In Health Care Debate, Fear Trumps Logic (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112315433&ft=1&f=1001)

In 1915 they tied would be health care reform to a plot by German empire to take over the US, who was our biggest opponent at the time.

When Harry Truman tried to push National health insurance in the 1940's, the argument changed to the Red army would be marching through the streets of the US.

In the 1990's they changed it to rationing, which they're re-using now.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/08/28/national/w093733D62.DTL&tsp=1GOP hints Dems would deny Republicans health care

(08-28) 12:45 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

The national Republican Party has mailed a fundraising appeal suggesting Democrats might use an overhaul of the health care system to deny medical treatment to Republicans.

A questionnaire accompanying the appeal says the government could check voting registration records, "prompting fears that GOP voters might be discriminated against for medical treatment in a Democrat-imposed health care rationing system."

It asks, "Does this possibility concern you?"

Katie Wright, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, said the question was "inartfully worded."

But she said people should worry because government officials would have access to personal financial and medical data.

"The RNC doesn't try to scare people," said Wright. "We're just trying to get the facts out on health care. And that's what we do every day."Nope, no scare tactics there. Totally logical!

Can you name me a single major issue pushed by either party that didn't involve a great deal of fear mongering (from one side or the other), ever?

Can you name me a single major issue pushed by either party that didn't involve a great deal of fear mongering (from one side or the other), ever?Well that's the point, the fear mongering has been one-sided lately.

ind you, there's nothing wrong with expressing a legitimate and rational fear, like the fear that the environment will take a turn for the worse if we don't stop global warming, or the fear that overspending will lead to a budget deficit.

But lately the "Republicans" have been turning into a party of fringe lunatics, using fear to appeal to the other fringe lunatics who will buy their irrational statements, or to those who hate blacks and will buy anything with an anti-Obama stamp on it.

Yeah, because democrats never unjustly fearmonger on environmental issues.

:rolleyes:

Yeah, because democrats never unjustly fearmonger on environmental issues.The Democrats have been pretty weak on the environment actually.

And what Democratic party leader has recently said anything remotely as absurd as Palin's "death panels" comment, or the "stop socialism/protect medicare" doublethink campaign, or the "Obama is going to deny Republicans health care!" suggestion?

In Health Care Debate, Fear Trumps Logic (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112315433&ft=1&f=1001)
Aye, if this "debate" has demonstrated anything it's that there are plenty of useful idiots in this country and they are easy to control. Just make stuff up and watch them go. It's appalling that it's that easy.

I don't know the demographics of these people but I suspect their lack of skepticism and their propensity for believing in the absurd is a byproduct of their participation in a fundamentalist religion.

Yeah, because democrats never unjustly fearmonger on environmental issues.

:rolleyes:
Can you provide examples where they made stuff up that was demonstrably false? You know, along the lines of, "the Dems want to outlaw private insurance, deny medical treatment to Republicans (http://washingtonindependent.com/56844/obtained-the-rncs-health-care-survey), and euthanize your grandmother."

Perhaps you should have read my first post too, Klath.

Can you name me a single major issue pushed by either party that didn't involve a great deal of fear mongering (from one side or the other), ever?
Well that's the point, the fear mongering has been one-sided lately.

ind you, there's nothing wrong with expressing a legitimate and rational fear, like the fear that the environment will take a turn for the worse
Yeah, because democrats never unjustly fearmonger on environmental issues.
I was merely pointing out that Tuda is wrong in his thinking that the fear expressed by politicians on environmental issues is always 'rational and legitimate.'

I believe that politicians, and especially activists, make problems sound worse than they actually are to encourage people to support their cause. This isn't unique to any party/movement. I don't take the stance that either party has a monopoly on fear mongering, so I'm not going to defend a stance that I don't take. If you want a partisan fight, find a partisan.

I believe that politicians, and especially activists, make problems sound worse than they actually are to encourage people to support their cause. This isn't unique to any party/movement.
y argument isn't that using fear to motivate people is particular to one party or even that using it is necessarily a bad thing. My argument is that telling bald-faced lies in order to make people afraid of something is a bad thing. That's something we're seeing a lot of from the Republicans these days.

That's something we're seeing a lot of from the Republicans these days.

No. It's something we're seeing from both parties these days and for decades.

No. It's something we're seeing from both parties these days and for decades.
/sigh

Can you provide examples where Dems made stuff up that was demonstrably false? You know, along the lines of, "the Dems want to outlaw private insurance, deny medical treatment to Republicans (http://washingtonindependent.com/56844/obtained-the-rncs-health-care-survey), and euthanize your grandmother."

/sigh

Can you provide examples where Dems made stuff up that was demonstrably false? You know, along the lines of, "the Dems want to outlaw private insurance, deny medical treatment to Republicans (http://washingtonindependent.com/56844/obtained-the-rncs-health-care-survey), and euthanize your grandmother."

/sigh

Can you name me a single major issue pushed by either party that didn't involve a great deal of fear mongering (from one side or the other), ever?

Apparently I have a Democratic Party fundamentalist on my hands, go figure.

Do you pray facing towards the DNC HQ every evening?

/sigh

Can you name me a single major issue pushed by either party that didn't involve a great deal of fear mongering (from one side or the other), ever?
Can you really not see the difference between these?

1) Motivating people using fear of something that's real (or at least possible).

2) Motivating people using fear by lying to them.

Apparently I have a Democratic Party fundamentalist on my hands, go figure.
And all I got was an idiot.

Can you really not see the difference between these?

1) Motivating people using fear of something that's real (or at least possible).

2) Motivating people using fear by lying to them.

And all I got was an idiot.

ore assigning positions to me I never took and even name calling. Nice.

More assigning positions to me I never took and even name calling. Nice.

e: Republicans lying to people in order to make people afraid of something is a bad thing.

You: It's something we're seeing from both parties these days and for decades.

e: Give me an example of the Dems doing it.

You: <crickets>

Look, I'm not a huge fan of the Dems and I don't think they've been terribly effective. However, as long as the only realistic alternative is the Republicans, the Dems will get my support. The Republicans just suck that bad -- they're terrorists who haven't resorted to violence. Yet.

The non-revisionist version of what happened:

e: Republicans lying to people in order to make people afraid of something is a bad thing.

