At least a quarter of Americans still don’t know who Paul Ryan is, and only about half who know and have an opinion of him view him favorably.
So, Ryan’s primary job tonight was to introduce himself and make himself seem likeable, and he did that well. The personal parts of the speech were very personally delivered, especially the touching parts where Ryan talked about his father and mother and their roles in his life. And at the end of the speech, when Ryan cheered the crowd to its feet, he showed an energy and enthusiasm that’s what voters want in leaders and what Republicans have been desperately lacking in this campaign.
To anyone watching Ryan’s speech who hasn’t been paying much attention to the ins and outs and accusations of the campaign, I suspect Ryan came across as a smart, passionate and all-around nice guy — the sort of guy you can imagine having a friendly chat with while watching your kids play soccer together. And for a lot of voters, what matters isn’t what candidates have done or what they promise to do —it’s personality. On this measure, Mitt Romney has been catastrophically struggling and with his speech, Ryan humanized himself and presumably by extension, the top of the ticket.
2. Deceiving
On the other hand, to anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to facts, Ryan’s speech was an apparent attempt to set the world record for the greatest number of blatant lies and misrepresentations slipped into a single political speech. On this measure, while it was Romney who ran the Olympics, Ryan earned the gold.
The good news is that the Romney-Ryan campaign has likely created dozens of new jobs among the legions of additional fact checkers that media outlets are rushing to hire to sift through the mountain of cow dung that flowed from Ryan’s mouth. Said fact checkers have already condemned certain arguments that Ryan still irresponsibly repeated.
Fact: While Ryan tried to pin the downgrade of the United States’ credit rating on spending under President Obama, the credit rating was actually downgraded because Republicans threatened not to raise the debt ceiling.
Fact: While Ryan blamed President Obama for the shut down of a GM plant in Janesville, Wisconsin, the plant was actually closed under President George W. Bush. Ryan actually asked for federal spending to save the plant, while Romney has criticized the auto industry bailout that President Obama ultimately enacted to prevent other plants from closing.
Fact: Though Ryan insisted that President Obama wants to give all the credit for private sector success to government, that isn't what the president said. Period.
Fact: Though Paul Ryan accused President Obama of taking $716 billion out of Medicare, the fact is that that amount was savings in Medicare reimbursement rates (which, incidentally, save Medicare recipients out-of-pocket costs, too) and Ryan himself embraced these savings in his budget plan.
Elections should be about competing based on your record in the past and your vision for the future, not competing to see who can get away with the most lies and distortions without voters noticing or bother to care. Both parties should hold themselves to that standard. Republicans should be ashamed that there was even one misrepresentation in Ryan’s speech but sadly, there were many.
3. Distracting
And then there’s what Ryan didn’t talk about.
Ryan didn’t mention his extremist stance on banning all abortions with no exception for rape or incest, a stance that is out of touch with 75% of American voters.
Ryan didn’t mention his previous plan to hand over Social Security to Wall Street.
Ryan didn’t mention his numerous votes to raise spending and balloon the deficit when George W. Bush was president.
Ryan didn’t mention how his budget would eviscerate programs that help the poor and raise taxes on 95% of Americans in order to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires even further and increase — yes, increase —the deficit.
These aspects of Ryan’s resume and ideology are sticky to say the least. He would have been wise to tackle them head on and try and explain them away in his first real introduction to voters. But instead of Ryan airing his own dirty laundry, Democrats will get the chance.
At the end of his speech, Ryan quoted his dad, who used to say to him, “"Son. You have a choice: You can be part of the problem, or you can be part of the solution."
Ryan may have helped solve some of the likeability problems facing Romney, but ultimately by trying to deceive voters about basic facts and trying to distract voters from his own record, Ryan’s speech caused a much larger problem for himself and his running mate.
Sally Kohn is a writer and Fox News contributor. You can find her online at http://sallykohn.com or on Twitter@sallykohn.
OH I See, they put it on the Opinion page, So for those who watch fox news, let me know if anyone of their "fair and balanced" news teams talks about it.
I vaguely recall a study awhile back showing that even when Fox and CBS(?) CNN(?) I forget which, run the same story ; the exact same story, people are less likely to believe it coming from Fox. Id like to think yhat report gave them a bit of pause and that theyre trying to clean up their act a bit. Storys like this sort of support that.
Unfortunately then all of their political but not-news stories air and set the whole thing back a bit.
Still, every once in awhile Fox does some good work (regardless of whether or not I agree with said work). In this case I do agree however.
