Feehery on Hillary Clinton's DNC roll call vote: "It kind of reminds me of Vladimir Putin invading Georgia"
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: On The Situation Room, Republican strategist John Feehery said of Sen. Hillary Clinton's having a roll call vote at the Democratic National Convention: "It kind of reminds me of Vladimir Putin invading Georgia." Feehery added: "Hillary Clinton is all over this convention. She's owning it. Barack Obama is out in the Safeco Field [sic] somewhere doing his speech."
On the August 14 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, Republican strategist and The Hill contributor John Feehery said Sen. Hillary Clinton's having a roll call vote at the Democratic National Convention in Denver "reminds me of Vladimir Putin invading Georgia."
Discussing the effects of holding a symbolic vote placing Clinton's name into nomination at the DNC, which a joint announcement from the Obama and Clinton campaigns said is "a show of unity and in recognition of the historic race she ran," Feehery also said: "Hillary Clinton is all over this convention. She's owning it. Barack Obama is out in the Safeco Field [sic: Invesco Field in Denver] somewhere doing his speech. The fascinating thing is, she's coming up for the nomination, she's demanding that she has her own videos, she's making all these demands, and I don't know. I don't think the Democratic Party is united at all."
From the 4 p.m. ET hour of the August 14 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
SUZANNE MALVEAUX (anchor): There was speculation over what was going to happen -- whether or not people were going to unite behind Barack Obama. Maria, does this accomplish that goal by putting her out there and having this roll call?
MARIA CARDONA (Democratic strategist): Absolutely. I think it does, and I'm thrilled. I think what it demonstrates is that, since June, the Obama campaign and Senator Clinton's campaign have been working very, very hard to ensure a Democratic victory in November. Part of that means a very unified, a very strong party coming out of Denver, and both campaigns understood the importance of that. And Senator Obama, as he stated earlier, was the one who urged Senator Clinton to put her name into nomination to make sure that the 35 million voices that participated in this historic campaign are heard and respected. And so I'm really much looking forward to that, and we're going to come out of Denver very strong.
MALVEAUX: John, does this minimize what the Republicans essentially can get out of this? Because, obviously, this is some damage control they're doing ahead of time.
FEEHERY: Whose convention is this, anyway? Is it Barack Obama's or is it Hillary Clinton's? It kind of reminds me of Vladimir Putin invading Georgia. I mean, Hillary Clinton is all over this convention. She's owning it. Barack Obama is out in the Safeco Field [sic] somewhere doing his speech. The fascinating thing is, she's coming up for the nomination, she's demanding that she has her own videos, she's making all these demands, and I don't know. I don't think the Democratic Party is united at all.
Vlad invading Georgia is like the US Military invading Vermont.
However, Georgia does have a military and rockets, and I believe old holdover warheads, that they should launch on Russia. They know they have no chance of winning, so I hope they don't back down like France.
1. Your post is incoherent.
2. Do you know ANYTHING about Russia or Georgia and why Russia is doing what it is doing?
3. France (French President's intervention) stopped hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians from getting killed in in the stupid flare up. And, you say France was backing down? From what, you idiot?
I so wish you were in that region as you were typing from the basement.
quoting Craig Kilborn does not an argument make.
Wow. Anti-French humor.
Um. Funny stuff that.
I don't suppose it means a damn to you that the US an France have been allies since the 1770s.
Nope, didn't think so. Enjoy your sophomoric humor.
Whispers.....
"I don't suppose it means a damn to you that the US an France have been allies since the 1770s."
It all goes with the rightwing conservative narrative of that fantasy called American Exceptionalism.... like when they claim that if not for America, they would all be speaking German......
And yet.... they fail to teach their flock that if not for the French.... we Americans would all have British accents!!
Science, are you saying that Vermont is a foreign country?
Georgia is a foreign country, Science. Here is your analogy:
"Vlad invading Georgia is like the US Military invading Vermont."
How is it the same?
Uh, Pseudoscience, you're talking about ONE JUDGE who made a bad ruling IMO - not the entire state of Vermont. Try again.
http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=4319605
This is more of just a feelgood thing that Barack is doing for Hillary by his willingness to a vote for her. But lets be real, her want for the DNC vote, regardless of her "35 million voices", she lost by the rules fair and square.
She is being like Russia invading Georgia in a way by trying to force herself in between the Democratic Party and Barack who won.