You: It's something we're seeing from both parties these days and for decades.

e: Give me an example of the Dems doing it, along the lines of, "the Dems want to outlaw private insurance, deny medical treatment to Republicans (http://washingtonindependent.com/56844/obtained-the-rncs-health-care-survey), and euthanize your grandmother."

You: If you want a partisan fight, find a partisan.

If you want a partisan fight, find a partisan.
I'm not asking you for a partisan fight, I'm asking you to support your own assertion.

I'm not asking you for a partisan fight, I'm asking you to support your own assertion.
I'll support my assertion. It's quite easy to do given that you agree with me.

Can you really not see the difference between these?

1) Motivating people using fear of something that's real (or at least possible).

2) Motivating people using fear by lying to them.
You want to argue about what side's fear mongering is more detached from reality. That has absolutely nothing to do with the fact (and my claim) that both sides use fear to advance their political agenda.

We agree on what I was talking about. I just have no interest in entering the partisan fight that you want to have of subjectively arguing over what sides' claims are more outrageous than the others, especially when I have no horse in the race, nor do I even have a freaking stance on that issue....because (if you haven't notice) I don't care.

I believe that politicians, and especially activists, make problems sound worse than they actually are to encourage people to support their cause.Can you give an example of Democratic irrational fear-mongering or not?

Plenty of "Republican" examples have been quoted.

Can you give an example of Democratic irrational fear-mongering or not?

Plenty of "Republican" examples have been quoted.
O, so now it has to be "irrational" fear mongering?

I'm not going to bother posting examples since you guys are dead set on redefining the premises of the debate to something I wasn't even talking about.

O, so now it has to be "irrational" fear mongering?
That's what I've been talking about all along. Look, our exchange in posts #10 and #11:

e: My argument isn't that using fear to motivate people is particular to one party or even that using it is necessarily a bad thing. My argument is that telling bald-faced lies in order to make people afraid of something is a bad thing. That's something we're seeing a lot of from the Republicans these days.

You: No. It's something we're seeing from both parties these days and for decades.

How can one not interpret that as you saying that Dems are using irrational fear-mongering (aka telling bald-faced lies in order to make people afraid ). Can you at least see why we might be confused by what you've said?

How can one not interpret that as you saying that Dems are using irrational fear-mongering (aka telling bald-faced lies in order to make people afraid ). Can you at least see why we might be confused by what you've said?
Fear mongering is the use of fear to influence the opinions and actions of others towards some specific end. It's possible to fear monger with a rational motivation, and it's possible to fear monger with merely 'stretching' the truth and not telling a bald-faced lie.

Reread what you said:

Motivating people using fear of something that's real (or at least possible)
It's possible that a large comet or asteroid could destroy a major US city in the next decade. It's not a bald faced lie, and it's rational to keep the threat of near earth objects in mind. But if I go around telling people they must install a $10 trillion dollar Comet and Asteroid Defense System (CADS) or else the cities will be at risk, that'd still be using fear to influence public opinion to achieve a specific end.

I'm not going to bother posting examples since you guys are dead set on redefining the premises of the debate to something I wasn't even talking about.In other words, you can't.

Which proves MY point, that the ever-present fear mongering you talk about is only coming from one party these days.

In other words, you can't.

Which proves MY point, that the ever-present fear mongering you talk about is only coming from one party these days.

Nope. The difference is that you guys justify fear mongering from one side while always opposing fear mongering from the other.

If I post an example you guys will want to debate on whether or not if it was "rational" or had some basis in reality (ie not a bald-faced lie as Klath say), which is something I don't care about because I give two craps about what party is more noble than the other.

If I post an example you guys will want to debate on whether or not if it was "rational" or had some basis in reality (ie not a bald-faced lie as Klath say)You seem to tacitly agree that the "Republican" fear mongering has, for the most part, no basis in reality.

And that you can't cite one similar example of recent fear mongering from the Democrats.

So why are you still arguing? That's the point.

Amazing... the paranoia is amazing in the RNC:
RNC Uses New Scare Tactic on Reform (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/29/AR2009082902304.html)
The Republican National Committee suggested in a recent fundraising appeal that Democrats might use an overhaul of the health-care system to deny medical treatment to Republicans.

A questionnaire accompanying the mailing says the government could check voting registration records, "prompting fears that GOP voters might be discriminated against for medical treatment in a Democrat-imposed health-care rationing system." It asks, "Does this possibility concern you?"

The Republicans just suck that bad -- they're terrorists who haven't resorted to violence. Yet.
Seriously? They resort to violence on a regular basis. Assassinating presidents, bombing abortion clinics and federal buildings in OK, shooting doctors, beating up and killing gays.

Seriously? They resort to violence on a regular basis. Assassinating presidents, bombing abortion clinics and federal buildings in OK, shooting doctors, beating up and killing gays.

Lol, what the ****.

In a thread where people are arguing about who's more in touch in reality, you're not doing a good job shilling for your side.

Seriously? They resort to violence on a regular basis. Assassinating presidents, bombing abortion clinics and federal buildings in OK, shooting doctors, beating up and killing gays.
Although I wasn't very clear about it, I was referring to the party leaders, you know, the people who establish the platform, set the agenda, and put out the talking points.

Lol, what the ****.

In a thread where people are arguing about who's more in touch in reality, you're not doing a good job shilling for your side.
What, specifically, do you find laughable about what Pan said? Do you dispute the examples she gave? If so, which and why?

In a debate, rebuttals are more interesting than expressions of shocked disbelief.

Seriously? They resort to violence on a regular basis. Assassinating presidents, bombing abortion clinics and federal buildings in OK, shooting doctors, beating up and killing gays.The things you mentioned are acts of private citizens, so it really doesn't count.

Although there have been instances when party leaders have tacitly incited or supported violence, such as at those McCain/Palin rallies. They don't have the balls to actually come out and say it though.

Both the republicans and democrats, especially the last 30 years or so have been seriously lacking both logic and reason, which are often crucial requirements of philosophy. Many times, they are looking at the same issues, trying to accomplish the same goal, but, in different ways.

What, specifically, do you find laughable about what Pan said? Do you dispute the examples she gave? If so, which and why?

In a debate, rebuttals are more interesting than expressions of shocked disbelief.

It's laughable because pan's regurgitating Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow conspiracy theories or is simply factually wrong.

Seriously? They resort to violence on a regular basis. Assassinating presidents, bombing abortion clinics and federal buildings in OK, shooting doctors, beating up and killing gays.

