“Republican Party is a domestic terror group”

Then you've been really, really lucky.

Even Noam Chomsky, the greatest living intellectual in the English-speaking world, has compared the GOP to a terrorist organization, Paul Ryan to Svengali, etc.

Of course, it's an analogy and not a categorical legal statement.
I've actually encountered real terrorists, on multiple occasions in my life...

Even borderline terrorists like WBC and BLM are substantially more terroristic than anything supported by checks and balances
 
I've actually encountered real terrorists, on multiple occasions in my life...

Even borderline terrorists like WBC and BLM are substantially more terroristic than anything supported by checks and balances

Jose Sulaiman was a corrupt dipshit, but not a terrorist. BLM isn't even a group, much less a terrorist group.

Anyway, yeah, terrorism is the use of violence for political ends by non-state actors. The GOP isn't doing that. It is, as @K1levelgrappler said, the worst party in the developed world. They're actively trying to undermine America's institutions, but not through terrorism.
 
Jose Sulaiman was a corrupt dipshit, but not a terrorist.

Anyway, yeah, terrorism is the use of violence for political ends by non-state actors. The GOP isn't doing that. It is, as @K1levelgrappler said, the worst party in the developed world. They're actively trying to undermine America's institutions, but not through terrorism.
I know what terrorism is......spent years of my life combatting it and my younger brother is permanently wounded from a specific terrorist activity

The GOP is, to me, not substantially worse than the Liberal party of Canada
 
I know what terrorism is......spent years of my life combatting it and my younger brother is permanently wounded from a specific terrorist activity

The GOP is, to me, not substantially worse than the Liberal party of Canada

What do you think of their support of Roy Moore? It seems to me, liberals often characterize the GOP as being guys like Moore (no respect for rule of law, criminally sleazy in personal life while thumping his bible publicly, comical views on gays, racist, etc.) and the response is to deny that they're really like that. But here we have a guy who fits the bill perfectly, and the party is behind him. Likewise, the tax bills Republicans in the Senate and House voted for seems like a liberal caricature, but it's real. I think sane conservatives have to come to terms with the fact that the party has been taken over by loons. And the dishonest right-wing media combined with a base that largely believes crazy CTs about the MSM is the heart of the problem.
 
What do you think of their support of Roy Moore? It seems to me, liberals often characterize the GOP as being guys like Moore (no respect for rule of law, criminally sleazy in personal life while thumping his bible publicly, comical views on gays, racist, etc.) and the response is to deny that they're really like that. But here we have a guy who fits the bill perfectly, and the party is behind him. Likewise, the tax bills Republicans in the Senate and House voted for seems like a liberal caricature, but it's real. I think sane conservatives have to come to terms with the fact that the party has been taken over by loons. And the dishonest right-wing media combined with a base that largely believes crazy CTs about the MSM is the heart of the problem.
It's disgusting, to me personally, and I don't know why they wouldn't simply try to find a more suitable candidate rather than double down just to beat a DEM

I'd rather lose honorably, than win shadily. But I guess that's not realistic in today's political atmosphere
 
Jesus fuck.

You have gotten substantially more incoherent and shameless in your stupidity as of late. You're not even trying to stay on topic. Like, I know that your political outlook is just a schizophrenic collage of paranoia and tiny bits of surface knowledge on issues that scare you, but you're being affirmatively hostile and non-substantive in this thread.

I give it a month before you're banned.



I notice you couldn't dispute a single thing I said...


LOL at me getting banned. Looking at your join date, you likely know something about being banned. I've received 1 yellow card in that whole time (2 tops). Unless pointing out Bill Clinton is a rapist is a ban'able offense. I'll be here laughing at you for years to come.
 
It's disgusting, to me personally, and I don't know why they wouldn't simply try to find a more suitable candidate rather than double down just to beat a DEM

I'd rather lose honorably, than win shadily. But I guess that's not realistic in today's political atmosphere

I think it is realistic. The Moore case is a good example. It's a short-term win (assuming he wins tomorrow), but it can't be good for them long term. Likewise with Trump. It seems to me that the GOP thinks that the house is on fire and they just want to loot it on the way out the door. But that's not based on anything real. Fear of demographic change might be behind it, but politics doesn't work that way. What we're already seeing is more and more Hispanics identifying as white and voting like other whites. If Republicans started losing elections, they'd make changes to their approach. It's always going to be a roughly even split between two parties, though the character of those parties will change and possibly their name.
 