Obama isn't some reactionary, confrontational idiot. He knows it's going to take diplomacy, not tough guy strutting, to restore our ability to project real power in the world.
There, I think I just wrote the platform for the Republican convention.
Violence is the opposite of power, my friend. Violence is weakness.
But I get it. The right are steeped in violence, from word to deed. From Savage to Jim Adkisson, the right is violent. I feel sorry for your manic belief that violence and war is the answer.
Violence is the opposite of power, my friend. Violence is weakness.
Been watching too much Karate Kid lately?
My views havent changed one bit since 2001. In fact, when I was in the national guard, I actually served on posts involved in sorting out threats of domestic terrorism. Wasn't my call where I went.
This whole attitude of "you support war because you won't go" is bunk, just as much so as the view of people bashing you for saying "you support the troops but not war".
Science,
While your service is admirable and so is your guardianship, if your niece is only 3, why didn't you fight in Iraq or Afghanistan prior to taking care of her? We started fighting in Afghanistan in 2001 which would be at least four years before your niece was born and you were 21. We started fighting in March 2003 which would be at least two years before your niece was born and would make you 23. Where was your bravado then?
Whereas having most of the military stuck in Iraq is doing wonders to intimidate Putin.
Fact is that a military that is committed to adventures abroad has no ability to deter third party actors from doing anything.
Cheerleading battle but not serving. Promoting the draft when not eligible. Touting remote-controlled video-game war.
Welcome to the 109th chairborne.
And do you really want to start something with Russia? Great, that would be super. You think we have problems in Iran, we would be in WWIII this time, except Russia's weapons are much better than Nazi Germany, and guess what? They can reach us here in the US now. Yeah, really smart move tangling with The Bear. Especially with a lot of our combat forces, and support for combat forces either tied up in the middle east, or rotating out for R and R, re-training, and future deployments.
Yep, I know... War good! Yeah, great idea. Let's bomb Russia now because they stepped over the Georgia border.
You think McCain has Putin's tootsies quaking? LOL...
Putin has the West by the nuts right now... even Bush is looking like a pussy these days.
Hey, come on. Give the guy a break. Just trying to vote - even with explicit instructions - caused him to forget to not swallow his tongue. I think he's due a little leeway when it comes to making that decision all by himself.
One might think that McCain was being presumptuous.
Oh wait. That's an Obama-only criticism. IOKIYAR.
it's simply a way of giving hillary's supporters a chance to vote for her, obama becomes the nominee, and everyone holds hands. nothing more, in spite of all your fantasies.
MEFIRST, Hillary's Clinton supporters can vote for her whether she's formally nominated or not. The only way there won't be a roll call is if Obama is nominated by acclimation, which won't happen. Delegates can vote for anyone they choose.
It's been 16 years since the losing Democratic candidate had their name placed into nomination (1992 Paul Tsongas/Jerry Brown). Bill Clinton was the party's nominee and Clinton would not give a prime-time speaking spot to either man unless they endorsed Clinton and swore off having their name place in nomination. One must assume there was a reason that Bill Clinton didn't want either man's name nominated after he had already won.
While Hillary has urged her delegates to support Obama she has not released them nor has she formally ended her campaign, she simply suspended her campaign.
In a conference call with delegates June 9, Hillary reiterated she has “suspended” her campaign, which means she is holding on to her delegates.
“I am a National Delegate for Clinton from Texas. I was on the conference call. Delegates were NOT released. We were told the same thing YOU ALL were told on Saturday. That she endorsed and would work for Obama.To use the term “released” is not accurate. She and Harold Ickes asked that we hold together because of health care issues Hillary wants on the democrat platform.
By the Way: ALL pledged delegates can vote their conscience at Denver. EVEN BO Pledged delegates can switch at Denver”
It's standard operating procedure for all candidates to have a presence at political conventions, and be voted upon. What ignorance.
How many times did Harold Stassen speak at Repub conventions, or have his name in contention? Or Stevenson at the Dems-- or Kefauver?
Besides, there's an excellent chance that this is happening to prepare the way for Obama picking Hillary to be VP!
Take that, you Hillary-haters!
Did you recently recieve a sharp blow to the head? Are you concussed?
The entirity or your posts here and every one of your points are significantly more ridiculous sounding that the original headline!
GIVE IT UP!
You are in a hole. STOP DIGGING!!!