On presidential assassinations, I have no clue what Pan is talking about. We've had four presidents assassinated in our history. Three of them were republican. And in the case of the democrat who was assassinated, the gunman was a diehard communist who even moved to the Soviet union for a period of time. Not to count that the two people most influential to the worldwide conservative movement in the past 35 years, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, both had assassination attempts against them (Reagan shot, Thatcher's hotel was bombed.) Maybe a young George W. Bush encouraged these attacks?!?

The conspiracy theory that republicans played a role in abortion clinic bombings is just that, a conspiracy theory. No elected republicans played a role in that. End of story. This nation had an anti-abortion movement before Roe v. Wade, and abortion wasn't a partisan issue since after Roe v. Wade.

cVeigh was a registered republican, yes, but was a self-described libertarian. Most libertarians aren't conspiracy theorists, but most general conspiracy theorists are libertarians (see: Alex Jones), and McVeigh was (more or less) a conspiracy theorist above an ideologue. You can't even grasp at straws with this one, given that the stuff that pissed off McVeigh isn't even stuff discussed in mainstream politics (nor libertarian politics for that matter.)

Shooting doctors? You got me on that one, given that I don't know what in the world you're talking about (given that you've already covered abortion clinics I assume you mean something other than doctors who carry out abortions.) Are there a group of extremist faith healing republicans who believe modern medicine must be stopped at all costs, or something?

Beating up and killing gays? Ok, unless you were home-schooled, you really need think about how absurd that is. In any high school across America, you'll find plenty of homophobia. To suggest that homophobia is something that comes from politicians is really grasping at straws. I live in an extremely democratic area (Baltimore, Maryland), and I can tell you homophobia doesn't reside in one party. African Americans in my area vote for democrats in extremely large margins, and I remember growing up how predominantly African American churches used to hand out cartoons to kids explaining how gay people burn in hell. I also find it funny you mention that given that you support a president who explicitly is against equally of gays and straights.

Those are the folks that make the very backbone of the Republican party, and go to church every Sunday. We already had someone near where I live arrested for making death threats against Obama.

Shooting abortion doctors. Just had another one very recently. He was assassinated at his church.

This stuff is being advocated by the very "good" Christians that make up the rank and file right wing.

The conspiracy theory that republicans played a role in abortion clinic bombings is just that, a conspiracy theory.
Did the party endorse the bombings? No, but I bet the vast majority (if not all) of the violence against abortion doctors/clinics is perpetrated by registered Republicans.

cVeigh was a registered republican, yes, but was a self-described libertarian. Most libertarians aren't conspiracy theorists, but most general conspiracy theorists are libertarians (see: Alex Jones), and McVeigh was (more or less) a conspiracy theorist above an ideologue. You can't even grasp at straws with this one, given that the stuff that pissed off McVeigh isn't even stuff discussed in mainstream politics (nor libertarian politics for that matter.)
Huh? Are we talking about the same McVeigh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh)? Go read some of his quotes in the Wikipedia entry and tell me that's not the same thing you're hearing from Republicans these days. He could say these things at a tea party gathering and not stand out from the crowd in the slightest.

Did the party endorse the bombings? No, but I bet the vast majority (if not all) of the violence against abortion doctors/clinics is perpetrated by registered Republicans.
The most dangerous cities in this country are all strongly democratic. Does that mean anything? No, because correlation =/= causality.

Crazy abortion people who vote within the 2 party system support republicans, but elected republicans don't support violent abortion groups. Kind of like how Marxists who vote within the 2 party system support democrats, but democrats don't endorse Marxism.

Huh? Are we talking about the same McVeigh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh)? Go read some of his quotes in the Wikipedia entry and tell me that's not the same thing you're hearing from Republicans these days. He could say these things at a tea party gathering and not stand out from the crowd in the slightest.
Now you're grasping at straws. I don't agree with you, but that aside, random people at tea parties are not representative of politicians.

any registered democrats think that Bush intentionally blew up levees around the poor neighborhoods in New Orleans so they took the bulk of the flooding in an attempt to save the rich white neighborhoods. There are left-leaning groups that would cheer at the mention of this. Does that mean that this conspiracy theory has any support among democrats in government? No.

----------

Let me explain how you guys have gone wrong.

Here is a video from 2006 of George Soros comparing Bush to Nazis.

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

If I came to conclusions in the same fashion as MSNBC, I would say that George Soros came to his view that Bush=Nazi from democratic politicians and left wing media filling his head with misinformation, and he's comparing Bush to Nazis to incite the rabid left wing base to commit violence against Bush and other republicans, because if Bush is pushing Nazi policies, then it's only the right thing to kill him. Since the start of this cycle was elected democrats, they therefore have blood on their hands if something were to happen.

Sounds crazy when talking in such a way about democrats right? That's because it is crazy. Grasping at straws to come to crazy conclusions isn't great at explaining reality on the left or right. The sooner you learn that, the better.

I don't know the demographics of these people but I suspect their lack of skepticism and their propensity for believing in the absurd is a byproduct of their participation in a fundamentalist religion.

Intensifying cries warn of Obama the dictator (http://www.insidebayarea.com/dailyreview/localnews/ci_13240775?source=rss)

By Steven Harmon
Contra Costa Times
Posted: 08/31/2009 03:36:34 PM PDT

SACRAMENTO — Conservative activists found their voice in the searing month of August, equal parts outraged and overheated.

And just as it was at last week's Tea Party rally in Sacramento, their primary target was President Barack Obama, whom they accused of trying to kill capitalism, democracy and old folks.

"Ready to Secede Again," proclaimed one homemade sign at the Capitol. About 7,500 protesters congregated in sweltering heat to vent a litany of grievances. Another sign read, "Obama Lies, Grandma Dies." One had an image of the American flag slowly being transformed into an Obama sunset logo; "Going, Going, Gone," it read. "ObamaCare is to Die for," went another.

So why did Rhonda Hughes, a 53-year-old small-business owner from Truckee, put "Obama is lying, freedom is dying," on her homemade sign? "It's because we're coming to the end of times. The Lord's coming back, and to have that, we need a one-world government, and Obama is the man chosen to lead that."

[More... (http://www.insidebayarea.com/dailyreview/localnews/ci_13240775?source=rss)]

I never realized there were so many lunatics in nearby Sacramento.

