Dems So full of anger and hate

[Sapper Woody]

A note to Great Pretender supporters: Name calling will not get a response from the rest of us. Blasting us with outrageous nonsense about the Republicans being "kidnappers, jihadists, terrorists, arsonists" etc., will result in complete non-responsiveness from the rest of us. So if you have anything substantive to contribute, by all means do so. But if you can do nothing but denigrate your opposition -- in the exact same fashion your dear leader does -- prepare to be left in a cone of silence all by yourselves.

Discuss the issues intelligently -- and believe it or not, we have -- or shut up. Your call.

(The above is exactly what Boehner et al should tell the Senate and the White House.)

I hope that was said tongue in cheek. While I'm not a President Obama supporter, I can easily spot the hypocrisy in this one post alone.

 

[Crabtownboy]

the President is a Marxist. That is not a pejorative intended to slight him it is a fact that expresses his political views. Saying that does not even compare to the violent language that is being used by Democrats and by at least one poster on this board.

Continuing your misinformation and false reporting about Obama. You have yet to show which of the ten tenets of Marxism Obama has pushed for. Of course you posted, and keep pulling out an old post that also fails. Rev. being so dishonest is very unbecoming a minister.

In case you have forgotten the ten tenets here they are again:

The expropriation of landed property and the use of rent from land to cover state expenditure;
A high and progressively graded income-tax;
A abolition of the right of inheritance;
The confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels;
The centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by the establishment of a state bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly;
The centralization of transport in the hands of the state;
An increase in the state ownership of factories and instruments of production, and the redistribution and amelioration of agricultural land on a general plan;
Universal obligation to work and creation of labour armies especially for agriculture;
The unification of agricultural with industrial labour, and the gradual abolition of the differences between town and country;
The public education of all children. Abolition of factory labour for children in its present form. Unification of education with economic production.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I hope that was said tongue in cheek.

It wasn't. And there is no hypocrisy included in that post.

 

[saturneptune]

I hope that was said tongue in cheek. While I'm not a President Obama supporter, I can easily spot the hypocrisy in this one post alone.

Look, there was no hypocrisy in that post. He said what he believes from the heart. The people of the United States have had enough of the nonsense in Washington from both sides. Not only have they had enough, it will not take much more for them to take matters in their own hands.

We all have a right to our opinion. We also have rights the Constitution gives us. What gives you the right to call a post hypocritical from a fellow veteran that has been through exactly what you are.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

When Dems haven't got any legitimate points to make, they resort to name calling and distraction. It's just what they do. The strategy du jour has been to paint their idealogical opponents as terrorists, killers, and crazed arsonists. This bizarre course of action - coupled with their refusal to compromise - has succeeded in precisely nothing. - See more at: http://www.caintv.com/great-new-republican-web-ad-ta#sthash.baw1AQ0B.dpuf

video included

The Affordable Care Act IS the compromise. Obama wanted a single-payer system, but compromised with the GOP to get it passed. It is the law of the land.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

The Affordable Care Act IS the compromise. Obama wanted a single-payer system, but compromised with the GOP to get it passed. It is the law of the land.

Your eyes are brown.

The Democrats didn't need a compromise. They had a majority in both houses. A veto-proof majority. Now that the majority of the American people actually see -- four years later! -- what was in the bill "we had to pass to see what was in the bill," they don't want it. Fifty-seven percent of them don't want it. The Democrats don't want to repeal it. They want to force socialism down our throats. But this country is still a democratic republic, and the majority still rules, even if the party not in control of one of the houses of Congress has to take a defiant stand to give the majority a voice.

Don't post, please, unless you can do so without spinning history.

 

[Magnetic Poles]

Don't post, please, unless you can do so without spinning history.

Sorry, but your view of this is the spin. You also are not the posting police, so I'll post what I want. If you can't stand it, try the ignore button.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Sorry, but your view of this is the spin.

So stating the facts that the Democrats had a 60-40 majority in the Senate and a 236-199 majority in the House is "spin"? Tell me again how Republicans "compromised" when every single one of those 239 Republicans voted against the ACA?

 

[Revmitchell]

The Affordable Care Act IS the compromise. Obama wanted a single-payer system, but compromised with the GOP to get it passed. It is the law of the land.