Back on topic after 25 off-topic posts because people can't simply call out the trolls for what they are....and then ignore their posts.....
Tonight on Hannity and Colmes, Dick Morris said that same thing. He is claiming that a cooperative decision that melds the top wishes of both Barack and Hillary because they aren't the enemies that the righties want them to be is being painted as having the opposite meaning it really has!
Hillary and Barack are not mortal enemies. She really supports his effort to win. Both of them believe that the best course of action for the Democratic efforts would be that her supporters get a chance to show exhibit their support and their enthusiasm. It's not a negative. In reality, the Republicans could never do that - it's their flaw that their arguments expose! They aren't open to allowing differences of opinion to be overtly displayed! They aren't open to giving the minority a chance to be heard. Democrats? They're glad to let Hillary's supporters a voice at the convention!
These right-wing "pundints" (I know, I know, but that's how Hannity pronounces it) are totally fascinated with the Democatic Party process during this election. They are spending a lot of time and resources overanalyzing every little action and reaction, then pronouncing some non-sequiturish-type meaning to the results of their analyses that permits them to fantasize about some big GOOP win in November. To me they seem like thumb-suckers, engaged in infantile-self-soothing on the rocket-ride toward November.
Gawsh, you write purty.
Though I think you left out the part in January when they throw a tantrum because they realize the ride has stopped.
In January the dems' will start their ride on the rocket, if Obama wins. Whoever wins has some big (there is no adjective big enough to describe the bigness of the) BushCo problems to fix:
Bottleblond, you left out the best part of Bill Clinton obsessed closet-case goblin Dick Morris' take on the topic; That Obama is caving in to Hillary, and if he can't stand up to Hillary, how is he going to take on the evil turrists?
I know the handful of reasonable rightys here will distance themselves from pinheads like Morris, but every time I see him, he seems closer to the GOP archetype that makes it possible to elect presidents like Bush and (Spaghetti monster forbid) McGrampy..
-- Senator Clinton's campaign have been working very, very hard to ensure a Democratic victory in November. Part of that means a very unified, a very strong party coming out of Denver -- Cardona
The first half of that statement is a crock. Yes, Hillary has been giving a little lip service...as demanded by protocol...to the support of Obama. But it's a real reach to say the she has been working "very, very hard".
She could have quelled the entire escapade by declining, ala LBJ..."I shall not seek, and I will not accept, the nomination of my party for another term as your president".
Do I think that Hillary can/will usurp the nomination from Obama? Nope, but I certainly don't rule out the chance. The democrat convention will show if Obama is truly a slick operator and master of high stakes politics...or...will he fall prey to trusting the words of a Cinton?
Be careful Obama...be very careful.
-- will try to kill Barack. -- roundhouse
You can shove that insane comment straight up your ass.
I visit this site as a conservative for the info and for those opinions that differ from mine and to state my position when I feel like it. I don't need the security blanket of hanging out and being comforted by other conservatives to validate my positions.
Don't you ever...don't you ever again equate me with someone who would support, condone, or propagate the assassination of a U.S. President...you effin moron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If only I had the option to do the same on right wing sites, but they don't let us libs in. So spare me your insinuation that I can't hang with the big dogs.
Jerk.
"They don't let us libs in"
Oh, crying discrimination again i see?
Exactly.
The next time a con comes on here and plays that stupid card he/she should be booted off here immediately. See how they like it.
Same thing happens in talk radio. Listen to Ed Schultz - he has con callers on his show and they are respected and allowed to have their say without being mocked, interrupted, or rudely hung up on. Think that would happen on The Destestable One, aka His Dumbness, aka Mark Levin's show? Think that Righties have the same high standards as Lefties when it comes to discourse?
Yeah, didn't think so...
No. Censorship.
TIME OUT.....
Wesley, easy on the exclamation points. They always find a bunch of those in the assassins notebooks.
I kid !
If you're just some regular guy who wants a limited government and some fiscal sanity, then you're a democrat.
If you're just some regular guy who wants a limited government and some fiscal sanity, then you're a democrat.
Err - increased regulations in ever aspect of goverment, including Global Warming Acts, as well as 800B in new spending is not fiscal sanity. The true lies of a democrat is more like it.
Err - increased regulations in ever aspect of goverment, including Global Warming Acts, as well as 800B in new spending is not fiscal sanity. The true lies of a democrat is more like it.
