In the discussion thread: To Those that say tyranny,tyranny- I say BULL. You are free/open writing here on a worldwide board [View all]
Response to graham4anything (Reply #53)
Sun Jan 20, 2013, 01:39 PM
stupidicus (938 posts)
63. too funny
I don't see any major distinctions of the kind you drew here present in the top post I responded (which a reference to the continued existence of Faux Views alone as proof tyranny isn't here yet doesn't qualify as) to, just the generic "whiners/some will never be happy/etc stuff that usually comes from those around here totally critical and intolerant of any dissent/criticism of the POTUS, whether his actions like the referenced assassination program are couched in "tyranny" terms or not. We are often called "whiners", rightwingers, etc,. Furthermore, in the TP you don't even note what whoever is even applying such rhetoric to. SO what now, despite the inarguable vagueness of your material/case made, and the assuming that promotes, that we're guilty of not being able to read your mind? Based on your first sentence in the subject line, I would have naturally assumed you're most likely talking about the NRA types, but you went off the rail with the second sentence, since it referenced DU posters I've never seen refer to him dirctly as a "tyrant".
The adoption of a formal guide to targeted killing marks a significant — and to some uncomfortable — milestone: the institutionalization of a practice that would have seemed anathema to many before the Sept. 11 , 2001, terrorist attacks.http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-drone-strikes-will-get-pass-in-counterterrorism-playbook-officials-say/2013/01/19/ca169a20-618d-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_story.html?hpid=z1
and this is just one of several ongoing "whines" around here associated with his "tyranny", which includes but is not limited to, the FBI/OWS, pot raids, warrantless wiretapping, etc. But I don't recall anyone ever using "tyrant" as a characterization of his conduct alone, or due to his asociation with his subordinates or those he has sway over, like the JD. I do recall countless efforts on the part of the purist crowd to exaggerate (and the less than flattering descriptions that have accompanied them) what his critics are saying though, and your second sentence "You are free/open writing here on a worldwide board" is a broad umbrella we all share, but not with the crowd you started this last response with a description of. So if you think is is us that are CONfused and CONfounded, you may have a point, as well as some responsibility for it.
As one who has long advocated the election of better/more progressive democrats as the best solution to what ails this country and the party, and one who is very intolerant of the aforementioned types, perhaps you should choose your words more carefully, and start by identifying precisely who you are referring to and what.
And as a cursory reading of all the others that responded directly to your TP, I am far from alone in my interpretation of what you posted. If you don't wanna concede the role your vagueness played in the "misunderstandings", then blame it on all the loudmouth purists around who spend so much time and text on silencing criticisms of the POTUS. I've been telling them for months now that they are the problem, not the critics, and this is just the form taken and an example of, why they are the problem. It merely shows as I've also tried to tell some of them, how sick many are getting of getting painted as second-class liberals/dems/BHO supporters, and worse.
Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
|Nye Bevan||Jan 2013||#38|
|Chico Man||Jan 2013||#29|
Please login to view edit histories.