Honestly, I feel sorry for the few real Republicans left. They must be terribly ashamed of the nutjobs that have taken over the party.

I think the portion of the Republican party that are religious, racist crazies, are certainly tainting everyone else in the party. If the leaders of the RNC had half a brain they'd do what they can to disenfranchise that segment, rather than court them like they have been.
"It's one thing to have a reactionary base support you, but it's another thing when it becomes the real mobilizing structure of the party," Cook said. "Republicans have to be asking 'do we want (former GOP congressional leader) Dick Armey and talk-show hosts dictating the direction of the party?' It could easily blow up in their faces, given the demographic changes in the country."

I take some solace in the fact that most of the crazies appear to be seniors. With a little luck they'll be dead in a few years and a more civil debate can take place.

Now you're grasping at straws. I don't agree with you, but that aside, random people at tea parties are not representative of politicians.
Perhaps, but they appear to be representative of Republicans.

any registered democrats think that Bush intentionally blew up levees around the poor neighborhoods in New Orleans so they took the bulk of the flooding in an attempt to save the rich white neighborhoods. There are left-leaning groups that would cheer at the mention of this. Does that mean that this conspiracy theory has any support among democrats in government? No.
I never saw any of those rumors get any serious traction on the left. Certainly nothing to compare with the crap being spewed and consumed by the right these days.

The Truthers were the ones pushing the Bush conspiracies and they seemed to get some traction with conspiracy nuts. I have no idea what their political affiliation is but pretty much everyone thinks they're crazy.

ost of the other "conspiracies" on the left later turned out to be true (manipulation of security alerts for political reasons, manipulation of intelligence data for political reasons, manipulation of the press for political reasons, etc.). The lefties, at least, appear to have fully operational BS detectors. The same cannot be said for the right.

If the leaders of the RNC had half a brain they'd do what they can to disenfranchise that segment, rather than court them like they have been.They've deliberately chosen to go the other direction, appealing to the extremists and kicking out the moderates who have advocated inclusiveness, such as Colin Powell.

Unfortunately for them, they will fail. The Christian bigot nutjobs make up, at most, 25% of our population, located largely in semi-worthless welfare states in the South. Even if all of them rally together, the rest of us will trounce them. See the last election for an example.

I take some solace in the fact that most of the crazies appear to be seniors. With a little luck they'll be dead in a few years and a more civil debate can take place.I'm 50 years old and I thought the crazies would be dead years ago but they replenish. I guess there's always going to be a lot of ignorant people easily manipulated by others.

Actually, I think all these home schooled kids are going to be a lovely new crop of craziness.

Actually, I think all these home schooled kids are going to be a lovely new crop of craziness.

Damn if not everyone is indoctrinated into the false merits big government by our socialized (and failing) public school system.

I guess there's always going to be a lot of ignorant people easily manipulated by others.

When left wingers tell poor people the rich are out to get them and they form into groups and do sit ins forcing businesses to give them something, that's called social justice.

When right wingers tell poor people the immigrants are undercutting the wages of low skilled jobs and their sol if they don't train for high skilled jobs, that's called bigotry.

When right wingers tell poor people the immigrants are undercutting the wages of low skilled jobs and their sol if they don't train for high skilled jobs, that's called bigotry.I forgot all about the "immigrants are ruining America" scare tactic -- thank you for adding to the examples of irrational fear mongering from the conservatives. With a touch of bigotry thrown in, for good measure.

Our public school systems, collegiate as well, would be better served dropping the GPA requirements, marks or what have you and head towards a simple pass or fail system. Other reforms in the structure would in also drop the archaic history requirements continually going over the same stuff over and over, like newtonian physics in high school. They could have gone over that in 3rd grade. Just watching Jay Leno's jaywalking, whatever are you smarter than a fifth grader, can show you just how embarrassing our educational system is.

Problem is, either way between both right wing as well as left wing, other policies and philosophies, both look to exploit and take advantage gullibilities, fear, whatever, to make some measure of profit out of it. Whether straight cash, power and control, or what have you, it has been going on since societies starting popping up.

I never realized there were so many lunatics in nearby Sacramento.
It's probably all the meth users coming up from Stockton, Lodi, and Tracy. :)

Actually, I think all these home schooled kids are going to be a lovely new crop of craziness.
Yeah, I'm sure you're right about that. I have friends who have done a good job of it but I think that, unless you're careful, it winds up being like the intellectual equivalent of incest.

I forgot all about the "immigrants are ruining America" scare tactic -- thank you for adding to the examples of irrational fear mongering from the conservatives. With a touch of bigotry thrown in, for good measure.
The left wing is just as much of bigots when it comes to foreign workers.

Right wingers don't want Mexicans crossing the boarders to take their jobs, left wingers don't want their factory shipped to Mexico.

Left wingers just try to cover up their bigotry by saying that outsourcing is bad for people in countries that receive the new factories, but in reality, they don't want "dark skins" undercutting their wages anymore than right wingers.

The left wing is just as much of bigots when it comes to foreign workers.

Right wingers don't want Mexicans crossing the boarders to take their jobs,Actually, illegal immigrants from Mexico take all the hard, dirty jobs the lazy fat ass Americans would never agree to do. They've never taken any of my jobs, or the jobs of any American I know.

That's a huge favor to us, because, much to the chagrin of those obese right wing Southerners riding their scooters in the local Wal-Mart to spend their last welfare check, slavery is now illegal.

Yet if you listen to the conservative right, illegal immigrants are somehow destroying America with their dark skins and funny accents, even though we are a nation made great by immigrants, not native inhabitants.

It's a scare tactic, plain and simple, specifically tailored to appeal to impulses of fear and hate while having no basis in reality.

That's a huge favor to us, because, much to the chagrin of those obese right wing Southerners riding their scooters in the local Wal-Mart to spend their last welfare check, slavery is now illegal.
You're doing a great job at proving my point.

When left wingers tell poor people the rich are out to get them and they form into groups and do sit ins forcing businesses to give them something, that's called social justice.

When right wingers tell poor people the immigrants are undercutting the wages of low skilled jobs and their sol if they don't train for high skilled jobs, that's called bigotry.
Left wingers are just as much bigots as right wingers. They're just able to market their bigotry as 'politically correct,' because supposedly it's ok to attack certain groups but not others.

Left wingers are just as much bigots as right wingers. They're just able to market their bigotry as 'politically correct,' because supposedly it's ok to attack certain groups but not others.Eh?