You've enlightened me. I realize now that the signature of fiscal sanity is a falling dollar caused by a real-estate crisis based on mortgage de-regulation, a budget that has gone from a surplus to a $400B deficit in 7 years (plus the requisite increased foreign borrowing), job losses, and deserting industry. Fortunately, because of that decreasing value of the dollar, we'll soon be able to provide the labor to build all those Chinese cars, and afford food again!
The dollar is worth more now than it has been in 5 weeks, Oil is dropping, so are all other commodities. The housing market will bottom in early 2009, according to Bloomberg.
Now all we need is the removal of manufacturing unions, and the EPA regulations on businesses, and you can have all the jobs back that you cry a bout. But then again, companies in the US are afraid to do well - because you guys want to "windfall" them.
Brilliant.
"The dollar is worth more now than it has been in 5 weeks, Oil is dropping, so are all other commodities."
For comparison's sake, Science, how is the dollar doing in relation to 7 years ago? What about oil? What about other commodities?
Not so fast, Pseudo.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/90831-enjoy-these-dollar-days-but-will-they-last?source=patrick.net
In short, tainted food, tainted government. Deregulation is wild west capitalism. We don't need that, we have progressed beyond that mentality.
The right is hate. Own it
Look at what the wing nuts in your party are capable of. MLK, Bobby Kennedy, JFK. Look at McVeigh's handy work, or Jim Adkisson. Then you can soak up violent rhetoric on most any radio station, You can listen to Savage, Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, Gibson, O'Reilly and on and on. You can listen to them preach violence and then you can listen to actual preachers preach violence. If that ain't enough, you can have your elected officials paint us as the enemy within, too. don't pretend you haven't heard them tell us we'll get hit again if we vote for Democrats.
So, why don't you kiss MY ass. I don't need to associate your good name with murderous pricks, you do it all by yourself by voting Republican.
Asshole.
Amen, Round, amen.
Take the most recent example - aside from the Arkansas shooting since we do not know all the details - the church shooting. That nutcase is a rightwinger through and through. Had all the hate books too. Typical redneck Sean Hannity-lovin' SCUM.
The Right IS hate. Period.
They won't, though. They wouldn't want to "infringe on the rights," of Savage Rush O'Reilly to incite acts of violence on their political opponents.
The radio haters are too effective. Workaday cons and elected cons will not bite the hands that feed them. No they would rather feign indifference and lay false claim to the noble principle of free speech while reaping the benefits of a poisoned public discourse.
Roundhouse posted:
Look at what the wing nuts in your party are capable of. MLK, Bobby Kennedy, JFK. Look at McVeigh's handy work, or Jim Adkisson.
Uh...you better check your google again there RH.
JE Ray had NO party affiliation, Sirhan sirhan was an arab (Palestinian arab and virulent anti-semitic) who wasn't affiliated with any party other than two Pro-arab/ anti-Israeii campus groups. JFK's assasin was killed by a communitst defector. If anything Oswald was closer to the democrat party than the Republicans. While Mcveigh was affiliated with white supremist groups, he was anti-government. ANY form of government. If you can show me where he was a card carrrying member of the GOP, I'll stand down.
Nice try lumping these sociopaths to the Republican Party, but me thinks you need to do some home work before spewing your ignorance on this forum.
I forgot to give you Adkisson. While I can't find anything that says he was a card carrying GOP member, his testimony of and for "hating liberals" will suffice to give you credit for one example.
Put the Warren Report in the ground. Oswald was a patsy.
There is much more to the Oswald story. Research it. Just don't use the Warren Report as your guide.
*************TIN FOIL HAT ALERT!********
Oh do tell Rabbit!
Popcorn popping and cold beer ready for this!
Please tell me this is the new Area 51 twist!
I said research it yourself. I am not your 'assistant' here.
You must be one of the 12 still-living individuals who believe the Warren Commission Report. I pity you and your ignorance.
OK flop house. YOU STAND by your moronic statements! A cursory look by any fourth grader can show your statements as patently FALSE.
MMfA, your flock strays...
See, right there it is. Associate liberals with enemies of capitalism, the enemy within theme. Go F yourself, hog. You are as guilty, in spreading eliminationist rhetoric, as Savage.
"While Mcveigh was affiliated with white supremist groups, he was anti-government. ANY form of government. "
He doesn't need to be a card carrying GOPer to share the Republican anti-government ideology. He was a right-winger, a violent rightie. And white supremacy? You Republicans have appealed, in varying degrees of subtlety, to the racist vote in every election since 1968.