Jihadin wrote: Its Fox News remember. It favors the right.....so its LIES!!!! Actually I read it last night. Its a good read. Is there one for Obama?
I don't think he spoke at the convention. I could be wrong on that though.
Sally Kohn styles herself as a liberally aligned woman working at fox, so it could be that she's being pulled for the article so that fox can distance itself from having to defend the speech. Fox isn't a monolith though, especially online, and I wouldn't doubt that the editorial section of their 24 hour network will start to defame leftist "gotchya" politics. As well put together as their daytime crew is, foxes other outlets sometimes go against grain.
AustonT wrote: From Sallykohn.com Fox News asked me to write the liberal response to Paul Ryan's GOP convention ...
Ahh, there it is. I wonder if the're pulling a tear down where tomorrow the 5pm talking heads will defend her right to free speech but will call out her self professed "extreme views" and attempt to muddy the waters on ryans lies by throwing their own accuser under a bus. I love foxes propaganda tactics, they're masters of the game. It's like watching an artist paint a beautiful painting using sociology and media psychology.
AustonT wrote: From Sallykohn.com
Fox News asked me to write the liberal response to Paul Ryan's GOP convention ...
Ahh, there it is. I wonder if the're pulling a tear down where tomorrow the 5pm talking heads will defend her right to free speech but will call out her self professed "extreme views" and attempt to muddy the waters on ryans lies by throwing their own accuser under a bus.
AustonT wrote: From Sallykohn.com Fox News asked me to write the liberal response to Paul Ryan's GOP convention ...
Ahh, there it is. I wonder if the're pulling a tear down where tomorrow the 5pm talking heads will defend her right to free speech but will call out her self professed "extreme views" and attempt to muddy the waters on ryans lies by throwing their own accuser under a bus.
This is the network that hired Alan Coombs and threw him under the bus for years so that the right wing counterpoints could seem consistently triumphant. This is the network that hired Glen Beck to talk about investing in gold and complain that Obama is destroying the economy while being a major investor in the gold funds being hawked. This is the network that fired a reporting team 24 hours after after they ran a story about corruption by Monsanto at the request of Monsanto.
I'm deadly serious. They play these games. The executive memos have been leaked regularly and consistently for years. Fox news tells stories, not the news. Their coverage is directed, has a point, and is decided upon before events occur. They're winning the news ratings game despite being the worst network at telling the news factually or without bias. Did that ever not seem strange to you?
I think there was a nice clip a few weeks ago where the talking heads at FoxNews were angry because something that a Romney aide said made their job to get Romney elected harder.
d-usa wrote: I think there was a nice clip a few weeks ago where the talking heads at FoxNews were angry because something that a Romney aide said made their job to get Romney elected harder.
This article isn't easy to find on foxes website either. It's "trending" on their ticker but that's based on hits which are being spread via twitter and facebook right now, not because the article is easy to find. If they wanted a meaningful commentary on the speech it would be visible, but this is here to be defamed later, not read now. There are 5 articles about his speech on their politics page, this is not one of them.
:edit: I found it! It's on their opinions page halfway down immediately below a longer article pimping the speech and talking about how great it was.
AustonT wrote: From Sallykohn.com
Fox News asked me to write the liberal response to Paul Ryan's GOP convention ...
Ahh, there it is. I wonder if the're pulling a tear down where tomorrow the 5pm talking heads will defend her right to free speech but will call out her self professed "extreme views" and attempt to muddy the waters on ryans lies by throwing their own accuser under a bus.
This is the network that hired Alan Coombs and threw him under the bus for years so that the right wing counterpoints could seem consistently triumphant. This is the network that hired Glen Beck to talk about investing in gold and complain that Obama is destroying the economy while being a major investor in the gold funds being hawked. This is the network that fired a reporting team 24 hours after after they ran a story about corruption by Monsanto at the request of Monsanto.
I'm deadly serious. They play these games. The executive memos have been leaked regularly and consistently for years. Fox news tells stories, not the news. Their coverage is directed, has a point, and is decided upon before events occur. They're winning the news ratings game despite being the worst network at telling the news factually or without bias. Did that ever not seem strange to you?
Putting it that way... yeah... that is strange.
They have a successful formula that people lap it up.
Like Fox's FIVE having a token Lib in Bob Beckel.
Btw, I like O'Reily... I may be wrong but he seems moderate. I tried watching Hannity & Colmes and just couldn't. I'd rather watch CNN... but, then again, I usually dont' as I'm watching sports
AustonT wrote: From Sallykohn.com Fox News asked me to write the liberal response to Paul Ryan's GOP convention ...