What does this have to do with scare tactics, the topic of this thread?

The bigotry is a side issue, and since you've conceded the argument now twice, there's not much left to debate there.

Eh?

What does this have to do with scare tactics, the topic of this thread?

The bigotry is a side issue, and since you've conceded the argument now twice, there's not much left to debate there.

It was a digression, getting back to my original point that your beloved democrats aren't holier than thou. I already said I wasn't interested in giving examples of democratic fear mongering.

However, I can give you an example of it working: this thread. A few posts ago you were debating about when republicans were going to turn into terrorists and go around killing presidents, doctors, gays, and blowing up federal buildings. Democratic scare tactics must be pretty effective to have you guys believe that republicans are about to go to war with the country.

Democratic scare tactics must be pretty effective to have you guys believe that republicans are about to go to war with the country.
As I mentioned earlier, the left have a much better track record as far as gauging which things are deserving of fear and which are not. During the Bush years their fears of there being political manipulation of security alerts, intelligence data, and the press have all turned out to be warranted.

As much as I hate to do this, linking something from another thread I posted.

Quote"Democratic scare tactics must be pretty effective to have you guys believe that republicans are about to go to war with the country."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/32635648#32635648

Sadly, instead of just random nutbags, some of those are looking at running for governor of Texas.

As I mentioned earlier, the left have a much better track record as far as gauging which things are deserving of fear and which are not. During the Bush years their fears of there being political manipulation of security alerts, intelligence data, and the press have all turned out to be warranted.

So you think republican terrorists are going to break out in war. Ok.

As much as I hate to do this, linking something from another thread I posted.

Quote"Democratic scare tactics must be pretty effective to have you guys believe that republicans are about to go to war with the country."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/32635648#32635648

Sadly, instead of just random nutbags, some of those are looking at running for governor of Texas.

When a democrat in a Che-shirt talks about bringing about the revolution, he's a harmless idealist.

When a republican in a cowboy hat talks about bringing about the revolution, he's a terrorist.

So you think republican terrorists are going to break out in war. Ok.
I expect there is a very good chance (read: inevitable) that there will be more right wing violence along the lines of what we've already seen (shootings). Although it's less likely, we could see another major attack along the lines of the OK City bombing.

How about you? Do you think we're going to see more violence from the right?

When a democrat in a Che-shirt talks about bringing about the revolution, he's a harmless idealist.
A democrat in a Che-shirt is probably so stoned that the only think he's likely to attack is the ice cream section of the local 7-11. When was the last time you heard of a dem committing political violence?

When a republican in a cowboy hat talks about bringing about the revolution, he's a terrorist.
No, he's probably just an idiot but he's far more likely to be a violent one than the stoner and the news over the last six months certainly bears this out.

A democrat in a Che-shirt is probably so stoned that the only think he's likely to attack is the ice cream section of the local 7-11. When was the last time you heard of a dem committing political violence?

I am thinking that the una bomber qualifies?
And I am not sure how severe the problem is in the USA, but both in he UK and the Netherlands the fringe animal protection crowd has been getting both violent and scarily extreme (in the sense of believing it is ok to kill humans because they all have been responsible for the death of animals at some point in their lives).


No, he's probably just an idiot but he's far more likely to be a violent one than the stoner and the news over the last six months certainly bears this out.

Let's face it. The one to get scared about is the one likely to follow up with his or her threats. That is a matter of personality not political affilation.
At this point in time the unhinged on the (far)right side of the spectrum are more likely to follow through with their threats because of their frustration with what they see of a threat to their beliefs. Four years ago, after Bush got reelected it was more likely that the extreme left wing would resort to violence. Had McCain and Palin won the election the frustration and fear in that camp would have run just as high.

Regarding the fear mongering we have to be honest too. ALL politicians use it when it suits them to stir up unrest and support. Right now certain republicans are pretty much off the 'wacky' scale with their rhetoric. Give the democrats a few decades of uninterupted power and they will eventually get overboard just as badly when the tide of public opinion turns against them.
That does not mean that the tactics of the republicans are not dangerous. By firing up the 'they are coming to kill you' paranoia they do raise the potential for violence. They are essentially setting a tone where violence against the 'opposition' (be that democrat, Obama, gays, atheist or whatever) is justified. The political aim is to create so much unrest internally that the president start looking weak and ineffective (or at least distract him from getting done anything productive). If this is done intentionally, it shows that an extreme callousness of the policy makers and ideologues in the republican party with respect to the lives of both the random victims and the loyal (if overly not bright) followers. If it is not done intentionally it does not show a great deal of intellect in how quickly things can get completely out of control when violence does erupt (and an unwarranted overconfidence in their own ability to calm down things after they get returned to power). Personally I prefer to err on the side of stupidity rather than assume malice, and the degree of arrogance and overconfidence does fit better with the way the Republicans have ran the show during Bush's reign.
There is (if you ask me) no sinister conspiracy, just a lot of frustration by people who got ousted but who believe only they know what is good for the world. And of course there is a huge reservoir of resentment of people who have little, lost a lot in the economic crisis (and the decades of darwinistic economics preceding it) and have no clear target to vent their frustration and fear on. Republicans and right wingers are stirring up those waters everywhere, and it is inevitable that people will die (have already died in fact). Let's hope that the willingness to resort to violence is less than what is feared (and also less than what those doing the stirring for their own political gain are hoping) or a lot of people may end up dead.
The best thing Obama can do is to get across to his own party that the republican tactic is to disrupt and stall till something else comes along that requires attention so the entire party looks weak and ineffectual, and that it is in their own best interest to push some sort of health reform through before the tactic can work. (it will make the fear mongering look weak in the eyes of the moderates. The extremists at either side are a lost cause as far as converting them to a different opinion goes so there is no point in trying to get through to them).
But that is my remote understanding of American politics speaking.


Eri

I am thinking that the una bomber qualifies?
Lets say, for the sake of argument, that he does. How many Democrats (or lefties) do you see who are espousing anything even remotely similar to his philosophy? Now, compare the rhetoric coming from the Republicans these days with what McVeigh has said.

And I am not sure how severe the problem is in the USA, but both in he UK and the Netherlands the fringe animal protection crowd has been getting both violent and scarily extreme (in the sense of believing it is ok to kill humans because they all have been responsible for the death of animals at some point in their lives).
If that's happening in the US (to a comparable degree), I haven't heard of it.