And all laws can be changed and repealed. No law is so set in stone that it can't.

 

[Sapper Woody]

Look, there was no hypocrisy in that post.

Really!? He called the president "The Great Pretender" and then in the very next sentence proceeded to say that the dems calling names was the wrong answer. In two sentences he demonstrated hypocrisy.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Really!? He called the president "The Great Pretender" and then in the very next sentence proceeded to say that the dems calling names was the wrong answer. In two sentences he demonstrated hypocrisy.

Ah, gee whiz Sapper, now you are going to confuse them with the facts. :laugh:

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Really!? He called the president "The Great Pretender" and then in the very next sentence proceeded to say that the dems calling names was the wrong answer. In two sentences he demonstrated hypocrisy.

You prove to me he isn't pretending to power, legacy, and greatness, and I'll retract the nickname I use all the time for him. Otherwise, that isn't hypocrisy.

 

[Revmitchell]

Really!? He called the president "The Great Pretender" and then in the very next sentence proceeded to say that the dems calling names was the wrong answer. In two sentences he demonstrated hypocrisy.

The problem is the violent nature of what the Dems are saying. Completely different.

 

[Sapper Woody]

You prove to me he isn't pretending to power, legacy, and greatness, and I'll retract the nickname I use all the time for him. Otherwise, that isn't hypocrisy.

You are justifying your name calling, the same exact way the other side is. You can't tell them to not name call when you do. That's hypocrisy. And, even if you are 100% correct, name calling is still name calling. It's meant to degrade another person's opinion about someone without giving them a full picture.

 

[Sapper Woody]

The problem is the violent nature of what the Dems are saying. Completely different.

As I said, name calling is simply an attempt to degrade people's opinion of someone. This is a mental propaganda attack. It's the same thing trying to achieve the same goals using the same tactic, only using different words.

 

[Revmitchell]

As I said, name calling is simply an attempt to degrade people's opinion of someone. This is a mental propaganda attack. It's the same thing trying to achieve the same goals using the same tactic, only using different words.

No sir it is not only using different words. It is ratcheting the rhetoric up to make the opposing view equal to violent behavior. Bill is doing it on this board and the dems are doing it every day. It is completely different and over the top.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

It's meant to degrade another person's opinion about someone without giving them a full picture.

If I wanted to portray the complete picture, I'd be using a lot stronger language than "Great Pretender."

 

[just-want-peace]

If I wanted to portray the complete picture, I'd be using a lot stronger language than "Great Pretender."

A great big AMEN to this!!!!:BangHead:

 

[Zaac]

No sir it is not only using different words. It is ratcheting the rhetoric up to make the opposing view equal to violent behavior. Bill is doing it on this board and the dems are doing it every day. It is completely different and over the top.

Yep. Pure hypocrisy. Love how y'all go into overdrive to justify doing the same thing you call the Dems on.:laugh:

 

[Sapper Woody]

No sir it is not only using different words. It is ratcheting the rhetoric up to make the opposing view equal to violent behavior. Bill is doing it on this board and the dems are doing it every day. It is completely different and over the top.

Is it not "ratcheting the rhetoric up" to accuse someone of intentionally trying to run the government into the ground? To say that he does not care about our country? To say that he's going to give it over to the Muslims?

What you fail to realize is that calling the president "The Great Pretender" is equally as serious and "ratcheted up" as what the democrats are saying. One simply has to do with violence, the other with subterfuge. Both are equally serious. Both are used with the intention to demonize someone in the eyes of others.

And then to write out that no name calling will be replied to and to try to call others out for name calling, the sentence after one calls names? That is pure hypocrisy.

Now, before I go on with this little bit, let me say that I did not vote for President Obama. I do not like many of the decisions he's made. I do not agree with many of his policies. But let me ask you this, do you think God was surprised when President Obama was elected? Do you think this is out of God's hands? I don't. And since this is the man that God has allowed to take the leadership position in this country, I will not disrespect him by calling him "The Great Pretender", or any other such names. It is disrespectful, and it is un-Godly. Whether you like him or not, he is still your leader. He is still the elected head of our country. And he is the man that God has allowed to take office.