You people are sicko haters and you're destroying our country with you anti-democratic, authoritarian thug tactics of violence and intimidation. Face it. You jerks have become the Party of the corporo-fascists, the Party of the jingo-fascists.
You Republicans are straight haters of openess and diversity. Thank God and goodness for you that we liberals have big hearts. We still love you and have hope for you.
Flop house ranted:
He doesn't need to be a card carrying GOPer to share the Republican anti-government ideology. He was a right-winger, a violent rightie
So now you're moving the goal posts. Your statement was;
"Look at what the wing nuts in your party are capable of "
As I'll point out for you again (you seem a little SLOW on the uptake), that Oswald, Ray, Sirhan, McVeigh were NOT in the REPUBLICAN PARTY. They had views all over the political spectrum among them.
Am I to understand that you are equating ALL right leaning people to your examples? IF that's the case then can I ASSUME that because Barry O is associated with the WEATHER UNDERGROUND founder then He's associated with Left wing terrorism?
Just wanted to check because MMfA has used considerable bandwidth to disassociate Barry O with WU...just wondering??????
Really? In what ways were those cats liberal?
They just happened to kill liberals because they held liberal views, I guess. Screw that. The right is violent, the right hates, the right motivates through fear and bully tactics. I know you want to run away from the truth, so you play the thick headed literalist; you glom on to my saying that the members of your party are haters. As if the Republican Party isn't full of murderous right right-wing creeps.
So, here. Allow me to amend myself only slightly:
The right is hate.
The right is extremist.
And the weather underground? How many people did they kill?
But seriously, you roll that argument out while you hyperventilate over actual examples of right-wing murderers because you can dish out, not up, your own right-wing guilt by association tactics when they're used against you. Stinking hypocrite. At least what I'm saying is real. You cons are fantacists.
Flop house. There is a saying when you've dug yourself a hole to deep to crawl out of, stop digging. Ever heard of that one? No? You've dug a deep hole.
There is no point in carrying this on. You haven't backed up your assertions not once, but you've managed to to come unhinged and call names and basically admit that what you posted was complete nonsense.
I'm going to help you out a bit and get you up to speed on some facts so you'll stop making an ass of yourself on here:
weather underground
left wing terror study by Dept of Energy
As for how many people the WU killed. Four by my count. I'm sure you'll try and justify it like most left leaning sites do. The good news is by your standards we can link Barry to Boudin and Ayers' with impunity now!
Thanks Flophouse!
Anyway, I point out specific instances of liberals being killed for being liberal and you don't consider that support of my argument? I'd say that I did a fine job. It's not my fault you can't face the truth or that you can't hear the violent imagery and language on right wing radio.
And Bill Ayers? Really? That dog won't hunt. The association between Ayers and Obama has been shown to be weak at best, not to mention about 35 years too late to be of any significance.
The right is hate. Own it. Own it like you guys own the Rush Coulter O'Reilly Malkin Hannity Savage monster.
Look at what the wing nuts in your party are capable of. MLK, Bobby Kennedy, JFK. Look at McVeigh's handy work, or Jim Adkisson
Now you're saying:
Anyway, I point out specific instances of liberals being killed for being liberal and you don't consider that support of my argument?
How did we go from "nut in your party" to "libs being killed for being libs"? NO that doesn't support your argument if you can call it that. More like a rant.
STOP DIGGING RH...You can't back up your post. As much as you want to change the subject and deflect I'm not letting you off the hook.
I'll give you another chance. Show where "libs were killed for being libs".
I should save you the trouble, because you can't do it. Your only case is Adkisson (you hope because the only evidence is preliminary at this point ). NONE of the high profile cases can be linked to "liberal being killed for being a liberal".
I'm glad you read the left wing terror link. It is very enlightening. You are correct left wing terrorism has waned over the last ten years, but the article also states that left wing terror groups are alive and well. Just as right wing extremist groups. If you read it as you say then you know that terrorism runs in cycles. The focus is right wing now but the study says it would be a mistake to ignore left wing cells.
Remember this was written before the events of 9/11, and islamic terrorism has been shown to be more in line with left wing terror cells due to the state sponsorship of the cells.