I think it is realistic. The Moore case is a good example. It's a short-term win (assuming he wins tomorrow), but it can't be good for them long term. Likewise with Trump. It seems to me that the GOP thinks that the house is on fire and they just want to loot it on the way out the door. But that's not based on anything real. Fear of demographic change might be behind it, but politics doesn't work that way. What we're already seeing is more and more Hispanics identifying as white and voting like other whites. If Republicans started losing elections, they'd make changes to their approach. It's always going to be a roughly even split between two parties, though the character of those parties will change and possibly their name.
all good pts

they also need some 'new blood' in the GOP, and the relatively younger Cruz, Ryan, and Rubio aren't cutting it (Rubio may actually be the best fit for that). Even moreso if they want to actually attract more minorities and millennials which obviously impact the voting demographics from here on out

They were able to win this time by saying 'better then the left's option" or 'the last 8 years' or 'not HRC' or 'muh guns' or whatever....kinda hard to do that when you've been in office the last 2-4 years. There's no real boogeyman to depict, well unless that switches totally towards Islamic immigration which I think is a real possibility
 
He wants to lock up the opposing side, which was brought to power democratically by the American people, yet has the nerve to call them the terrorists. I used to enjoy watching left-leaning news to see what the other side was saying, but nowadays it's like watching foreign propaganda. When you hear about North Korean generals loving MSNBC, you know something is very fucking wrong there. They should be shut down.
 
Do I agree with hyperbole? Never. I recognize it as hyperbole and try to address the point the speaker is trying to make.

I do agree with asking oneself what the GOP has done to help America over the last decade or so.
 
some of them say some crazy shit
the stupidity can even be scary

but I don't think that makes them terrorists
 
I think chomsky' definition is better because it holds everyone responsible for their actions. But even if we go by your's you get hilarious conclusions like 'america was founded by terrorists'.
I don't use the more narrow definition to excuse actions by states, I just think its more useful to use a different term for them. In the case of unjustified US aggression I would call it something like imperialism or something along those lines.

As for the idea that the US was founded by terrorists, yeah its kek worthy and true by my standard and I still stand by my definition. I don't see terrorists as inherently bad or anything and obviously in the case of the American independence movement I'd say it was terrorism for a just cause. If you're facing a truly tyrannical regime that has closed of all channels for peaceful political action and non-violent resistance is not viable for one reason or another I'd argue terrorism might arguably be the moral course of action.
 
That doesn't sound like an alternative or much of a difference compared to the current USA Democratic party, which is more center right than left as it is.

The US democrats are already mostly to the right of UK Conservatives for example.

I mean even Thatcher didn't sell of the NHS and Bernie is considered far left for wanting an American version.
Yeah that's true, I even thought of that as I typed it out. Still, the GOP is more adamant in defending the market from state regulation than the Dems. Dems like the market but they're more liberal with the red tape than the GOP and are less willing to propose more radical alternative solutions like leftists in Europe.
 
Do I agree with hyperbole? Never. I recognize it as hyperbole and try to address the point the speaker is trying to make.

I do agree with asking oneself what the GOP has done to help America over the last decade or so.
*3 decades
 
Do I agree with hyperbole? Never. I recognize it as hyperbole and try to address the point the speaker is trying to make.

I do agree with asking oneself what the GOP has done to help America over the last decade or so.
That most people do the opposite here is one thing that bugs me about some in the WR. They take an inflammatory headline or statement and just point and laugh at it in isolation instead of trying to understand the point that's trying to be made. In many cases the point that is trying to be made is also silly and hyperbolic but at least understand what it is you're ridiculing.
 
Hmm, he sure left the thread in a hurry after this.
Lol. I have a life dude.

I never said Trump was not an idiot. Or a flip flopper. He's WAY wrong on fucking Iran for instance. But through his first year he has yet to topple a regime. That's a good thing.

I don't support toppling countries no matter what the party.

I don't throw on a NeoCon jacket because one party is in office like some
 
I get you, but you excused him via his stupidity. That's a cold pardon lol. I just say fuck him and his parents.

Lol. This is funny. In a separate thread Trotsky said there were no Kidnapping statutes in IL. I politely corrected him. And he's a lawyer. That's how conversations are conducted.

You on the other hand contribute next to nothing but insults. And are a complete hypocrite who will support wars depending on who's in office.

Get the fuck out of here
 
Last edited:
Ha ha ha ha. That sh*t is funny. I like how people pretend that one party is any better than the other. Bush era NSA spying / data collection within CONUS continues or evolves under Obama. Gun running into Mexico (operation Linebacker) happens under Bush, gets shut down, and a similar operation (Fast and Furious) is implemented under Obama resulting in the loss of two lives. Drone strikes in the Middle East after 9/11 under Bush further expanded under Obama.


As far as Domestic Terrorism goes; I give Dems a slight edge as Sanctuary Cities seem to exist solely to impose misery upon US Citizens while allowing MS13, Barrio 18, Barrio Azteca, the Mexican Mafia, and other gangs cities to operate in and room to grow with plenty of young illegals to swell their ranks.

A very good post among the hyperbole.

Both parties are crap.

Republicans blindly follow the men in blue

Democrats blindly follow Intelligence

Both can care less about our rights or our day to day lives
 
Back
Top