Ahh, there it is. I wonder if the're pulling a tear down where tomorrow the 5pm talking heads will defend her right to free speech but will call out her self professed "extreme views" and attempt to muddy the waters on ryans lies by throwing their own accuser under a bus.
This is the network that hired Alan Coombs and threw him under the bus for years so that the right wing counterpoints could seem consistently triumphant. This is the network that hired Glen Beck to talk about investing in gold and complain that Obama is destroying the economy while being a major investor in the gold funds being hawked. This is the network that fired a reporting team 24 hours after after they ran a story about corruption by Monsanto at the request of Monsanto.
I'm deadly serious. They play these games. The executive memos have been leaked regularly and consistently for years. Fox news tells stories, not the news. Their coverage is directed, has a point, and is decided upon before events occur. They're winning the news ratings game despite being the worst network at telling the news factually or without bias. Did that ever not seem strange to you?
Putting it that way... yeah... that is strange.
They have a successful formula that people lap it up.
Like Fox's FIVE having a token Lib in Bob Beckel.
Btw, I like O'Reily... I may be wrong but he seems moderate. I tried watching Hannity & Colmes and just couldn't. I'd rather watch CNN... but, then again, I usually dont' as I'm watching sports
Part of fox news' overall network directive is re framing the center of the debate. O'Rielly isn't "realistically" presented as a moderate by any stretch. He's a hardcore fiscal and social conservative that sometimes disagrees with himself on social issues when the network doesn't want to be ideologically aligned with terrorists or liberals in some way. Think of any of the major news commentators of the last 50 years. Virtually all are considered to be politically "left" now. This is a shift in perception that occurred in the 90s along with the rise and distillation of Fox news as a brand.
Look at the way fox news has changed how American news casting works. It's not about presenting a factual story or informative editorial, it's about the political narrative now, the id. Commentary on other forms of media makes up a third of their news now. The ideological stances of modern news outlets didn't really "solidify" as existent until fox news began to accuse networks of having massive bias. They invented the "war on Christmas", they invented the modern american "culture war". They have in 20 years totally reclassified the term "socialist" into being a slang for "liberal american or european beliefs" only a decade after actual socialist revolutions stopped happening. That's insane. It's the most successful propaganda engine to ever exist. As a mass and social media student (and attempting professional) I'm actually in awe of the skills they show off.
To jump off Shuma's point about the beauty and artistry of FOX news propoganda....
If I was aspiring to be a politican, and I had the choice to be either a Democrat or a Republican, I would be a Republican. I have very few beliefs that align with their platform, but as a party they are amazingly organized, funded, supported with talking points, and have incredible party discipline.
It is a no brainer.
Therefore, I admire the way the Republicans and FOX play the game, even though I am diametrically opposed to almost everything they believe.
Easy E wrote: To jump off Shuma's point about the beauty and artistry of FOX news propoganda....
If I was aspiring to be a politican, and I had the choice to be either a Democrat or a Republican, I would be a Republican. I have very few beliefs that align with their platform, but as a party they are amazingly organized, funded, supported with talking points, and have incredible party discipline.
It is a no brainer.
Therefore, I admire the way the Republicans and FOX play the game, even though I am diametrically opposed to almost everything they believe.
Easy E wrote: To jump off Shuma's point about the beauty and artistry of FOX news propoganda....
If I was aspiring to be a politican, and I had the choice to be either a Democrat or a Republican, I would be a Republican. I have very few beliefs that align with their platform, but as a party they are amazingly organized, funded, supported with talking points, and have incredible party discipline.
It is a no brainer.
Therefore, I admire the way the Republicans and FOX play the game, even though I am diametrically opposed to almost everything they believe.
Really? I always thought Dems really had thier gak together when it came to organization and funding. What they definitely have over the Reps is Branding. Just look at Obama's first campaign the O symbol and one word catch phrases like hope and change with his face. They really know how to brand a candidate and thier party. Reps always come off stiff necked and monolithic. I think the grass may always be greener.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: Everyone should love Papa Bear O'Reily, probably the closest thing to sanity on Fox News (closest that is)
Easy E wrote: To jump off Shuma's point about the beauty and artistry of FOX news propoganda....
If I was aspiring to be a politican, and I had the choice to be either a Democrat or a Republican, I would be a Republican. I have very few beliefs that align with their platform, but as a party they are amazingly organized, funded, supported with talking points, and have incredible party discipline.