Totally specious. That's a weak connection at best, unless of course you believe the left is out to subjugate women or impose Islamic law in the manner that right-wing dominionisst seek to impose Biblical law on our country.
So, just maybe I can't prove that the following list of haters are GOPers, but you can rest assured that their extreme right-wing ideology is more in line with Republican family values than Democratic values.
Now, there was no need to protest the funeral of Falwell, but do you think was appropriate for this Mark D Uhl kid to build bombs to answer them?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=3201543&page=1
Then there's this Aryan. How many Aryans vote Republican? Many more, probably 100% more, than vote for Dems.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/05/other-kinds-of-terrorists.html
How could we forget the abortion clinic bombers and Dr. killers?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm
Then tere are these Republicans:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/nov2000/elec-n24.pdf
On Wednesday morning a mob of Bush
supporters besieged the Miami/Dade County board of
canvassers, grabbing a Democratic lawyer and threatening to
assault those involved in manually recounting the ballots. A few
hours later the Democratic-controlled board announced it was
abandoning its recount, effectively disenfranchising hundreds
of Gore supporters whose votes were not registered in the
original machine tally.
Gotta go dinner's on. I'll be back later.
Roundhouse, I don't like to call names on this forum as it usually means you have lost the debate, but you are tempting me....your handle is apt...Roundhouse punches take a lot of energy and are rarely effective!
RH posted:
Totally specious. That's a weak connection at best, unless of course you believe the left is out to subjugate women or impose Islamic law in the manner that right-wing dominionisst seek to impose Biblical law on our country.
No Round, not specious. Not a weak connection. I never said the left was out to impose sharia law. I'll let the experts fill in the rest for you;
A lefty blog explaining some things
More good stuff on left & right terrorist
An quote from Dr. Amy Zalman, PHd, expert on domestic terrorism;
Some Leftists Become Islamists
The end of the Cold War does not entirely explain what happens to left-leaning violent extremists, however. As Robison, Crenshaw and Jenkins relate, when the socialist justification lost its full force, would-be terrorists had to find new ideologies to legitimate themselves, which may explain the rise of both Islamist and ethno-nationalist claims among terrorist groups.
Additionally, even though Islamist tendencies may appear on their surface more conservative and "right wing" than left, they have some subterranean likeness:
Since you didn't link anything to support your arguments, and I'm WAY to lazy to go chasing you down rabbit holes, I'll just grab a couple of your examples and let you mull that over this weekend.
Ayran and clinic bombings. You do realize that the FBI classifies these as SPECIAL INTEREST crimes and can fall under hate crimes. They are mostly left wing with the exception of Rudolph who they classified as right wing. The Atlanta Olymipic bombing had no political motivation and is still unclassified. My point in this is that you can't pigonhole every terrorist act as REPUBLICAN as you have tried to do several times here.
I've been posting on this forum for three years now. Long enough to see trends. I'll let you in on a little secret Roundhouse. If no other libs are chiming in and coming to your rescue, then that's a good bet you're pushing a losing hand!
Look around...only the rabbit tried to help and he went squealling down his hole as the facts started stacking up against you.
The quote from Dr.Zalman didn't come out:
Although Islamist and traditional Leftist ideology may be logically incompatible systems, our analysis indicates their deep kinship at the level of terrorist action. Both spring from the social strains of transitional development and are facilitated by political opportunities associated with increased political rights. Both are likewise spurred by Western military dependency and yet are reduced by foreign investment.
I forgot this also:
Italy's left wingers dabbling with islam
If no other libs are chiming in and coming to your rescue, then that's a good bet you're pushing a losing hand! - hogprint
Or he's kicking your ass, and doesn't need any help. The mob mentality toward a losing cause is more of a conservative play.
So you're backing this statement chicken hauler?
Roundhouse posted:
Look at what the wing nuts in your party are capable of. MLK, Bobby Kennedy, JFK. Look at McVeigh's handy work, or Jim Adkisson
You support this? Please show me where they were Republicans. Flophouse hasn't backed it up yet and neither can you.
The flophouse has tried his best to squirm away from his rant but he cant do it.
I'm going to let you two morons in on the obvious. JE Ray and Oswald were convicted FELONS and a defector respectively. Both did not have the RIGHT to vote. Sirhan was a Palestinian sympathizer that was affiliated with two pro -arab campus groups. Mcveigh was anit-gov and had NO party affiliation. Adkisson was the only example that MIGHT fit the bill. I can't find a party affiliation yet, but he said he "hated" liberals, so I've given the flopper credit for that ONE.