Let's face it. The one to get scared about is the one likely to follow up with his or her threats.
Exactly!

That is a matter of personality not political affilation.
You don't think that certain personalities gravitate to certain political philosophies?


Four years ago, after Bush got reelected it was more likely that the extreme left wing would resort to violence.
Plenty of people were frustrated and disappointed to be sure but I never heard of anyone plotting violence and I'm unaware of anyone who perpetrated any. Perhaps I'm forgetting something obvious?

Regarding the fear mongering we have to be honest too. ALL politicians use it when it suits them to stir up unrest and support.
Absolutely. There's a difference, however, between making stuff up to scare people (Obama is secret Muslim Kenyan socialist who hates white people) and scaring people to motivate them against something that has a reasonable chance of being a problem (global warming, destruction of the environment, etc...).

Right now certain republicans are pretty much off the 'wacky' scale with their rhetoric. Give the democrats a few decades of uninterupted power and they will eventually get overboard just as badly when the tide of public opinion turns against them.
They would have to escalate significantly from anything we saw during the Bush years. Even in the worst of the Bush years (with a spectacularly bad President) you didn't see left-wing nuts threatening to take up arms against the country. The thought of Code Pink led by Cindy Sheehan in an armed rebellion is a funny thought though.


That does not mean that the tactics of the republicans are not dangerous. By firing up the 'they are coming to kill you' paranoia they do raise the potential for violence. They are essentially setting a tone where violence against the 'opposition' (be that democrat, Obama, gays, atheist or whatever) is justified. The political aim is to create so much unrest internally that the president start looking weak and ineffective (or at least distract him from getting done anything productive). If this is done intentionally, it shows that an extreme callousness of the policy makers and ideologues in the republican party with respect to the lives of both the random victims and the loyal (if overly not bright) followers. If it is not done intentionally it does not show a great deal of intellect in how quickly things can get completely out of control when violence does erupt (and an unwarranted overconfidence in their own ability to calm down things after they get returned to power).
I don't think it's one or the other. I think some people do it intentionally and others out of stupidity. In the end, however, the result will be the same.

There is (if you ask me) no sinister conspiracy, just a lot of frustration by people who got ousted but who believe only they know what is good for the world.
They can suck it up like the left did during the Bush years. It may not have been pretty but at least it wasn't violent.

The best thing Obama can do is to get across to his own party that the republican tactic is to disrupt and stall till something else comes along that requires attention so the entire party looks weak and ineffectual, and that it is in their own best interest to push some sort of health reform through before the tactic can work.
I couldn't agree more.

I expect there is a very good chance (read: inevitable) that there will be more right wing violence along the lines of what we've already seen (shootings). Although it's less likely, we could see another major attack along the lines of the OK City bombing.

How about you? Do you think we're going to see more violence from the right?
Lets look at two examples of political violence that happened recently.

Von Brunn shooting up the holocaust museum, and Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad (birth name Carlos Leon Bledsoe) shooting up the army recruiting office.

To a person who objectively looks at the facts, neither of them can be places into the democratic or republican party.

However, the left wing media goes to great lengths to link anyone they don't like to republicans, even though Von Brunn simply doesn't fit. I'm sure the left would've linked Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad to the republicans if they could, but they couldn't even grasp straws with him.

Yet Fox news didn't link Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad to the left, even though they could have. It's kind of sad when MSNBC has less journalistic integrity than Fox news on a give subject...

Abortion doctor killings? I'd consider most of those to be "religiously motivated violence," not politicially motivated violence, but that's just me. Perhaps I'm biased as an atheist.

------

You know those people who are going around with the Obama-as-Hitler posters at townhalls? MSNBC links them to the right, yet they're supporters of Lyndon Larouche, a socialist, who thinks Obama is too right wing on health care.

It's quite simple, MSNBC writes a pre-written naritive of right wing terrorism that they place people in (even if they don't fit) to fuel their paranoid viewer base.

-------

In short, I stand by my previous statement that most people who actually go through committing political violence usually don't fall into the political mainstream, so it's hard to call them 'republicans' or 'democrats.'

uch as less buy into the crazier conspiracy theory that political extremism is brought on because of elected officials.

I know, it's Keith Olbermann, so feel free to ignore the commentary. That said, listen to what some of the nut cases are saying in their own words.

YouTube: Keith Olbermann: Michele Bachmann Promotes Bizarre Act of Suicide (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewd5TLKFglo)

Oops, this one is probably more appropriate:
YouTube: Olbermann: Beck, Bachmann 'Actively' Trying to 'Get the President Killed' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MdIznEMoxc)

If that's happening in the US (to a comparable degree), I haven't heard of it.

Just from using google in 10 seconds...

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/aug/05/local/me-attacks5

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/12/05/BAGTM3GKQK1.DTL

I remember hearing about animal rights bombings in 2006 as well, but don't care about it enough to search for it. I believe someone was killed in 2006. But of course you'll never hear about this stuff on MSNBC.

But ya, I don't see how this stuff can be tied to democrats anymore than abortion doctor killings can be tied to republicans.

But ya, I don't see how this stuff can be tied to democrats anymore than abortion doctor killings can be tied to republicans.
Abortion is a foundational part of the Republican platform. At best, the dems pay lip service to animal rights.

Abortion is a foundational part of the Republican platform. At best, the dems pay lip service to animal rights.

I would consider the current policy of limiting water to the central valley of California in the name of saving an endangered fish doing more than lip service to animal rights.

You don't think that certain personalities gravitate to certain political philosophies? I was just thinking yesterday that the Republican party appeals to people suffering with paranoia. The black helicopter brigade. And paranoia is the most prevalent of mental disorders.

Paranoia is the most political of mental illnesses. You need to have enemies. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=111194869)

It was a digression, getting back to my original point that your beloved democrats aren't holier than thou. I already said I wasn't interested in giving examples of democratic fear mongering.Who said they are? And you're not giving examples because there aren't any.A few posts ago you were debating about when republicans were going to turn into terrorists and go around killing presidents, doctors, gays, and blowing up federal buildings.Just off the top of my head, I've recently seen: armed right-wing protesters showing up at Obama's public appearances, talking about "watering the tree of liberty"
a Fox News commentator talking about killing Obama, and Fox News airing it and not saying one bad word about it
a swastika painted on a black Congressman's office as a health care protest
multiple references to killing/lynching Obama during pre-election McCain rallies
a marked increase in hate groups, hate crimes, religiously motivated violence (e.g., the recent murder of George Tiller), and I'm talking white Christian perpetrators here
It's obvious there are plenty of angry bigots out there just waiting to lash out, and it's not an unreasonable scare tactic to suggest that at least a few of them are going to carry out their threats/suggestions/innuendos.