It is a no brainer.
Therefore, I admire the way the Republicans and FOX play the game, even though I am diametrically opposed to almost everything they believe.
Really? I always thought Dems really had thier gak together when it came to organization and funding. What they definitely have over the Reps is Branding. Just look at Obama's first campaign the O symbol and one word catch phrases like hope and change with his face. They really know how to brand a candidate and thier party. Reps always come off stiff necked and monolithic. I think the grass may always be greener.
Oh god no, the democratic party is horrible at remaining cohesive and actually playing the game of politics. Think about when the dems won a super-majority in congress, had the Democratic party tried to do something similar to the republican stonewall it would have fallen flat on its face. The Dems have to many disparate groups and interests in their party that they try to cater to. A lot of this stems from the role of conservative vs liberal (both with a small c and l) values, all the conservative has to do is maintain the status quo while a liberal has to attempt to gain enough support to change it.
Jihadin wrote: Soon....soon....so soon..my diabolical plan of the Tea Party taking over will come to fruitation --->insert evil laughter<----
You mean the 2010 midterm vote? That already happened, you missed the bus. It's all downhill for the teaparty now, almost everyone hates them after the budget ceiling debate and most of their elected officials failing in their respective states.
Jihadin wrote: Soon....soon....so soon..my diabolical plan of the Tea Party taking over will come to fruitation --->insert evil laughter<----
You mean the 2010 midterm vote? That already happened, you missed the bus. It's all downhill for the teaparty now, almost everyone hates them after the budget ceiling debate and most of their elected officials failing in their respective states.
The Tea Party is a great example of people getting exactly what they wanted.
Jihadin wrote: Soon....soon....so soon..my diabolical plan of the Tea Party taking over will come to fruitation --->insert evil laughter<----
You mean the 2010 midterm vote? That already happened, you missed the bus. It's all downhill for the teaparty now, almost everyone hates them after the budget ceiling debate and most of their elected officials failing in their respective states.
The Tea Party is a great example of people getting exactly what they wanted.
The tea party is not the hero we need but it is the one we deserve.
If the Tea Party wasn't basically just a cover for religious nutters trying to get their extremist views made in to law (which is what they've basically become; just about any serious tea party candidate is also an extremist conservative), and actually gave as much a damn about fiscal responsibility as they claim to (they don't), I might sympathize wit them more.
Then again, I believe Libertarianism is more than just "states can oppress however they want, but how DARE the federal government oppress!"
Well watch the full segment. Can't relate to the show if they're willing to brand the Tea Party the American "Taliban". RL experience tells me they have to clue what the real Taliban can did/do if in charge.
Jihadin wrote: Its Fox News remember. It favors the right.....so its LIES!!!! Actually I read it last night. Its a good read. Is there one for Obama?
I don't think he spoke at the convention. I could be wrong on that though.
Sally Kohn styles herself as a liberally aligned woman working at fox, so it could be that she's being pulled for the article so that fox can distance itself from having to defend the speech. Fox isn't a monolith though, especially online, and I wouldn't doubt that the editorial section of their 24 hour network will start to defame leftist "gotchya" politics. As well put together as their daytime crew is, foxes other outlets sometimes go against grain.
Could we stop referring to "gotcha politics" as being synonymous with "calling people out on their bs"?
whembly wrote:Btw, I like O'Reily... I may be wrong but he seems moderate. I tried watching Hannity & Colmes and just couldn't. I'd rather watch CNN... but, then again, I usually dont' as I'm watching sports
I remember when O'Reily was the craziest guy on FoxNews... and now, without him changing at all, he has become by far the most level-headed person there.
Jihadin wrote:Well watch the full segment. Can't relate to the show if they're willing to brand the Tea Party the American "Taliban". RL experience tells me they have to clue what the real Taliban can did/do if in charge.
@Jihadn: I honestly ask this without a hint of judgement or sarcasm:
Well what do you know about the Taliban Az. Remember their a grp of people I really....HATE...along with AQ and the insurgents. So to me labeling a grp the "Taliban" is below low. Yes I know its a show and yes I condemn the show for myself on that remark. So let me know what you know about them.
Jihadin wrote:Well what do you know about the Taliban Az. Remember their a grp of people I really....HATE...along with AQ and the insurgents. So to me labeling a grp the "Taliban" is below low. Yes I know its a show and yes I condemn the show for myself on that remark. So let me know what you know about them.
