About all that violent rhetoric and talk of what terrorists are and are not and what not...

Biden's an idiot.

lock thread.

Clearly, it's blood libel against the tea partiers on Biden's part..

Go team Democrat!!!

Usually when someone has grey colored hair it means they have acquired wisdom. I guess there are exceptions to all things. I'm sure this kind of talk will bite him in the butt down the road.

CACTUSWENDY said:

I'm sure this kind of talk will bite him in the butt down the road.

Click to expand...

Maybe not. He's being saying idiotic things for years, and now he's VP.

I wonder where he stole it ...

Well, his rhetoric is extreme, and I don't entirely agree. I see where he is coming from, though. The default contingent seemed willing to sacrifice the economic security of the nation to achieve political ends. His metaphor conflating the tea party's politicking with violence devalues the destructiveness of the latter, but he did say "like" terrorists.
One might say they held the economy "hostage", and I would understand that and somewhat agree as well.

A pox on both their houses.

indiriverflow said:

Well, his rhetoric is extreme, and I don't entirely agree. I see where he is coming from, though. The default contingent seemed willing to sacrifice the economic security of the nation to achieve political ends. His metaphor conflating the tea party's politicking with violence devalues the destructiveness of the latter, but he did say "like" terrorists.
One might say they held the economy "hostage", and I would understand that and somewhat agree as well.

A pox on both their houses.

Click to expand...

I agree. They are thugs, threatening the security of the nation they were elected to protect, while reasonable politicians are forced to bargain with them.
It's sickening; intolerable.
This country's had it. We're doomed.

The rhetoric is extreme, but metaphorically, it's not far from the truth. They held the economy hostage and demanded a ransom (which they mostly got, but are still too stupid to know that they won).

Not terrorists, just people using terrorist tactics. Extortionists is more appropriate.

William Haskins said:

it just seems to me a careless use of an exceedingly inflammatory term.

Click to expand...

Yes it is, and it's a stupid thing to say, publicly

But the idea of holding the country hostage in order to achieve political goals does have a certain resonance with the political basis behind terrorism.

rugcat said:

Yes it is, and it's a stupid thing to say, publicly

But the idea of holding the country hostage in order to achieve political goals does have a certain resonance with the political basis behind terrorism.

Click to expand...

And also with the continued mismanagement and misused rhetoric of the status quo.This is nothing more than demonizing the alternate point of view by using trigger-point language in order to inflame the American people--to create a campaign platform for an administration woefully short on either victories or targets at the moment. They can just be really thankful that the GOP has yet to settle on a viable presidential candidate.

Now, do I really *like* the tea party? No, I don't. I am equally unfond of equating the alternate point of view with the word "terrorist." And I'm reasonsbly certain that this, too, is another case of campaignism infiltrating what should be the daily business of the country. *shrug* The GOP have their birther idiots, and now the Dems have their terrorist morons. Lovely.

We just need to elect only the Amish and Mennonite people to elected office. At least the budget would be balanced and campaigns would be short or non-existent.

First thing my mind went to was the Arizona crosshairs discussion.

The Vp supporting that kind of hyperbole doesn't get us anywhere useful.

Williebee said:

First thing my mind went to was the Arizona crosshairs discussion.

Click to expand...

[whinyvoice]
But that's different!
[/whinyvoice]
*stomps off*

I flipped through the channels and saw Chris Matthews talking about the Tea Party having taken America hostage and how now they can use the debt or any other topic of their choosing to force the President to do what they want.

Guess Chris doesn't understand the whole concept of equal powers, that Congress is an equal branch of the government. Wonder if he had that same lack of comprehension when Bush (43) was President and he had a Democrat run Congress?

William Haskins said:

yeah, but "holding the country hostage" is, in and of itself, a partisan opinion framed in violent imagery, so it's not like you're making a case for use of the term based on some objective reality.

i find it disappointing, but not surprising, to see manifest in this yet another "it's only wrong when the other side does it"
situation.

Click to expand...

Can you provide an example of the other side doing it?"

Politics often uses tactics where unrelated issues are lumped together. "I'll refuse to vote for extending unemployment benefits, unless you agree to defund planned parenthood." Sleazy, but "normal" and yes, both sides do it.

But this is very different. Allowing the US to default would have been economic disaster. The effect on the word economy is less clear, but it might well have triggered a global recession or worse. It's playing with fire. This is not a partisan position, it's pretty much accepted by every economist on the planet.

And to use that threat -- "either you deal with the debt situation in the way that we see fit, or we'll take down the entire country" is unprecedented. as far as I can remember, and unbelievable.

Even the GOP leaders understood how dangerous this was, but fears of a tea party backlash and getting primaried out appeared to be of prime importance.

I would be disappointed at your insistence that it's all the same, that both sides are equally at fault, if i hadn't come to expect that from you.

Williebee said:

First thing my mind went to was the Arizona crosshairs discussion.

The Vp supporting that kind of hyperbole doesn't get us anywhere useful.

Click to expand...

Mine too. Ironic, isn't it, that this was the first vote that Gaby Giffords has cast since that incident?

Well, there is a subtle difference here.

In the one case, the users of the rhetoric were the metaphoric threateners.

In the other, the users of the rhetoric were the metaphoric targets.

It's regrettable that they chose to vent this way, but they were venting, and I don't think the two examples are really equivalent.

I said not appropriate but understandable. Tea party does use violent metaphor often and did seem willing to screw up the US's economy just to make a point. I can understand why someone would get frustrated enough to call them terrorists. But, they committed a terror attack. That word should be reserved for the type of people that blow themselves up, shoot civilians and/or throw molotov cocktails into buildings.

It's those Tea Baggers Partiers again, clinging to their guns and bibles.

I like how your poll starts with the most inflammatory option. How cute. However, the definition of 'terrorist' is pretty clear to people who aren’t mentally challenged or trying to be faux-philosophical.

This thread should be locked.