If you'd have taken the time to read the links you'd know this. Go back and educate yourself Lieutenant, you've been demoted from Col for being stupid.
I did. You have to copy those nosensical lines that start with http://www......and then paste them in your browser thingy. I don't know what else to do. My laptop used to post single click links, but it doesn't since MMFA updated the site.
"SPECIAL INTEREST crimes" So that negates the fact that they are violent acts, carried out by right-wing loons? Maybe it simply means they carried put by lobbyists?
But now I know you're delusional, when you say of abortion clinic bombers and Aryans, "are mostly left wing with the exception of Rudolph who they classified as right wing." You are out of your mind. Left wingers bombing abortion clinics and wearing sheets? No. That would be a bunch of right wingers.
"Both spring from the social strains of transitional development and are facilitated by political opportunities associated with increased political rights." That's the aim of any terrorist group, that is a big reason why groups resort to terrorism: to make their voice heard. To call Islamic terrorism left wing is indeed specious, and indeed feeds the GOP meme of liberals are your enemy. Your boy sounds like a hack
"My point in this is that you can't pigonhole every terrorist act as REPUBLICAN as you have tried to do several times here. "
Beside the fact that is not what I'm doing, you do seem to think it's OK for you to pin right wing violence on the the left. What I initially said and let you get away with distorting it, is that hate and violence is baked into the Republican cake. I wrote, "Look at what the wing nuts in your party are capable of. MLK, Bobby Kennedy, JFK. Look at McVeigh's handy work, or Jim Adkisson. Then you can soak up violent rhetoric on most any radio station, You can listen to Savage, Limbaugh, Coulter, Hannity, Gibson, O'Reilly and on and on. You can listen to them preach violence and then you can listen to actual preachers preach violence. If that ain't enough, you can have your elected officials paint us as the enemy within, too. don't pretend you haven't heard them tell us we'll get hit again if we vote for Democrats."
It's for you o make the distinction between right-wing and Republican. I don't. The right wing calls the shots in the Republican Party, Just look at McCain. Even that guy has to placate the loons and reverse his position from a to z.
But to say that I'm moving goal posts, as far as I can see, is you trying to run away from the fact that right-wing rhetoric is infected with violence and that the right-wingers are committing acts aof violence today.
Oh, Yeah. Let's stick with the U.S. I did. When I googled Republican violence, I came up with a boat load of links to Irish Republicans. I know you guys aren't Irish Republicans are you? What does Italy have to with you and I?
Oh, oh yeah. I don't care if I'm not getting any back-up here. It's a dead thread. The fellow lefties here have just as often pointed out when I'm pushing a losing as when I'm tearing down a wacko. Nobody (except my good buddy CHS) is paying attention.
Your obvious lack of computer skills aside, I haven't the time or energy to cut and paste your"nonsensical" lines. When you get up to speed and make it easy like the rest of us do, then I'll chase your windmills. My advice...get an Apple! :)
You said:
"SPECIAL INTEREST crimes" So that negates the fact that they are violent acts, carried out by right-wing loons? Maybe it simply means they carried put by lobbyists?
I didn't say they negate anything. I'm pointing out that is how the FBI classifies these crimes and they don't necessarily fall under left/right wing. It's in the link you were supposed to have read...
But now I know you're delusional, when you say of abortion clinic bombers and Aryans, "are mostly left wing with the exception of Rudolph who they classified as right wing." You are out of your mind. Left wingers bombing abortion clinics and wearing sheets? No. That would be a bunch of right wingers.
I can see were you might get confused in the wording here. I could have wordsmithed this one better..."mostly left wing" refers to "SPECIAL CRIMES" as defined by the FBI. I did put the quantifier about Rudolph because YOU brought up abortion clinic bombings. Once again, it's all in the links the EXPERTS ON DOMESTIC TERRORISM wrote. I put my faith in their erudite knowledge, not on your obvious left wing talking points.
My suggestion Round...put down your ancient laptop and watch the Olympics the rest of the weekend. Cheer your country on to victory...I hear the Russians are making a better go of it now after an eighteen year layoff!
"It kind of reminds me of Vladimir Putin invading Georgia"
A symbolic vote endorsed by both Obama and Clinton = Putin invading Georgia?
Hyperbole much?