So, when do we start calling the Republican party terrorists?
-
‹ Home
Info
-
Subscribe
-
Users
Links
- All Hat No Cattle
- Andy Borowitz
- Axios
- Barry Deutsch
- Bearman Cartoons
- Beau of the Fifth Column
- Capitol Steps
- Cook Political Report
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos Comics
- Daily Show
- David Horsey
- Derf City
- Digby
- Eclectablog
- Electoral Vote
- Fair and Unbalanced
- Fark Politics
- Five Thirty Eight Politics
- Funny or Die
- Funny Times
- Go Comics
- Hackwhackers
- Heather Cox Richardson
- HuffPost Comedy
- John Fugelsang
- Kung Foo Monkey
- Last Week Tonight
- Margaret and Helen
- Mark Fiore
- Matt Davies
- Matt Wuerker
- McClatchy Cartoons
- News of the Weird
- O'Carl's Law
- Politicususa
- PolitiFact
- Propaganda Professor
- Raging Pencils
- Randy Rainbow
- RCP Cartoons
- Saturday Night Live
- Slowpoke
- Stonekettle Station
- Ted Rall
- The Nib
- The Onion
- Tom the Dancing Bug
- Tom Toles
- USN Political Cartoons
- What Now Toons
-
Tags
Abortion Bush Campaign Finance Cheney Climate Clinton Congress Conservatives Corporations Corruption Deficits Democrats Drugs Economy Education Election Elections Energy Environment Fox News Gays Guns Health Immigration Lies McCain Media Middle East Obama Palin Protests Racism Religion Republicans Romney Spying Supreme Court Taxes Tea Party Terrorism Terrorists Torture Trump Unemployment War
-
Archives
You are Visitor #
14 Comments
Just like the Southern Poverty Law Center labeling the Family Research Center as a Hate Group, I think it is high time to call many of the Republicans out as terrorists. Just like terrorists they never have any intentions of negotiating anything in good faith.
Extremists on both sides are why we have such partisan gridlock. The Republicans are just a whole lot better and forcing all their caucus to stick together and repeat the same talking points.
And let’s keep our definitions clear – the Republican Senate letter is not a terrorist action, so let’s not call all the Republicans leaders terrorists. They are kidnappers, who would rather see their hostages die than release them unless they get what they want.
Terrorists at least believe in a cause greater than themselves – kidnappers are just self-serving scumbags.
Good point Jason!
Not negotiating in good faith can get you in trouble in courts. People have been forced to accept deals in courts in some circumstances when they refused to negotiate but made a pretense of negotiating. I wonder if we could force them to vote?
Bert – call your Senator. The more calls they get the more likely they are to act in the manner you want.
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
It’s entirely possible to use the word terrorist, but after Newt’s remark on eliminating the liberal party in America (given at the republican governor’s meeting in San Diego CA) I think the more appropriate word may become “facist.” Of course, we would have to use the word as it is really defined instead of how the extreme right has twisted it!
Wow, worse than terrorists!
As I see it, terroists are opportunists and eventually outside the law. Facists are terrorists who become the law of the land — yes, definitely worse!
I’ve spent a bit of time trying to figure out what sort of government we really are moving towards in the US. Interesting exercise. Can’t say I can find any one governmental type that fits.
I’d suggest that we are evolving into an oligarchic plutocracy which, if the republicans have their way, will have a significant theocratic element included. In simple terms, I believe that we are moving closer and closer to being a country where power comes from wealth and only a small percentage of those within the government, or closely allied with the government, control a vast majority of both.
There is currently a pretty good helping of
fascism, as well, if one defines it in it’s most simplistic way as a government formed of industry and the ruling governmental elite.
Each of the above forms of government, at least in my mind, functions best as a one party system or, at a minimum, a system with one party pretty much driving the agenda of the country.
But back to IK’s original proposition: is the Republican Party terrorist? I don’t think so. Hugely manipulative, but not a terrorist organization. They’re basic direction, especially with the addition of the tea party contingent, is to eliminate the second party, impose their social agenda upon the country, and bring their interpretation of god into the mix. That they are doing this with strong symbiotic relationships with much of the wealth in this country is clear. (Actually, I must digress a second and include that relationship with corporate America with the Democratic Party as well: e.g. the caving of the Democrats to Big Pharma and the health insurance industry.) That they are doing this without considering the less fortunate within our society is also pretty clear and that they are doing this without any true foresight is way to clear (but, then again, this applied to Democrats, as well).
I should be clear that I personally wasn’t proposing that the Republicans are terrorists, just (as Mad Hatter amplified) that it is a word that gets thrown around far too often. For example, calling WikiLeaks “terrorist”.
As for your suggestion that we are evolving into an oligarchic plutocracy, I think you have a good point. I lived in England for a while in the 80’s, and there are similarities between their decline during that time and what we are going through now.
During the 80’s, bankers held incredible influence over the British economy. Banking, along with law, were the most prestigious and high-paying careers and were socially more respectable, while jobs were you actually produced something useful, including scientists and engineers, were looked down upon as merely trades and were not well paid. As a result, brands that had been respected, such as Jaguar, Rolls-Royce, MG, and many others, became crap.
The Brits also saw their once strong computer industry vanish. It is hard to believe now that the world’s first real computer was built by English computer scientists, and they also developed the world’s first commercially available computer.
I see the same thing happening here — why become an engineer or a scientist when you can make far more money manipulating financial markets? I’m seeing more an more computer scientists becoming venture capitalists and investors.
It is all about something very simple: wealth redistribution. When we have a balance of wealth, we have a sound country.
I read a book by a Sudanese Professor from Yale written before the country was destroyed. They needed no money as they picked fruit from the forest. There was total socialism, each helped each other. The Professor sent Agricultural specialists from this country. “Why do we need more yield from the land? Between fish and fruit, we have all we need.”
My guess is that the tax cuts to the rich will be extended for two years. OUr unemployment rate is at 9.8. If there is a change for the better, the Repugs might get some votes. But as we know, nothing changed for the better in the first ten years of the tax cuts.
Starluna how is MA doing? In New York State, we have a much lower unemployment rate than 9.8. And very interesting, the counties that vote Republican such as the one that I live in, have higher unemployment rates.
Perhaps the blue states that are obviously more socialistic have lower unemployment rates. We will see under Brown in CA.
EBDoug – I live in Oregon, which is one of the bluest states, and unemployment here is higher than 9.8%.
The challenge in these debats is to get past the over-simplifications and out of context facts and see the whole picture. The Republicans are 100% correct that having a tax increase on businesses that stops them from hiring is a Bad Thing during a recession. They just manage to skate past the fact that what is on the table (expiration of Bush tax cutrs for millionaires) would have 0% impact on job creation.
Jason, part of the reason we have a high unemployment rate here in Oregon is because when unemployment went up, quite a few unemployed people moved to Oregon (where it is less expensive to live). They figured this out because the number of unemployed was going up significantly faster than the number of jobs lost.