended up at couple of the same events, he is of an older generation than I am… Never 'hung out' with any of the other members of the Weather Underground (I assume you are talking about them when asking about Ayers’ associates). Although, no doubt that skirting contact with Rudd is enough to damn my soul forever…
Click to expand...
Small world, isn't it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Calabrio said:
But thanks for trying, Johnny.
I hope you enjoyed the offensive television clip I provided of that foul TV personality... the one that you won't condemn, but know you'll look foolish to endorse.
Click to expand...

Immensely. Why? Because Kieth makes a 100% VALID POINT:

OLBERMANN: Good evening from New York.

Not nearly spreading lies but convincing a dissatisfied portion of the population to believe their propaganda and to act out in anger. Our fifth story on THE COUNTDOWN: When Hamas does it or Hezbollah does it, it is called terrorism.

Why should Republican lawmakers and the astroturf groups organizing on behalf of the health care industry be viewed differently—especially now that far too many tea party protestors are comparing President Obama and health care reform to Hitler and the Holocaust? And when a former Republican vice presidential candidate actually says—out loud—that the reform bill will create a death panel with the authority to kill her children?
Click to expand...

You've supported Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Malkin and all their ilk calling liberals "terrorists", "traitors" and worse, FOR YEARS. Now another media personality comes along and is calling people who SPREAD LIES IN ORDER TO INSTILL FEAR SO THAT THEY PUBLICALLY SHOUT DOWN OPPOSING VIEWS "TERRORISTS", and you take offense? You are the epitome of a hypocrite!
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
Immensely. Why? Because Kieth makes a 100% VALID POINT:
Click to expand...

Groups like Hezbollah and Hamas are called terrorist because they use or support violence, destruction of property, or murder, often times against civilian populations, to elicit a political or social response from government or to intimidate the population.

While I disagree IMMENSELY with both Olberman and your assertion that the response to this health care abomination is the result of misleading propaganda to act out in anger, arguing that such a description is the criteria used to define terrorism is painfully ignorant.

So his point isn't valid in the least.

You've supported Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Malkin and all their ilk calling liberals "terrorists", "traitors" and worse, FOR YEARS.
Click to expand...
You're painting with an awfully broad brush right here, aren't you.
Care to be specific? Even a generalization would be easier to respond to than that statement.

I don't think, nor have I ever said, that all liberals are terrorists, traitors, or worse. Not now, nor have I in past years. If you'd like to give specific examples, I will gladly, and confidently give you my opinions of INDIVIDUALS and specific organizations.

For example, Bill Ayers IS a terrorist.
For example, Keith Olberman is not a terrorist.

Notice the distinction. I don't agree with either of them, but I reserve the label "terrorist" for the one that was actively planning to engage in the mass murder of innocent people in an effort to achieve some social and political means.

See how that works? But enough about me.
The commentators that you listed don't do that either.

Now another media personality comes along and is calling people who SPREAD LIES IN ORDER TO INSTILL FEAR SO THAT THEY PUBLICALLY SHOUT DOWN OPPOSING VIEWS "TERRORISTS", and you take offense? You are the epitome of a hypocrite!
Click to expand...
You're just compounding your mistakes here.

None of the people you listed, including myself, are "spreading lies in order to instill fear so that the audience will shout down opposing views." So that statement is simply wrong.

And none of the people you listed, including myself, have every called people we simply disagree with terrorists.

So, your baseless claim that I'm a 'hypocrite' is 100% without merit.

Thanks for trolling, Johnny...
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
people who SPREAD LIES IN ORDER TO INSTILL FEAR SO THAT THEY PUBLICALLY SHOUT DOWN OPPOSING VIEWS "TERRORISTS"
Click to expand...

Congratulations, you just defined the Obama Administration

Want_A_Cookie.jpg
 
foxpaws said:
If you look – it is over 8 minutes – your source Cal removed the last 4-1/2 minutes of the conversation where Olbermann brings in Newsweek’s editior, and they talk about what “End of Life” really means.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I listened to the last 4-1/2 minutes. You keep talking as if the term "End of Life" has some special meaning that is being misunderstood in this debate. Didn't hear anything in that clip. Care to enlighten us? Maybe give some links and what not so that we can better educate ourselves and not "incorrectly" refer to "end of life" in any way?
 
Keef and Johnny, sittin' in a tree...

Fox, why aren't you fussing at Johnny for his yelling?
 
Calabrio said:
Actually, I'll let you in on a secret.
I didn't watch the video.... I only listened to it, so I wasn't aware of the additional images.
Click to expand...

You didn't get the connection - "Pop Up" Olbermann - like "Pop Up" Videos? Sort of a visual connection Cal...

Small world, isn't it.
Click to expand...

So, do you know Rudd? Or are you going for some 'guilt' by association here Cal?
 
Calabrio said:
No, I don't know Rudd.
We must just hang out in different circles.
Click to expand...

People usually have 'many circles' that they hang out in - don't they Cal?

Some of my other 'circles' include very powerful Republicans... with much closer 'associations'. Also, much guiltier ones.;)
 
foxpaws said:
Also, much guiltier ones.;)
Click to expand...
Really? :eek:
Which military base did they plan on going to in order to massacre the families of service men? Was it bigger than Ft. Dix? And where'd they go into hiding only to later be embraced by academia?
 
Calabrio said:
Really? :eek:
Which military base did they plan on going to in order to massacre the families of service men? Was it bigger than Ft. Dix? And where'd they go into hiding only to later be embraced by academia?
Click to expand...

I knew you would try to once again put me into some terrorist camp with a very slight association with Rudd. Literally a couple of parties and a couple of gallery openings, in New Mexico. Maybe 100 words being exchanged... Many, many years after his activities protesting the war.

However, the far more 'guilty' association with high ranking Republicans, where not only many hundreds of thousands of words were exchanged, but, bodily fluids as well, isn't nearly as much of a concern for you. These Republicans were involved in Contra activities (at that time a very current event) and more... However, I don't feel guilty... I don't think in either case I have been tainted by my exposure to them. But, if I have been- the overwhelming stain of illegal CIA activity is far more apparent because of my far greater (and stain causing ;) ) involvement with my Republican friends, than my very slight soiling of being in the same room with a member of the Weather Underground.
 
foxpaws said:
I knew you would try to once again put me into some terrorist camp with a very slight association with Rudd.
Click to expand...
Did I do that, or did I just put Rudd in the 'terrorist camp.'

However, the far more 'guilty' association with high ranking Republicans, where not only many hundreds of thousands of words were exchanged, but, bodily fluids as well, isn't nearly as much of a concern for you.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm not not concerned about your sex life in the 80s.
 
foxpaws said:
I knew you would try to once again put me into some terrorist camp with a very slight association with Rudd. Literally a couple of parties and a couple of gallery openings, in New Mexico. Maybe 100 words being exchanged... Many, many years after his activities protesting the war.

However, the far more 'guilty' association with high ranking Republicans, where not only many hundreds of thousands of words were exchanged, but, bodily fluids as well, isn't nearly as much of a concern for you. These Republicans were involved in Contra activities (at that time a very current event) and more... However, I don't feel guilty... I don't think in either case I have been tainted by my exposure to them. But, if I have been- the overwhelming stain of illegal CIA activity is far more apparent because of my far greater (and stain causing ;) ) involvement with my Republican friends, than my very slight soiling of being in the same room with a member of the Weather Underground.
Click to expand...
Always bragging, fox. First you boast about knowing a terrorist, then you feign indignation at being associated with him. That's laughable. I'm not sure you even realize how transparently ridiculous you 'sound.'
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 105 (members: 0, guests: 105)
Back
Top