Biden just called the entire GOP terrorists. It's part of the "new tone". MSM could care less based on nonexistent coverage.
Go cry me a river. The new tone was established much earlier, at least as far back as critics of the Iraq debacle being called traitors and "objective supporters" of UBL.
props to Biden for standing up against the terrorists instead of negotiating with them like the rest of Washington.
Let's not forget the bombers of women's clinics. They are also tea party terrorism acts
Biden is, of course, backing off the remarks about tea party terrorists.
He shouldn't.
The word isn't being used enough.
Tea party traitors or tea party terrorists
Either fits, IMO.
You're getting more boutons-esque by they day.
And over what? Some measly insignificant cuts over 10 years, which gave Dems another blank check and opened the door to increase taxes?
Terrorists
They might not be as vocal. But I'm fairly sure the displeasure is still there. The problem now is that neither this guy or whoever comes from the other aisle is going to do about it. Futility has a way to discourage people.
Calling anyone a terrorist other than actual terrorists is pretty juvenile TBH.
As far as the OP, it's not just necessarily the nation that gets the short end of the stick with these guys. I think Boehner will concur that their irrationality is doing the GOP some critical damage too.
If it is the way of people to become discouraged by prolonged adversity so much the worse for them.
What exactly are they irrational about?
They're for smaller, more frugal government. Ooooooohhhh. Boogeymen.
threatening to let USA default for the first time in its history. Yeah, nothing irrational about that.
Does anything that *isn't* a logical fallacy ever escape your brain?
The strawman here is that no one is criticizing the tea party asshats for believing that smaller government is better.
They are criticizing them for the reckless irresponsibility in pursuing that agenda.
Terrorists always have political agendas, but what differentiates them from more accepted political movements is that what they are willing to do to further those aims.
There's a difference between advocating your position, and putting the country on the brink of defaulting on it's obligations.
There's nothing inherently wrong in what they want. What's irrational is to put their personal wishes over the country.
didn't hear a word from them until a black moved into the house.
Voting on the debt ceiling in 2006.
Every single Dem voted no. Every last one.
The fact is, you guys calling people terrorists are just parroting what you hear the shills say on the nighly news or on NYT blogs. Were any of you actually preparing for economic armageddon?
did you ask your mas...errr boss if you're a part of his economic armageddon plan?
Dems didn't control the chamber back then. There was no risk of not passing.
Any other strawman comparison you want to throw out there?
I don't know that armageddon is the word. There's certainly consequences for not paying your bills. Try it yourself and you'll see.The fact is, you guys calling people terrorists are just parroting what you hear the shills say on the nighly news or on NYT blogs. Were any of you actually preparing for economic armageddon?
And I'm not calling them terrorists, BTW. I qualify their action (or inaction) as irrational. At the very least, irresponsible.
Was that for FY 2006 or FY 2007? The deficit was 1.9% of GDP for 2006 and 1.2% for 2007. I don't know the numbers for FY 2011, but they are huge! Previous CBO estimate has it at 10.9%.Voting on the debt ceiling in 2006.
Every single Dem voted no. Every last one.
Anyone know the numbers for any debt ceiling increase in 2008?
all the Republican posts in this thread and not one response to this question
Sheep.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