What I know about the Taliban, in a nutshell:
-Hardcore enforcers of Sharia Law, specifically of that found in the Sunnah (spelling?) combined with a bunch of arbitrary gak that I think Mullah Omar just kinda felt like one day.
-Committed multiple instances of ethnic cleansing.
-Scorched Earth policy against their own civilians, denied international food aid to them as well.
-Kidnap women for the purposes of human trafficking, despite their claims to adhering to Sharia Law.
That's the bullet-point version. Now, don't get me wrong. I hate them as well -and I do not use that term lightly. But if the Tea Party (perhaps not in its original form, but now that it has mutated into the -extreme- Christian right) was operating somewhere that they believed they would suffer no earthly repurcussions for their actions, I suspect they might behave in a similarly vicious and extreme manner, though obviously endorsing a different flavour of values.
Jihadin wrote:Well what do you know about the Taliban Az. Remember their a grp of people I really....HATE...along with AQ and the insurgents. So to me labeling a grp the "Taliban" is below low. Yes I know its a show and yes I condemn the show for myself on that remark. So let me know what you know about them.
What I know about the Taliban, in a nutshell:
-Hardcore enforcers of Sharia Law, specifically of that found in the Sunnah (spelling?) combined with a bunch of arbitrary gak that I think Mullah Omar just kinda felt like one day.
-Committed multiple instances of ethnic cleansing.
-Scorched Earth policy against their own civilians, denied international food aid to them as well.
-Kidnap women for the purposes of human trafficking, despite their claims to adhering to Sharia Law.
That's the bullet-point version. Now, don't get me wrong. I hate them as well -and I do not use that term lightly. But if the Tea Party (perhaps not in its original form, but now that it has mutated into the -extreme- Christian right) was operating somewhere that they believed they would suffer no earthly repurcussions for their actions, I suspect they might behave in a similarly vicious and extreme manner, though obviously endorsing a different flavour of values.
Hmm, here I was thinking you didn't like making sweeping generalizations.
I guess it's okay to use them against people you hate.
Indeed, I actually read the Economist, myself. A few of their writers jump head over heels to try to kiss Romney's ass (and by extension, Ryan's, despite tearing in to his pathetic excuse for a "tax plan" that he pushed forth a few years ago), but personally as a whole they're one of the better newspapers.
ShumaGorath wrote: I don't think he spoke at the convention. I could be wrong on that though.
Sally Kohn styles herself as a liberally aligned woman working at fox, so it could be that she's being pulled for the article so that fox can distance itself from having to defend the speech. Fox isn't a monolith though, especially online, and I wouldn't doubt that the editorial section of their 24 hour network will start to defame leftist "gotchya" politics. As well put together as their daytime crew is, foxes other outlets sometimes go against grain.
That's definitely true. FOX isn't monolithic (though their consistancy in message is greater than anywhere else, and is a lot of the problem).
And more than that, they're also not generically right wing. They occupy a specific place in the right wing, and have a specific agenda, much of which is defined as much by personality clashes as by ideology. And, of course, whichever politician happens to be all for cosying up to Rupert Murdoch and helping him make loads of money. FOX loves Huckerbee, and they don't like Romney. And they really hate Ron Paul.
Jihadin wrote:Well what do you know about the Taliban Az. Remember their a grp of people I really....HATE...along with AQ and the insurgents. So to me labeling a grp the "Taliban" is below low. Yes I know its a show and yes I condemn the show for myself on that remark. So let me know what you know about them.
What I know about the Taliban, in a nutshell:
-Hardcore enforcers of Sharia Law, specifically of that found in the Sunnah (spelling?) combined with a bunch of arbitrary gak that I think Mullah Omar just kinda felt like one day.
-Committed multiple instances of ethnic cleansing.
-Scorched Earth policy against their own civilians, denied international food aid to them as well.
-Kidnap women for the purposes of human trafficking, despite their claims to adhering to Sharia Law.
That's the bullet-point version. Now, don't get me wrong. I hate them as well -and I do not use that term lightly. But if the Tea Party (perhaps not in its original form, but now that it has mutated into the -extreme- Christian right) was operating somewhere that they believed they would suffer no earthly repurcussions for their actions, I suspect they might behave in a similarly vicious and extreme manner, though obviously endorsing a different flavour of values.
Hmm, here I was thinking you didn't like making sweeping generalizations.
I guess it's okay to use them against people you hate.
Care to specifiy which sweeping generalizations? Because I'm pretty sure I can find you as many sources as need be to back up my knowledge of the Taliban.
