Government Shut Down

[Adak]

Originally Posted by tw

That is the extremist propaganda. In reality, Saddam was desperately trying to restore his position as an American ally. After all, he only invaded Kuwait because he was told by the American ambassador that it was OK. Meanwhile, the ambassador was not saying that. Exact same words with two meanings. Saddam thought he had permission from the US to invade Kuwait.

Saddam desperately needed protection as a US ally. He obviously had no interest in starting a war with the US since he was all but toothless. And was using WMD myths to hide that fact. Only extremists who know from a head between their legs (not the one on their shoulder) still do not see that fact.

Another example of why extremist rhetoric is based in 'rewritten' history and other factual distortions. And why tea party extremists will not admit their real objective. As Limbaugh said, "We want America to fail." Failures empower extremists. Lies such as about Saddam is just another example of how and why so many are easily manipulated by extremist rhetoric.

Saddam desperately wanted to restore his place as an American ally. That is only disputed in rhetoric based in hearsay - that ignores facts.

NO! Saddam was looking to get a quick conquest on a rich little country like Kuwait, because his own economy in Iraq, was in utter shambles. Yes, he thought we wouldn't mind, but our Ambassador NEVER told Saddam it would be OK.

Saddam wanted to be a big shot in the Middle East, and throughout the Muslim countries of North Africa. There was a power vacuum after Egypt's failure in the last war with Israel (and their subsequent move to peace), and Gaddafi's step back from supporting WMD and terrorism.

He never wanted to be a US ally. Quite the contrary. If he could get our oil companies to spend a lot of money re-building his oil facilities, he would be glad to do it, but he wanted to be big in the Middle East, not a sincere ally of the US.

You know Limbaugh makes a lot of sarcastic comments, and you're taking one of them, entirely out of context in your quote.

If you ever went to a Tea Party meeting, you'd change your mind about them. They're not extremists. They're moms and dads, and nephews and niece's and people who want America to flourish and be free.

And note: They also are the only large collection of people, who actually pick up their own trash, after an event!

What you are describing is Occupy! They are paid extremists.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by Adak

If you ever went to a Tea Party meeting, you'd change your mind about them. They're not extremists. They're moms and dads, and nephews and niece's and people who want America to flourish and be free.

Being a mom or dad, nephew or niece and wanting the country to flourish does not mean someone isn't an extremist

What you are describing is Occupy! They are paid extremists.

So having attempted to humanise the tea party you're now trying to dehumanise Occupy.

Are they not also moms, dads, nephews or nieces? Just because you disagree with their views doesn't mean they don't want America to flourish. They just want it to flourish according to their definition, not yours.

They also don't currently have a stranglehold on American politics despite their minority status, along with the power, seemingly, to wreck constitutionally arrived at decisions because they lost the vote and don't feel like they are represented.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Being a mom or dad, nephew or niece and wanting the country to flourish does not mean someone isn't an extremist

So having attempted to humanise the tea party you're now trying to dehumanise Occupy.

A little balance to reality is always a good thing. Several reporters have interviewed the Occupiers, and they admitted they were paid anywhere from $15 to $40 per day, to be there and demonstrate with them.

Are they not also moms, dads, nephews or nieces? Just because you disagree with their views doesn't mean they don't want America to flourish. They just want it to flourish according to their definition, not yours.

They also don't currently have a stranglehold on American politics despite their minority status, along with the power, seemingly, to wreck constitutionally arrived at decisions because they lost the vote and don't feel like they are represented.

I quite agree with Occupy, on some points. For instance, clearly Wall St. was coddled in the recession, despite the fact that they magnified the intensity of it, considerably.

But look at an Occupy demonstration after they're done, and it's utterly trashed, to say nothing of laws being broken, riot police being needed, and property being damaged.

Contrast that with the Tea Party demonstration. It's left clean, property rights are respected, and no laws are broken. There's no riot police needed, no tear gas, no molotov cocktails thrown - none of that. (and no rapes!)

I'll reluctantly admit that Anarchists are people, but since I have NO desire to live as the Cavemen did, I just can't follow their beliefs very far.