Olbermann - "Republicans are acting like terrorists"

[whiskeytown]

this is something everyone should watch -

he reminds me of Edward Murrow standing up to McCarthyism -

I read a great comment today - the summary of it was - "Osama Bin Laden is the face of Republicanism" - They can't put up GWB in their campaign ads, so their number one face in their attack ads is Osama. They need Osama AS THE MOUTHPIECE of Republican ads because they no longer have enough credibility to appear or put the CIC in their own ads.

Keith's basic summation - Terrorism doesn't need to result in any deaths to still be terrorism. - and after Al Q, the Republicans are the second greatest instigators of terrorism in the United States."

watch, then discuss.
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/43395/

rb

[BluffTHIS!]

Thanks for posting another inflammatory rhetoric link thread with no/little discussion of your own to back its assertions.

[niss]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for posting another inflammatory rhetoric link thread with no/little discussion of your own to back its assertions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're just being silly.

[Brainwalter]

Wow whiskey you must really hate republicans!

[BluffTHIS!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for posting another inflammatory rhetoric link thread with no/little discussion of your own to back its assertions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're just being silly.

[/ QUOTE ]


How so? Let's look at highlights from whiskey's short paragraph of inflammatory gibberish:

"Republicans are acting like terrorists"

"McCarthyism"

"Osama Bin Laden is the face of Republicanism"

"the Republicans are the second greatest instigators of terrorism in the United States"


All of the above is just an exercise in trollishness, by making an inflammatory statement(s) without any analysis or reasoning to back it up. There is nothing wrong with giving excerpts of stories and links to same. But when such stories are nothing other than propaganda, and the poster doesn't even bother to defend its conclusions, then such posts have no business in this forum. An occasional such post as sarcasm or a joke would be fine, but a perpetual train of such posts isn't.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for posting another inflammatory rhetoric link thread with no/little discussion of your own to back its assertions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're just being silly.

[/ QUOTE ]


How so? Let's look at highlights from whiskey's short paragraph of inflammatory gibberish:

"Republicans are acting like terrorists"

"McCarthyism"

"Osama Bin Laden is the face of Republicanism"

"the Republicans are the second greatest instigators of terrorism in the United States"


All of the above is just an exercise in trollishness, by making an inflammatory statement(s) without any analysis or reasoning to back it up. There is nothing wrong with giving excerpts of stories and links to same. But when such stories are nothing other than propaganda, and the poster doesn't even bother to defend its conclusions, then such posts have no business in this forum. An occasional such post as sarcasm or a joke would be fine, but a perpetual train of such posts isn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

[niss]

Then similarly the post that linked to Rush Limbaugh's prattle against Michael J. Fox should be objectionable to you. Again, it is nothing more than propoganda, and the poster simply linked to it without supporting its conclusions that, for example, Fox is "acting" in the ad, and that he is "allowing" his illness to be "exploited". Shall I post in that thread on your behalf, or will you?

Of course, I don't agree that there is any problem with adios linking to Rush Limbaugh's opinion, and I cannot for the life of me understand the objection to whiskey linking to whatever it is he posted. Unless of course our objections should be based upon whether we agree or disagree with the original post and/or its links, which certainly seems to be part of your motivation.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Then similarly the post that linked to Rush Limbaugh's prattle against Michael J. Fox should be objectionable to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean presenting both sides of a controversy is prattle? I see.

[ QUOTE ]
Again, it is nothing more than propoganda, and the poster simply linked to it without supporting its conclusions that, for example, Fox is "acting" in the ad, and that he is "allowing" his illness to be "exploited". Shall I post in that thread on your behalf, or will you?

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't make the original post. I only replied to it and suggested that the OP change his title to:

Limbaugh: Valid Point or Personal Attack

People can read the link and make their own judgement. If the OP thought the subject to be worthy of discussion why not at least post a link that posts what Limbaugh stated in full?

[BluffTHIS!]

niss,

My objections are not based on whether I agree with a poster's views or not re inflammatory rhetoric. I have in the past also called out conservative posters on this including one who subsequently got banned for same. The point I am making is that if you are going to give a link or exerpt to an statement that basically assumes the truth of that statement, and also fail to argue why it is true, then all a poster is doing is trolling.

Note that whiskey could have titled this thread "Are the repubs acting like terrorists?", gave that link and an excerpt, and then given his reasons to support an affirmative answer to that question, which would be a legitimate way of fostering honest debate, setting aside for the moment the extremist label of "terrorist". Instead he just spouted some rhetorical highly inflammatory catch phrases and offered no reasons that such were true.

This is also similar to the difference between idiot congressman of either party making propagandistic speeches to empty galleries for the benefit of constituents back home, and making similar statements before their full body when they know they will have to actually defend such arguements in a real debate.

The day in day out tactic of the OP and others in this forum is to drop a rhetoric bomb, whether of their own making or cribbed from another source, and then leave and seldom return to their own thread to back up those assertions. Indeed if they return and post again it is usually just to sprinkle in some more rhetoric without reasons for same.

[MS Sunshine]

Making American voters afraid of terrorism is the topic that hurts Republicans the least, dovetails with the White house's power grab, and allows some cover for taking away our civil rights.

I long for the day when the moderate fiscal Republicans regain their party. Maybe more time can be spent disagreeing with them then trying to combat spin and outright lies.

MS Sunshine