Az your just touching the surface. Do you know a woman thats raped will be executed for adultry? Story recently about that. Does everyone else on this thread think the Tea Party is capable of pulling off a version of the Taliban here? We're a bit more educated then the Taliban for even letting that happen here.
Melissia wrote: Indeed, I actually read the Economist, myself. A few of their writers jump head over heels to try to kiss Romney's ass (and by extension, Ryan's, despite tearing in to his pathetic excuse for a "tax plan" that he pushed forth a few years ago), but personally as a whole they're one of the better newspapers.
And they've certainly got their sacred cows. Particularly their fixation of free market solutions to situations where no free market could ever meaningfully exist. But that's no different to any paper that's geared towards a certain political opinion.
But their currency in trade is the real world. This makes them very different to FOX, who not only tell lies, but tell absurd lies.
Jihadin wrote:Well what do you know about the Taliban Az. Remember their a grp of people I really....HATE...along with AQ and the insurgents. So to me labeling a grp the "Taliban" is below low. Yes I know its a show and yes I condemn the show for myself on that remark. So let me know what you know about them.
What I know about the Taliban, in a nutshell:
-Hardcore enforcers of Sharia Law, specifically of that found in the Sunnah (spelling?) combined with a bunch of arbitrary gak that I think Mullah Omar just kinda felt like one day.
-Committed multiple instances of ethnic cleansing.
-Scorched Earth policy against their own civilians, denied international food aid to them as well.
-Kidnap women for the purposes of human trafficking, despite their claims to adhering to Sharia Law.
That's the bullet-point version. Now, don't get me wrong. I hate them as well -and I do not use that term lightly. But if the Tea Party (perhaps not in its original form, but now that it has mutated into the -extreme- Christian right) was operating somewhere that they believed they would suffer no earthly repurcussions for their actions, I suspect they might behave in a similarly vicious and extreme manner, though obviously endorsing a different flavour of values.
Hmm, here I was thinking you didn't like making sweeping generalizations.
I guess it's okay to use them against people you hate.
Care to specifiy which sweeping generalizations? Because I'm pretty sure I can find you as many sources as need be to back up my knowledge of the Taliban.
Your ridiculous claim that the Tea Party would turn into murderers if they thought they could get away with it.
We get it, you hate Christians and right wingers and are convinced they want to kill everyone...then you wonder why those same people are paranoid and are convinced that liberals want to wipe them out...oh, yeah...that's because they do!
As I understand it the Tea Party started out as a populist anti-government/anti-tax movement, with some decent points and reasonable ideas, which quickly got co-opted by two other groups:
1. Politically-active rich people like the Koch brothers, who want fewer laws to restrict their activities and lower taxes for their own benefit.
2. Assorted crazies and hateful whack jobs, including racists and religious bigots, who have a long history of anti-government attitudes, and used the Tea Party as a platform for their own hate and evil.
The kind of (un)Christian bigots who have insinuated themselves into the Tea Party movement are the same kinds of folks who regularly vandalized shops, made false police reports against, and otherwise harassed and intimidated members of minority religions when I was growing up. I believe it still goes on to some extent today, but I'm less tied into the main Neopagan community, so I hear about it less.
Jihadin wrote:Az your just touching the surface. Do you know a woman thats raped will be executed for adultry? Story recently about that. Does everyone else on this thread think the Tea Party is capable of pulling off a version of the Taliban here? We're a bit more educated then the Taliban for even letting that happen here.
Yes, I was aware of that. And I think if the Tea Party had their way, women who have abortions would be executed for murder.
Jihadin wrote:Well what do you know about the Taliban Az. Remember their a grp of people I really....HATE...along with AQ and the insurgents. So to me labeling a grp the "Taliban" is below low. Yes I know its a show and yes I condemn the show for myself on that remark. So let me know what you know about them.
What I know about the Taliban, in a nutshell: -Hardcore enforcers of Sharia Law, specifically of that found in the Sunnah (spelling?) combined with a bunch of arbitrary gak that I think Mullah Omar just kinda felt like one day. -Committed multiple instances of ethnic cleansing. -Scorched Earth policy against their own civilians, denied international food aid to them as well. -Kidnap women for the purposes of human trafficking, despite their claims to adhering to Sharia Law.
That's the bullet-point version. Now, don't get me wrong. I hate them as well -and I do not use that term lightly. But if the Tea Party (perhaps not in its original form, but now that it has mutated into the -extreme- Christian right) was operating somewhere that they believed they would suffer no earthly repurcussions for their actions, I suspect they might behave in a similarly vicious and extreme manner, though obviously endorsing a different flavour of values.
