A Fox anchor just asked a congressman if delaying the healthcare repeal vote means “letting the bad guys win.” :rolleyes::rolleyes:
This was followed by a 4-person commentator panel…of 4 conservatives.
When asked if people should refine from using epithets like “fascist,” “Nazi,” and “socialist,” Brit Hume said that *fascist *and *Nazi *are inappropriate, but it’s okay to call someone a socialist.
Nah, don’t bet it. Ron Paul is an actual, principled libertarian. Rand Paul is just a typical teabagger.
It had a question mark. It was just a question.
Right?
And this is a true statement. Why not? Isn’t, for example, Bernie Sanders a socialist?
What kind of reasoning is that? The father’s agenda is therefore the son’s agenda?
I disagree with your “therefore.”
Why would one *ask *such a question? This Loughner guy was not protesting the repeal vote.
Because of conservative propaganda, *socialist *is considered by many to be an epithet just like fascist. And they apply it as such, to people who are not actually socialists.
All the evidence so far indicates that the only Tea Party with relevance here is that of the Mad Hatter and had the whole nation been linked arm in arm singing Kumbaya for the last year the likelihood is that this guy would still have killed people.
But where most see tragedy the Left see opportunity. We must expect them to make what liitle hay they can with it.
shrug You see what you want to see. American politics has a problem with both sides caring just about the painting of the other side as the evil instead of actual debate. Don’t you remember that this is exactly what Jon Stewart’s rally was about? It isn’t just me noticing it and it is here. In this thread. I’m sorry if you feel insulted because I’ve pointed it out, but it is the way it is.
I could write about what I think is wrong with British politics here or even Swedish (I’m a Brit living in Sweden) but why should I? This is a thread discussing something that happened in America with an American shooter and an American politician.
You mean how the lefties exploited 9-11 for their own political ends? Yes, clearly that was pretty slimy.
I didn’t see the conversation, but I take the question to mean, “If, as a result of the shooting, the health care repeal vote is delayed, are we simply letting the bad guys win?” This doesn’t mean the murderer wanted to delay the vote, but it means that by changing our actions in response to a crime such as this, we send the message that commiting crimes will cause us to change our actions.
You may agree or disagree, but I fail to see why the question is inappropriate.
Your earlier quote suggested it was per se inappropriate. Brit Hume said that facist and Nazi are per se inappropriate in American politics, but socialist is not. I agree. It sounds like (now) you do to. I mean, you do acknowledge that Sanders is a socialist, yes?
So you don’t disagree with Hume’s statement.
Or do you?
Bricker has these odd attacks of density. A man who can twist syntax and definitions like a child’s birthday party clown can twist balloon animals, suddenly simple English confounds him.
I do believe the point was both sides trying to pass it off as a problem of the other side, not that right-wing rhetoric can cause issues. Of course it can in Europe. It is just you’ll have a hard tiem finding a single country in Europe where politics has boiled down to just two parties with the supporters spending as much time (or even more) trying to paint the other side as evil instead of actually doing something positive.
In France teenagers rioted 1960s style after Sarkozy was elected President. Not because the election was “disputed” or anything but just because they didn’t like Sarkozy’s political views.
Some people really aren’t getting this “both sides trying to paint the other as evil” thing at all.
Hint: for it to be both sides then it has to actually be both sides. Also note that I mentioned about politics boiling down to two sides slinging mud at each other. Are there any European countries where there are basically only two sides? The closest I can think of is the UK, but they have a coalition government right now, so clearly there are three effective parties.
Brevity being the soul of wit, I’d prefer elucidator’s sententious response. However, I am but me.
It is inappropriate because there was no basis for it. In raising the issue, he is intrinsically framing the situation as if Loughner’s actions were meant in the slightest to *create *this delay–which is not true.
Again, no.
I really have difficulty believing that, given your demonstrated ability to parse complex statements and elicit shades of ambiguity previously unknown to humankind, you would have so much trouble comprehending simple and straightforward explanations.
It seems pretty clear to me that this is a stance on currency and not on theism/atheism.
Needs more cowbell.
They way I feel right now, I think it best if I leave it up to Keith to speak for me – at least he can still manage to be decent:Olbermann: Violence and threats have no place in democracy
Fuck. Just fuuuck.
I understand what you’re saying, but the question itself was phrased very poorly. I’d say intentionally vague, but Fox News doesn’t have that kind of subtlety about them . Closer to a moronic non sequitor. The attack and the health care vote have absolutely nothing to do with each other. He may as well have said “If I don’t go to the airport, will Cinnabon have to declare bankruptcy?” I didn’t even think of the week delay as caving to terror or to insure the safety of congress? Thought it was more a gesture of respect.
I’d say the question was inappropriate because it was ill concieved and virtually nonsensical.
You did note the word “probably” in that sentence, right? I suppose I could have used “possibly” to be more forgiving, but in my experience the apple doesn’t fall far from the political tree.
A right wing-nutter posted this on my buddies FB page. He is blaming the Sheriff.
When I asked him for specific examples of the Sheriff refusing to enforce the Law, he provided this link: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/04/29/2010-04-29_arizona_sheriff_clarence_dupnik_refuses_to_enforce_states_new_racist_immigration.html
I replied “So you are equating his stance on a legal issue with standing by while a 9 year old is killed? That is a mighty Olympic leap of logic.” He doubled down, directly implying that the Sheriff had allowed this to happen on purpose.
I’m betting we’ll be hearing more of this.