I have seen nothing like that from the Democrats. Have you?

I would consider the current policy of limiting water to the central valley of California in the name of saving an endangered fish doing more than lip service to animal rights.That policy was designed to save an entire ecosystem, not just a species of fish.

It's an environmental issue and has nothing to do with animal rights. Democrats are useless in that area.

I remember hearing about animal rights bombings in 2006 as well, but don't care about it enough to search for it. I believe someone was killed in 2006. But of course you'll never hear about this stuff on MSNBC.

But ya, I don't see how this stuff can be tied to democrats anymore than abortion doctor killings can be tied to republicans.The difference is that Democrats don't encourage animal rights terrorists (directly, or indirectly by promoting their cause), whereas "Republicans" and other right-wing extremist do encourage their flock to commit acts of violence in name of "god" and so on.

I have seen nothing like that from the Democrats. Have you?

If I use the same false qualifying as you, then yes.

The people who made the Obama as Hitler posters are socialist Larouchies, who thinks Obama is too right wing on health care.

And the Feds got the authority to do the central valley water restrictions under the endangered species act.

The people who made the Obama as Hitler posters are socialist Larouchies, who thinks Obama is too right wing on health care.You said that right-wing terrorism is a myth and that the Democrats that warn of it are merely fear mongering.

I and the others have given you many recent examples of right wing violent actions which may portend a future serious violent incident.

I guess you have nothing to say to that.

The Obama/Hitler thing isn't violent, just stupid (and downright weird and contradictory on so many levels).And the Feds got the authority to do the central valley water restrictions under the endangered species act.The fact is, it's an environmental issue, not an animal rights issue. I know, as I live here, we're in a water crisis, and that whole issue is controversial.

If there's one thing Democrats and "Republicans" have in common, it's that they both don't care about animal rights.

However, the "Republicans" are vehemently opposed to people performing abortions, and it's easily one of their party's top talking points.

So while animal rights terrorists can't be tied to extreme left wing groups, abortion terrorists can be, because the right wing groups encourage them.

The administration has said that Iraq has no right to stockpile chemical or biological weapons (“weapons of mass destruction”) – mainly because they have used them in the past. Well, if that’s the standard by which these matters are decided, then the U.S. is the nation that set the precedent. The U.S. has stockpiled these same weapons (and more) for over 40 years. The U.S. claims that this was done for deterrent purposes during the “Cold War” with the Soviet Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union). Why, then is it invalid for Iraq to claim the same reason (deterrence) — with respect to Iraq’s (real) war with, and the continued threat of, its neighbor Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran)?

If Saddam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein) is such a demon, and people are calling for war crimes charges and trials against him and his nation, why do we not hear the same cry for blood directed at those responsible for even greater amounts of “mass destruction” — like those responsible and involved in dropping bombs on the cities mentioned above.

The truth is, the U.S. has set the standard when it comes to the stockpiling and use of weapons of mass destruction.

Timothy McVeigh is man who came back from George HW Bush's war with extreme disagreement with America's foreign policy, and after the US government (under Bush and 1 month into Clinton's presidency) raided Ruby Ridge and Waco, he feels that the US government is tyrannical and he goes and blows up the OK city building.

But since McVeigh also hates taxes -like republicans!- he's a republican terrorist!

See how dumb the logic of you people is?

y stance this entire time is that extremists can't be pigeon-holed into mainstream political movements.

I didn't point out animal rights bombings and Abdulhakim Muhammed as examples as left wing terrorism. Quite to contrary. I pointed them out to show that not all political violence can be pigeon-holed to one party or the other.

Just because Olbermann or Maddow say it doesn't mean it's true. They're the left wing verison of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. The sooner you learn that the better.

Just because Olbermann or Maddow say it doesn't mean it's true. They're the left wing verison of Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh. The sooner you learn that the better.
As far as I know, nobody has suggested that Olbermann or Maddow have raped and killed anyone. On the other hand, the rumors that Glenn Beck raped and killed a girl in 1990 are rampant.

"Where there's smoke there's fire." -Glenn Beck

My stance this entire time is that extremists can't be pigeon-holed into mainstream political movements.But they can be tied to them, when those political movements encourage the activity.

If you engage in criminal activity, and I encourage you to do it beforehand, I'm guilty as an accomplice, and usually just as liable for the crime as you are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59qMNRHupNI&feature=ytn%3Amptnews

The funny thing is, that ad is totally correct, just not for the reasons they state.

What Republican hasn't been speaking out against "socialized medicine" recently? Medicare is the epitome of socialized medicine. The Republicans would love to end it, but they are so desperate for votes from the nutjob seniors that they have to pretend to like it AND they have to lie about the Democrats wanting to end it to scare off those seniors from realizing who their true ally is.

The fact that the average American is just too stupid/ignorant to realize this is, well, besides the point.

Republicans: A History of Attacking Medicare

“[I]f you don’t [stop Medicare] and I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.” –Ronald Reagan, 1961

George H.W. Bush: Described Medicare in 1964 as “socialized medicine.” [1964]

“I was there, fighting the fight, voting against Medicare . . . because we knew it wouldn't work in 1965.” – Bob Dole during his 1996 presidential campaign

Former Republican Majority Proposed cutting Medicare. “In 1995, under the leadership of then House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA), Republicans proposed cutting 14% from projected Medicare spending over seven years and forcing millions of elderly recipients into managed health care programs or HMOs. The cuts were to ensure that Medicare is “going to wither on the vine,” Gingrich explained. Similarly, during the 2008 Presidential campaign, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) proposed cutting $1.3 trillion from Medicare and Medicaid.” [Think Progress, 7/29/09]

Former Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich Wants Medicare to “Wither on the Vine.” “In a rare moment of candor last October, Newt Gingrich outlined his vision for eliminating Medicare funding. ‘We don't want to get rid of it in round one because we don't think it's politically smart,’ he said. ‘But we believe that it's going to wither on the vine because we think [seniors] are going to leave it voluntarily.’” [Mother Jones, 1996]

Former Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey called Medicare “tyranny.” In an exchange on Meet the Press, Armey compared Medicare to tyranny:
S. MADDOW: This is a really important point. The anti-healthcare reform lobby thinks that Medicare is tyranny, OK?
REP. ARMEY: I did—I said…
S. MADDOW: This is an—I mean, you said in 1995 that “Medicare is a program I would have no part of in a free world.”
REP. ARMEY: Right. Absolutely right.
S. MADDOW: You said in 2002, “We’re going to have to bite the bullet on Social Security and phase it out over a period of time.”