Hmm, here I was thinking you didn't like making sweeping generalizations.
I guess it's okay to use them against people you hate.
Care to specifiy which sweeping generalizations? Because I'm pretty sure I can find you as many sources as need be to back up my knowledge of the Taliban.
Your ridiculous claim that the Tea Party would turn into murderers if they thought they could get away with it. We get it, you hate Christians and right wingers and are convinced they want to kill everyone...then you wonder why those same people are paranoid and are convinced that liberals want to wipe them out...oh, yeah...that's because they do!
At least based on your statements.
I don't hate Christians, and I don't hate the Tea Party. (not yet, at least. But they're really working towards it) And I don't hate right-wingers. Not at all.
I admit that socially, I'm pretty far left, whereas politically I'm as left as a left-centerist can be. But that doesn't mean I'm opposed to working with the right. I think they are needed for a proper discourse and a necessary counterbalance. However, the Tea Party does not have such tolerant views, and do not work towards compromise. I find the Tea Party to be led by a range of people who border on insane to being completely insane, and have begun a two-for-one crusade to both economically ruin everyone that isn't a Koch brother, and inhibit the personal rights of women and homosexuals under the guise of their cherrypicked lines of scripture. They may not have begun this way, but that's what they appear to be now. Their movement has been taken over by extreme Christian fundamentalists, and I think they no longer resemble the party they set out to be.
But I am very wary of people whose morals are defined by avoiding improper action only because they're scared that St. Peter will catch and punish them. I view those people are being irrationally dangerous, because the instant they think St. Peter isn't paying attention, they become morally void. And that's effectively what Christianity boils down to: a magical panopticon. I'm as nervous around those people as you are around a guy with face tattoos in a dark alley.
Additionally, I don't like the encroachment of Christian fundamentalists trying to incorporate their ignorant (that's not an editorial, that's the correct word) dogma into public school systems and social policy. I wish I could just live and let live, but the very nature of churches is built on their acquiring greater social control, and as a result that's where battle lines get drawn.
Now, I don't think that hardcore Christians want to kill everybody. But I'm pretty sure that any Christian who claims to follow the Bible literally would gladly beat to death a homosexual if they thought that they could get away with it. After all, their holy book condones that behaviour. And a large number of American Christians claim to take the Bible literally.
Now, as far as the Taliban goes, obviously the Christian fundamentalists aren't going to compare very well. But then, I wouldn't be too surprised if, when their backs were against the wall and they really felt that their way of life -as they interpret God's teachings- were under serious attack, some of these kids might be convinced to pull out the ol' holy hand grenade.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote:Manny. Do you actually see the Tea Party being the American Taliban?
For me, I compare them that way in the same way that I compare instant decaf coffee to actual coffee: I refuse to claim they are one and the same and resent the notion that I do such a thing; but I can't discount the rhetorical similarities between the two.
Jihadin wrote: Manny. Do you actually see the Tea Party being the American Taliban?
A) We do have to keep this in perspective. No one in the US is actually doing what the Taliban does or did. No one is beheading infidels in stadiums or stoning people to death.
B) The Tea Party is too big and has too many local and regional variations to paint EVERY member with any given brush. I have met a number of decent guys locally who invited me to events and were basically the same as most of the Libertarians I've known as a kid and an adult, speaking as someone who's parents ran for Congress and Governor as Libertarians.
C) The public face of what the Tea Party has turned into, in big rallies, on the news, in politicians like Michelle Bachman, is often disgusting and horrible and un-American. In fact I do feel like it'soften closer in spirit and beliefs to the Taliban than it is to the principles I hold dear as a patriotic American.
Check out those links Azazel just posted, and tell me none of those are scary to you.
Nope doesn't scare me. When they act on it and go "God Wills It" or "Allah Ackbar" then I have a problem with it. Then you get to watch the US Military play on the homefield. Then you will see the US Military refuse the POTUS if he/she condones the "Taliban" action and orders the US military support their action.
Jihadin wrote: Nope doesn't scare me. When they act on it and go "God Wills It" or "Allah Ackbar" then I have a problem with it. Then you get to watch the US Military play on the homefield. Then you will see the US Military refuse the POTUS if he/she condones the "Taliban" action and orders the US military support their action.
A lot of the ones I know are also the ones stockpiling weapons and ammo for when the government "turns on them" so that they can fight the military if needed.
Heck, my dad is a prepper and we have an emergency plan to get to his house/compound if needed. But at least he is a pro-government prepper.
