This was never a political talking point, but it’s a funny story about clueless morons, and kind of related to Freedom Fries.
A couple was so disgusted with the Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys that they decided to show their support for the US by dying their poodle red, white, and blue. Red on one side, white in the middle, and blue on the other side. That’ll show those uppity French!
“Teach the controversy”
ie: Creationism
Ohmigod, yes. I have a selection on my desk just above where I type this. As a candidate I have to wear them. If I don’t I will inevitably hear about it from my opponents or my allies.
There is a difference with regards to whether death is intended.
e.g. A soldier dives on a grenade to save his comrades.
Miraculously, he’s blasted into the air, taking all the force out of the explosion, and lands without injury. Everyone’s happy.
A suicide bomber detonates his explosives but a small amount of explosive blasts the bomb away from his body, prior to the rest of the explosives going up. The required amount of death and destruction is caused, but the bomber survives.
He may not be happy, as first of all he’s not a martyr and is not going to get his heavenly reward yet, secondly he could now be arrested and interrogated, bringing the authorities down on his cell. Finally he gets to see the results of his actions, which I suspect not all suicide bombers would relish (I’m aware that many would disagree with me on this however).
There was nothing outrageous about it. Cheney’s party has relied on the votes of homophobes and bigots for decades. It was an entirely valid exploration of the question of whether the party’s candidate actually agrees with those positions, and it was entirely relevant that he apparently did not have a problem with his own daughter’s homosexual lifestyle. Lieberman wasn’t “pandering to homophobes and bigots,” he was trying to point out Cheney’s hypocrisy in representing a homophobic and bigoted party while not apparently believing in its homophobic and bigoted positions in his personal life.
Was it a freedom poodle?
To “make a statement?”
I’m gonna throw my vote in for the flag pins. I mean what point could they possibly serve? Some secretly anti-American person is going to run for American political office so that they can take down the system from the inside. They’ll do all that, but they won’t wear a flag pin, because wearing a small pin is where they draw the line ethically.
Maybe. But I am suspicious of those who ascribe dehumanizing psychologies to their enemies. It leads to “we must kill them because they do not share our respect for life” thinking. When the opportunity to talk across those lines is had, I find that people tend to be more alike than they have represented each other, differing more in perspective than really in mind. The few would-be suicide bombers that I know of (who, admittedly, did not survive in precisely the way you describe) did not seem so unhappy to have survived.
I hate it when someone accuses a figure they disagree with of just “repeating talking points”. Talking points are pithy summaries of a political position that are designed to be easily understood and remembered. Repeating them is what effective communicators do. If the talking points can be refuted then do so but when someone tries to dismiss what someone says as just talking points, they just reveal their own stupidity.
That’s not where I was coming from. I don’t consider suicide intrinsically inhuman or unnatural and I feel I can relate, both to depression suicide and death-for-glory.
And in fact, I mentioned how I believe some bombers would find it unpleasant to see the carnage their actions caused (were they to survive to see it).
This is a counter to the perception that every one of them is an inhuman monster and they would simply revel in the pain and suffering caused.
Anyway, my point was a semantic one. A suicide bomber includes her own death as part of the plan. The hero is not trying to die, she’s doing what is necessary to save her comrades, and death may be a unintended consequence.
Obama is a Muslim
Obama is a Kenyan
Obama is a Socialist
John Boehner has orange skin and cries
Mitt Romney is a Moron (oops, I meant Mormon)
I can see Russia from my house (generic example, pick anything she said)
What global warming? It’s snowing outside
We have to implement a no-fly zone (2 weeks ago) We shouldn’t have implemented a no-fly zone (yesterday)
That may be right in some/many/most instances (not for me to say). But the charge is well deserved when leveled at idiots like Kevin James.
Talking points are too often simply (someone else’s) polished rhetoric substituting for actual thinking/understanding; as such, they deserve to be criticized harshly.
Talking points are specialization in action. Specialization is what allows for productivity and rising standards of living. Talking points are what allow ordinary citizens to participate in democracy. Grown ups might not have been as good as Paul Blart, but I hardly think one bad movie makes someone an idiot.
You should have kept going: Productivity and rising standards of living allow us to provide a better life for our children. Thus, if you’re against insubstantial sound bites that have only a passing familiarity with the truth, you’re against children.
It seems to me that what the OP is getting at is not just “talking points” as a general concept, but specifically stupid talking points. Our politics today is fueled on demagoguery and propaganda that to a large extent relies on using talking points that amount to nothing more than the “big lie” writ small. Say something pithy and memorable often enough and it doesn’t matter whether its trivial, misleading, or outright false.
Yow. It hadn’t really occurred to me that “talking points” were so very instrumental in raising the world up out of chaos. Hosannah and blessings! unto you for opening my eyes! Red in tooth and claw no more; nasty, brutish, and short my fanny – all due to the glory of talking points! And so penetratingly demonstrated by a…Paul Blart reference.
Actually…Paul Blart. Hmmm, I see…wrong Kevin James: not this one, you lazy, non-link following, ankle-biter. This one.
From what I understand, the accusation of using talking points is actually of repeating the same thing over and over without explaining it. It’s also of refusing to answer questions, instead choosing to make the question relate back to a talking point, and then using that. What people want is people who actually explain themselves.
One last meaning: if it occurs when not dealing with politicians, it’s actually an accusation that you don’t actually know what you are talking about and are just repeating something you were told to repeat. This also applies to (checks forum) a certain stupid politician I shall not name.
That when someone changes their mind on a position, they are an untrustworthy flip flopper.
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
A few years ago, my wife and I were interested in booking a local dinner cruise. One of the items on the menu was Freedom Fries. We didn’t book.