Former Republican Majority Leader Tom Delay wants to privatize Medicare. On Hardball with Chris Matthews, Tom Delay said, “"I want Medicare to be privatized. It shouldn't be a government program. It's the government run programs... Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP that are driving up health care costs." [MSNBC, 8/19/09]

Rep. Tom Price Claims “Nothing Has Had a Greater Negative Effect on the Delivery of Health Care” than Medicare. In an op-ed in the Politico, Price wrote, “Going down the path of more government will only compound the problem. While the stated goal remains noble, as a physician, I can attest that nothing has had a greater negative effect on the delivery of health care than the federal government’s intrusion into medicine through Medicare. Because of Washington’s one-size-fits-all approach, its flawed coverage rules and broken financing mechanisms, seniors are increasingly having care rationed while federal health spending spirals out of control.“ [Politico, 7/30/09]

Rep. Roy Blunt Claims Government “Should Have Never Gotten in the Health Care Business.” According to Rep. Roy Blunt, chairman of the GOP Health Solutions Group, “you could certainly argue that government should have never have gotten in the health care business…Government did get into the health care business in a big way in 1965 with Medicare, and later with Medicaid, and government already distorts the marketplace.” [Fired Up Missouri, 7/9/09]

House Republicans introduced Budget that would “end Medicare as it is presently known." “House Republicans are offering an alternative that eventually would end Medicare as it is presently known.” “Republicans in the House had even more defections on their alternative budget, losing 37 of the chamber's more moderate members in a 293-137 tally that rejected cuts to Medicare and the Medicaid health care program for the poor and disabled. What is more, GOP leaders are clearly nervous that votes in favor of the GOP alternative have exposed their members to political danger. The plan, drafted by Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, top Republican on the House Budget Committee, called for eventually replacing the traditional Medicare program with subsidies to help retirees enroll in private health care plans. Current beneficiaries would keep their coverage and those 55 and older also would go into the current system.” [AP, 4/2 and 4/3/09]

Republicans hate medicare. Yup.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_DMedicare Part D was merely a "thank you" gift to the drug companies, for all those kickbacks over the years.

But you are correct, in a number of ways Bush was one of the most socialist presidents in recent history. The Republicans are trying to cover up that embarrassing fact, and luckily for them they're dealing with people who don't understand what it all means anyway.

Medicare Part D was merely a "thank you" gift to the drug companies, for all those kickbacks over the years.

And Obama forcing everyone to buy insurance and giving them subsidizes to do so (which btw, wasn't his plan during the campaign) isn't a "thank you" gift to the insurance companies for not hitting him as hard as they hit Hillary?

And Obama forcing everyone to buy insurance and giving them subsidizes to do so (which btw, wasn't his plan during the campaign) isn't a "thank you" gift to the insurance companies for not hitting him as hard as they hit Hillary?If it involves price controls, limits on refusal/cancellation, and a competing public plan, then it isn't. It would be a nightmare for insurance companies.

That's why the insurance companies are scared to death of Obama and the Democratic Congress, and have been from the day it was certain Obama would take office.

And Obama forcing everyone to buy insurance and giving them subsidizes to do so (which btw, wasn't his plan during the campaign) isn't a "thank you" gift to the insurance companies for not hitting him as hard as they hit Hillary?
Oh, like Mitt Romney the R gov in Massachusetts did!

My stance this entire time is that extremists can't be pigeon-holed into mainstream political movements.

I'd consider the Birther movement to be extremist and there is no shortage of Republicans who side with them.

Rep. Schmidt whispers "I agree with you" to birther (http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0909/Rep_Schmidt_whispers_I_agree_with_you_to_birther.h tml)

You know it's funny how this thread got derailed. But that is the number one tactic of the Republicans and Conservatives, so I'm not surprised that people here have learned it as well.

The main reason that the Democrats and Liberals keep losing on issues is that the other side attacks with lies and distortions and then the Democrats and Liberals spend all of their time defending instead of attacking on the real issue.

Pointing out that Democrats have faults is You Fail Logic Forever (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouFailLogicForever). The issue was that Republicans are lying and appealing to the fears of the people and that the fringe lunatics are not being opposed by the "mainstream", hopefully more intelligent, Republicans.

Instead we get:
*Ad hominem fallacy - The Democrats are claiming this, but they aren't pure, so it must be false.
* Tu Quoque: (literally "you, too!"), another variant of Ad Hominem, refers to the attempt to deny an argument by asserting that the person presenting the argument also suffers from the same flaw or has held an opposing view in the past.
* Proof By Obfuscation: Making your argument as confusing as possible in hopes that people can't find the flaws in your logic, then claiming you're right since nobody refutes you.
* Irrelevant Thesis (Ignoratio Elenchi): The formal name literally means "ignorance of refutation" — this is not refuting the opposing position at all, but acting as though you did.

Exactly what the political views of a bunch of murderers and bombers are is totally irrelevant to this topic. Every political viewpoint will have nuts who decide to act violently.

The REAL question here is that the so called "mainstream" Republicans are either encouraging or saying nothing to the nuts and liars, and/or are lying themselves.


It has nothing to do with this argument, but just to cover this:
1. The Democrats are not doing this.
2. Even if the Democrats were doing this, it is still wrong, because two wrongs don't make it right. See Tu Quoque above.
3. See number one.

"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

The REAL question here is that the so called "mainstream" Republicans are either encouraging or saying nothing to the nuts and liars, and/or are lying themselves.
I agree with this. The party is pandering to the extreme far right because they're loud, vocal and stomp their feet a lot.

I've long wondered how the Log Cabin Republicans ever wanted to stay a part of that party.

I've long wondered how the Log Cabin Republicans ever wanted to stay a part of that party.
They have a higher tolerance for getting screwed in the pooper.

etaphorically, of course.