Jihadin wrote: I see the US getting flushed due to debt first before I see a American "Taliban" group or a Civil War
Where in the US do you live and how long has it been since you lived there? Some areas are more ripe with crazy, and depending on how long you have been deployed they may have gone nuttier.
Rural Oklahoma is pretty much full of crazy tea party folks that are stockpiling, especially south-eastern Oklahoma. When I was running with the Fire Department we always had to be careful during certain wildfires because we could be operating in areas that were booby trapped by militia types.
We are not at Taliban level, but we have areas and groups that are filled with powder and I fear that it wouldn't take much to set it off.
And just because one is more violent than the other doesn't mean that their ideological bases and motivations don't match up.
Jihadin wrote: I go with the Tea Party...I mean seriously...your not going to have leeway on Greater Texas with Frazz jack booted weiner dogs on patrol
Yes, the wiener legion requires many many many boots.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Rural Oklahoma is pretty much full of crazy tea party folks that are stockpiling, especially south-eastern Oklahoma. When I was running with the Fire Department we always had to be careful during certain wildfires because we could be operating in areas that were booby trapped by militia types.
We are not at Taliban level, but we have areas and groups that are filled with powder and I fear that it wouldn't take much to set it off.
And just because one is more violent than the other doesn't mean that their ideological bases and motivations don't match up.
Many are stockpiling because they fear another Obama bullet bubble, or negative legislation, as has been proposed.
Many wild areas in California have boobytraps from weed growers/cartels now.
Jihadin wrote: I go with the Tea Party...I mean seriously...your not going to have leeway on Greater Texas with Frazz jack booted weiner dogs on patrol
Yes, the wiener legion requires many many many boots.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: Rural Oklahoma is pretty much full of crazy tea party folks that are stockpiling, especially south-eastern Oklahoma. When I was running with the Fire Department we always had to be careful during certain wildfires because we could be operating in areas that were booby trapped by militia types.
We are not at Taliban level, but we have areas and groups that are filled with powder and I fear that it wouldn't take much to set it off.
And just because one is more violent than the other doesn't mean that their ideological bases and motivations don't match up.
Many are stockpiling because they fear another Obama bullet bubble, or negative legislation, as has been proposed. Many wild areas in California have boobytraps from weed growers/cartels now.
The bullet bubble pissed me off. Seriously, for all the talk about how crappy .380 ammo really is when it comes to stopping power I was surprised how many people were buying every single box they could. Couldn't get any decent range time in for over a year before it returned to normal.
Besides, who are these amateurs buying bullets. Really militia types reload their own.
Personally I'd rather shoot first and then run the hell away if I can, but I never claimed to be overly brave. Self defense is about keeping alive and unharmed, not about being "OMGWTFBBQ HARDASS CHICA FACE DOWN TERRORISTS GRRR!".
Leave that to the gangsters and the testosterone poisoned idiots who think that they're going to take down the government with their pea shooters.
Jihadin wrote: Let me clarify. Then no one has an issue pointing a weapon at an american who has one pointed at them.
Would you have a problem pointing a gun at a person, regardless of religion, nationality, baseball card collection, ect that had a gun pointed at you? I think once the gun is pointed at you that pretty much overrides anything else. Do you really want to be laying there bleeding to death from a gunshot wound thinking "It's ok that he shot me...he's....an American....".
Jihadin wrote: Let me clarify. Then no one has an issue pointing a weapon at an american who has one pointed at them.
I don't have an issue defending myself against anybody that has a weapon pointed at me regardless of nationality or ideology.
I fail to see how this changes the fact that there are people stockpiling to fight the government for the same ideological reasons that the Taliban had.
Jihadin wrote: Let me clarify. Then no one has an issue pointing a weapon at an american who has one pointed at them.
I don't have an issue defending myself against anybody that has a weapon pointed at me regardless of nationality or ideology.
I fail to see how this changes the fact that there are people stockpiling to fight the government for the same ideological reasons that the Taliban had.
You've made that statement but not proved that statement. On the gun threads the occasional militia type gets on about govenrment taking our guns and our rights. I don't see any connection between that and Taliban wacking 30 people who went to a party. Its almost antiTaliban. As noted, most others have "stocked up" because they are worried about another bulllet buble or that laws will be passed the limit firearms/ammunition or make it substantially more expensive. As both Obama, Holder, Pelosi, and Reid have said such things, and that a bullet bubble did occur previously, such fears are not overstated.
.
