Comments on: Conservatives Lash Out At Administration Guidelines On Terrorism Language: It’s ‘McCarthyism In Reverse’

By: youtube

youtube — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 05:05:20 +0000

Arguing with them is the same as arguing with your cat. They will scratch, they will hiss, and even on their best days they still, for reasonssohbet unbeknown to the rest of us, pee on your carpet. Hoekstra et al are racist thugs. They will not understand a document as important at the one reported Bedava mp3 indirby the A.P. What this document has said is that for years, words like Jihadists, Islamic Terrorism, Islamic Extremism etccet have done nothing but castigate Muslim men and women.

By: Loonie

Loonie — Wed, 14 May 2008 19:02:36 +0000

No one has religious authority.

By: Oval12345678 aka James K. Sayre

Oval12345678 aka James K. Sayre — Tue, 13 May 2008 17:07:42 +0000

Mr. Hoekstra: get a haircut!

By: SkepticRising

SkepticRising — Tue, 13 May 2008 16:31:19 +0000

It’s ironic that the very first time the administration does something regarding fighting terrorism that seems to make sense, the Republicans are rabidly against it. I think this just points out that the right wing message machine needs to have short and exotic sounding labels to create the boogie-man branding they need for their fear mongering. I mean, without a label that their followers don’t undertand, how can they define the ‘other’ that we have to fear and hate and blow up?

By: phred42

phred42 — Tue, 13 May 2008 14:12:13 +0000

Where the hell are the Democrats?
Why aren’t any Democrats “lashing out?”

Pelosi & Reid are the Silent Partners of the Cons. Both are cowards and have let SO MANY opportunities go by. Both MUST be replaced it we are to make ANY progress at all.

By: dbadass

dbadass — Tue, 13 May 2008 13:08:26 +0000

Doesn’t this charade bore you?

By: misshusseinmolly

misshusseinmolly — Tue, 13 May 2008 12:20:04 +0000

What Hoekstra isn’t saying, of course, is that it fits their agenda if these terrorist criminals ARE glamorized and glorified. As long as there is a “war” on, the neocons believe they have a free pass to erode our freedoms, invade our privacy, and build dictatorial power for themselves. And the only way we can stay “at war” is if we keep the enemy viable.

The other element of the plan is to keep the American populace in a state of fear, and therefore easily controlled. This means conflating this relatively piddling number of violent crackpots with all 1.5 billion Muslims of the world. They HAVE to fan the flames of anti-Muslim bigotry; it’s the keystone of their agenda.

Hoekstra’s protests merely indicate that the neocons have no intention of reducing the terrorist threat — in fact, it serves their purpose to keep it alive as much as possible.

By: Ashen Shard

Ashen Shard — Tue, 13 May 2008 12:02:55 +0000

Wait, so if McCarthyism in reverse is bad, is he saying that McCarthyism is good? That is the logical conclusion, but of course I’m forgetting that logic is far from the grasp of someone who is proud to be Republican.

By: shellyT

shellyT — Tue, 13 May 2008 11:00:03 +0000

I remember when Bush described our elusive “enemy” as “Islamofascists” or the verbally twisted “rejectionists” which is just too hard to say, especially for him. At one point our enemy was “ordinary Iraqis”. I remember that one very clearly because my jaw actually dropped.

There have been a hundred words so far for whoever it is that our enemy is this week. We would like a real definition one of these days, not these vague all-encompassing phrases. We need less terminology guides and more honesty from these losers.

Who is our enemy?

By: naldo

naldo — Tue, 13 May 2008 06:32:13 +0000

Only a Republican could be stupid enough to think “anti-McCarthyism” is something to be avoided.

Wikipedia has this to say: “Since the time of McCarthy, the word “McCarthyism” has entered American speech as a general term for a variety of distasteful practices.”

Against something distasteful? That would be anti-Republican!

By: sectionop92

sectionop92 — Tue, 13 May 2008 04:46:33 +0000

Glamorization of war makes it enticing, keeping these jacka$$es in office. If these GOP nut-jobs are scatter-brained over terminology useage in prior-approved guidelines, they’re pulling at threads and hoping something starts unraveling. Nothing stirs these a-holes’ juices like labeling a group out of fear and pure hate. And you can never educate a dug-in conservative that not all Muslims/Arabs want to kill us. They either all own AK-47’s and rocket launchers and beat their wives for showing too much cheekbone or they’re techno wizards who can turn a coffee can into a functioning WMD. They’ll storm the borders if Glenn Beck & Co. can’t lay down more of the same fence that’s helped 12 million-plus immigrants, illegal or otherwise, cross into our nation. We’re dealing with the same types of minds who called for charges in World War I after the first four advances got mowed down and the commanders said that the fifth either jumps out of the bunker, goes over the top and advances or gets shot if they don’t…whatever, it was just a waste of mind and men. And the same commanders would just be able to do this all again, just like the GOP.

By: republicanSScareme

republicanSScareme — Tue, 13 May 2008 04:43:22 +0000

The Republican Party is the party of hate. It has become the Nazi Party, as everyone can see.

By: hussein toasterhead

hussein toasterhead — Tue, 13 May 2008 04:20:40 +0000

numfar Says:

Believe me when I say I hear that argument A LOT in Michigan.

May 12th, 2008 at 11:40 pm

Doesn’t Michigan have a huge Arab population? How did this meathead get elected?

By: ralph the wonder llama

ralph the wonder llama — Tue, 13 May 2008 04:01:06 +0000

Hoekstra provides more proof, if any were needed, that Republicans don’t care about lessenng the threat of terrorism.

In fact, it’s pretty clear that their aim is to provoke more terrorism, because they found that, for a while, terrorism works for them. They can keep America scared and unwilling to stand up against their authoritarian bullsh**.

By: dbadass

dbadass — Tue, 13 May 2008 03:52:04 +0000

RUCerious Says:
Completely OT but couldn’t resist.
What will Rev Hagee blame the Chinese earthquake on:

—–
I assume there is significant scrutiny of this radical cleric at this point?

By: Gregor Samsa

Gregor Samsa — Tue, 13 May 2008 03:44:04 +0000

Interesting how these conservatives do not have any problem with McCarthyism; only with “reverse McCarthysim”, ie when they are (or think they are) on the receiving end.

And I am still trying to understand how the use of accurate & descriptive terms amounts to political prosecution in Mr. Hoekstra’s paranoid little brain.

By: RUCerious

RUCerious — Tue, 13 May 2008 03:41:17 +0000

Hey Hokey! Read Pogo.

By: numfar

numfar — Tue, 13 May 2008 03:40:44 +0000

Believe me when I say I hear that argument A LOT in Michigan.

By: RUCerious

RUCerious — Tue, 13 May 2008 03:40:15 +0000

Completely OT but couldn’t resist.
What will Rev Hagee blame the Chinese earthquake on:

a. They are soulless, godless commies

b. They eat their gay babies

c. They aren’t going to imprison and execute the gay athletes at the upcoming Olymics.

By: Roket

Roket — Tue, 13 May 2008 03:09:45 +0000

Is that all there is to a Republican??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRWcPoxmZos