Democrats are going to hand the GOP a landslide victory in the next elections if

[Mac1958]

And the last time anyone gave a serious crap about political correctness was when exactly?

Are you serious?

These honest liberals, for starters:

• The political correctness cops are going to ruin the progressive cause
  
• Bill Maher Rails Against Crazy Political Correctness From Liberals Tells Media Matters to Shut The F ck Up Video RealClearPolitics
• Jerry Seinfeld says political correctness is hurting comedy - CBS News
• Don Lemon weighs in on PC culture Liberals are the most easily offended and the least tolerant - Salon.com
• Not a Very P.C. Thing to Say -- NYMag
• Liberal Turley against political correctness in News Forum
• Are Liberals Becoming Too Sensitive and Politically Correct
• Jim Webb says Democratic Party has lost its way - The Washington Post
• John Stuart Mill s Argument Against Political...
• Dem Blames Political Correctness for Fort Hood Workplace Violence Controversy - ABC News
• Is the New Political Correctness Already Dying -- NYMag
• I don t know what to do you guys Fredrik deBoer
• http://www.forwardprogressives.com/liberals-becoming-sensitive-politically-correct/
• http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid
• http://www.socialmemorycomplex.net/leftlibertarian/2012/06/12/a-leftist-critique-of-political-correctness/
• My view: Political correctness should not inhibit free speech
  
• http://scienceblogs.com/webeasties/2013/05/21/science-racism-and-political-correctness/
• http://www.hawkeyelounge.com/threads/liberal-columnist-leonard-pitts-asks-if-weve-overdone-political-correctness.130665/
• #CancelColbert and the Return of the Anti-Liberal Left
• REED: When liberals become illiberal
• PC Police Out Of Control In Possibly The Most Absurd Story I've Ever Come Across
• “Political Correctness” | The Progressive Professor
• How Liberals Ruined College
• Rushdie warns of new dangers to free speech in West

So what. Gee, there were some articles written about political correctness. The average voter cares zilch about it. But that should not deter the GOP from coming out and using terms like "wetback" early and often.

We'll see how that well that works. Deal?

Actually, they're articles written about the damage done by political correctness, and they're all either written by or about (honest) liberals.

But sure, deal. We can all move on with our lives now.
.

 

[candycorn]

Side issue?

It's a non factor.

That we're not fighting in the ME in an unwinnable war is a plus for Obama and the Democrats. Save the argument that there is a win to be had. There isnt.

Nobody outside of obscure message boards wonders/cares/notices that the word "radical islam" isn't being used (if that is in fact the case). It's a silly story to start with.

The refugee issue is a non factor? Holy crap, I'd disagree with that.

And plenty of people are seeing the PC regarding Islam & Jihadism.

We'll just have to disagree on that.
.

In the 2016 election it will be a non factor. Just like Paris. Look, you guys tried to whoop up Benghazi--that happened during the General Election after the conventions--into some bizarro indication that Obama was soft on terrorism. How'd that work out for you guys?

"You guys"?

Who guys?
.

Oh, I forgot you were pretending you're not a republican.

Ah.

Well, I'd be happy to provide links to my specifically anti-Republican positions on any number of issues if you'd like. The links include war, foreign policy, abortion, personal income taxes, big banks, health care, financial regulation, Citizens United, and others.

Just ask!

Full disclosure: This is where most Regressive Leftists stop responding or spin out of the conversation.
.

And I'll be happy to point out my posts telling Obama he is making a mistake, his shortcomings on his management style, why some of his scandals are actual scandals and not just GOP blustering

Full disclosure: This is where most right wing losers stop painting with a broad brush.

 

[Mac1958]

The refugee issue is a non factor? Holy crap, I'd disagree with that.

And plenty of people are seeing the PC regarding Islam & Jihadism.

We'll just have to disagree on that.
.

In the 2016 election it will be a non factor. Just like Paris. Look, you guys tried to whoop up Benghazi--that happened during the General Election after the conventions--into some bizarro indication that Obama was soft on terrorism. How'd that work out for you guys?

"You guys"?

Who guys?
.

Oh, I forgot you were pretending you're not a republican.

Ah.

Well, I'd be happy to provide links to my specifically anti-Republican positions on any number of issues if you'd like. The links include war, foreign policy, abortion, personal income taxes, big banks, health care, financial regulation, Citizens United, and others.

Just ask!

Full disclosure: This is where most Regressive Leftists stop responding or spin out of the conversation.
.

And I'll be happy to point out my posts telling Obama he is making a mistake, his shortcomings on his management style, why some of his scandals are actual scandals and not just GOP blustering

Full disclosure: This is where most right wing losers stop painting with a broad brush.

As predicted.
.

 

[candycorn]

In the 2016 election it will be a non factor. Just like Paris. Look, you guys tried to whoop up Benghazi--that happened during the General Election after the conventions--into some bizarro indication that Obama was soft on terrorism. How'd that work out for you guys?

"You guys"?

Who guys?
.

Oh, I forgot you were pretending you're not a republican.

Ah.

Well, I'd be happy to provide links to my specifically anti-Republican positions on any number of issues if you'd like. The links include war, foreign policy, abortion, personal income taxes, big banks, health care, financial regulation, Citizens United, and others.

Just ask!

Full disclosure: This is where most Regressive Leftists stop responding or spin out of the conversation.
.

And I'll be happy to point out my posts telling Obama he is making a mistake, his shortcomings on his management style, why some of his scandals are actual scandals and not just GOP blustering

Full disclosure: This is where most right wing losers stop painting with a broad brush.

As predicted.
.

Spin out of the conversation? It was You who was going to tell us how these attacks would be an important part of the 2016 campaign. Of course that was before I pointed out how you guys were not able to spin Ben-gotcha up into anything. Except total self-embarassment (sp?) that is.

And you took exception to being included in the conservative/republican stable. The reason I place you there is because of theads like this from last year:

Liberals: 9-11 Deaths were Good Thing | Page 28 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Mac1958]

"You guys"?

Who guys?
.

Oh, I forgot you were pretending you're not a republican.

Ah.

Well, I'd be happy to provide links to my specifically anti-Republican positions on any number of issues if you'd like. The links include war, foreign policy, abortion, personal income taxes, big banks, health care, financial regulation, Citizens United, and others.

Just ask!

Full disclosure: This is where most Regressive Leftists stop responding or spin out of the conversation.
.

And I'll be happy to point out my posts telling Obama he is making a mistake, his shortcomings on his management style, why some of his scandals are actual scandals and not just GOP blustering

Full disclosure: This is where most right wing losers stop painting with a broad brush.

As predicted.
.

Spin out of the conversation? It was You who was going to tell us how these attacks would be an important part of the 2016 campaign. Of course that was before I pointed out how you guys were not able to spin Ben-gotcha up into anything. Except total self-embarassment (sp?) that is.

And you took exception to being included in the conservative/republican stable. The reason I place you there is because of theads like this from last year:

Liberals: 9-11 Deaths were Good Thing | Page 28 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Ugh.

I'm an Independent. I disagree with the Dems on some issues, the Republicans on some issues, and BOTH parties on some issues.

I am under no obligation whatsoever to obediently and transparently follow along with either ideology.

To save my freakin' life, I can't figure out why this needs to be so goddamned complicated for you people.

So once again, another thread is about me. My ego does not need this. I'd much prefer you find a nice little hardcore right winger to play with.
.

 

[candycorn]

Oh, I forgot you were pretending you're not a republican.

Ah.

Well, I'd be happy to provide links to my specifically anti-Republican positions on any number of issues if you'd like. The links include war, foreign policy, abortion, personal income taxes, big banks, health care, financial regulation, Citizens United, and others.

Just ask!

Full disclosure: This is where most Regressive Leftists stop responding or spin out of the conversation.
.

And I'll be happy to point out my posts telling Obama he is making a mistake, his shortcomings on his management style, why some of his scandals are actual scandals and not just GOP blustering

Full disclosure: This is where most right wing losers stop painting with a broad brush.

As predicted.
.

Spin out of the conversation? It was You who was going to tell us how these attacks would be an important part of the 2016 campaign. Of course that was before I pointed out how you guys were not able to spin Ben-gotcha up into anything. Except total self-embarassment (sp?) that is.

And you took exception to being included in the conservative/republican stable. The reason I place you there is because of theads like this from last year:

Liberals: 9-11 Deaths were Good Thing | Page 28 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Ugh.

I'm an Independent. I disagree with the Dems on some issues, the Republicans on some issues, and BOTH parties on some issues.

I am under no obligation whatsoever to obediently and transparently follow along with either ideology.

To save my freakin' life, I can't figure out why this needs to be so goddamned complicated for you people.

So once again, another thread is about me. My ego does not need this. I'd much prefer you find a nice little hardcore right winger to play with.
.

Nice imagination you have.

You made this thread "about you" when you objected to being lumped in with the GOP/conservatives when it's vividly clear that is where your loyalties lay most often. You could have just continued speaking about content but, no, you didn't do that.
It's on you buddy. Not that I mind pointing out the hypocrisy.

I will say again that You are more independent than most.

Again, to get us back on track, you were going to explain to us how the Paris attacks and PC were going to be important in the 2016 election in terms of being ammo for the conservatives/GOP. Feel free to elaborate. It should be interesting because "those guys" couldn't whip up Ben-gotcha into anything and it happened during election season--well after both Parties had their nominees in place.

 

[Mac1958]

Again, to get us back on track, you were going to explain to us how the Paris attacks and PC were going to be important in the 2016 election in terms of being ammo for the conservatives/GOP. Feel free to elaborate. It should be interesting because "those guys" couldn't whip up Ben-gotcha into anything and it happened during election season--well after both Parties had their nominees in place.

I thought I explained this, but I'll try again.

Politics is about perception. Now, just my opinion here: Regarding Benghazi, the GOP made itself (well, actually, continues to make itself) look foolish by dragging this out and trying to club Hillary with it. It ain't gonna work, regardless of how hard they try. That issue is a clear net negative for the GOP. However, this little sideshow pales in comparison to ISIS, the slaughters it continues to perpetrate, and the promises it is making to bring them here.

So now we're talking about safety and national security.

On one side, the GOP is damaging itself politically, especially with Trump, who is clearly willing to say anything to play to the crowd. This is going to hurt them with some Independents and moderates, but as usual, I don't think these people care. The hard Right is gung ho all the way on this, and that's that.

On the other side -- and for the love of all that is precious, we're talking PERCEPTION here -- the Democrats look like they are siding with Islam because of the way the President of the United States is literally unwilling to even (and here comes the PC) call it what it actually is. This, while slaughters are taking place in France, Mali, and elsewhere. The hard Left is more than willing to criticize Christianity at the drop of a hat but passionately defends the religion that includes these monsters. You can deny that, but there are about a zillion examples of posts and threads on this board to which I could point.

I have no doubt you agree with my point on the GOP and disagree with my point on the Dems.

So, we've got both sides doing some crazy shit. It is my opinion that, right now, at this moment in the country's history, more people would side with the GOP, even though it is saying some seriously goofy shit. Terror terrorizes us like everyone else, and we seem to be willing to go postal on it. And the polls bear that out.
.

 

[candycorn]

Again, to get us back on track, you were going to explain to us how the Paris attacks and PC were going to be important in the 2016 election in terms of being ammo for the conservatives/GOP. Feel free to elaborate. It should be interesting because "those guys" couldn't whip up Ben-gotcha into anything and it happened during election season--well after both Parties had their nominees in place.

I thought I explained this, but I'll try again.

Politics is about perception. Now, just my opinion here: Regarding Benghazi, the GOP made itself (well, actually, continues to make itself) look foolish by dragging this out and trying to club Hillary with it. It ain't gonna work, regardless of how hard they try. That issue is a clear net negative for the GOP. However, this little sideshow pales in comparison to ISIS, the slaughters it continues to perpetrate, and the promises it is making to bring them here.

So now we're talking about safety and national security.

On one side, the GOP is damaging itself politically, especially with Trump, who is clearly willing to say anything to play to the crowd. This is going to hurt them with some Independents and moderates, but as usual, I don't think these people care. The hard Right is gung ho all the way on this, and that's that.

On the other side -- and for the love of all that is precious, we're talking PERCEPTION here -- the Democrats look like they are siding with Islam because of the way the President of the United States is literally unwilling to even (and here comes the PC) call it what it actually is. This, while slaughters are taking place in France, Mali, and elsewhere. The hard Left is more than willing to criticize Christianity at the drop of a hat but passionately defends the religion that includes these monsters. You can deny that, but there are about a zillion examples of posts and threads on this board to which I could point.

I have no doubt you agree with my point on the GOP and disagree with my point on the Dems.

So, we've got both sides doing some crazy shit. It is my opinion that, right now, at this moment in the country's history, more people would side with the GOP, even though it is saying some seriously goofy shit. Terror terrorizes us like everyone else, and we seem to be willing to go postal on it. And the polls bear that out.
.

If the issue were as black and white as you think it is, you could sell that.
And if you are applauding what you degradingly call "honest liberals" (implying that most liberals aren't), you could applaud some "honest conservatives" if they would admit that people can bastardize any faith into a fanatical fervor and act accordingly.

What you're painting as black and white is liberals pointing out that when a person with the name of Ahmed commits a crime and cites Islam as the reason; what he is really doing is pointing out that his citation is about as phony as a $3 bill. When Eric Rudolph cites the Bible and morality as the cause for his actions, his citation is equally as worthless. What I've pointed out is that some are quick to call it "radical islam" but nobody/very few ever state "radical christians" though they are doing the same thing.

Nobody is defending ISIS. The thought that there is some perception out there that someone is may be there in some quarters. It isn't correct.



I hardly think anyone will care 11 months from now when they start voting.

 

[mikegriffith1]

THE TRUTH IS THAT SYRIAN REFUGEES heading into the U.S. are being vetted a whole lot better than Republican candidates for president.......just pointing this out........

Really? Then how did the Paris mastermind manage to enter France by posing as a refugee? I guess the screening process wasn't thorough enough in his case, hey? And how about the fact that the FBI and DOD guys down at Gitmo failed to detect future repeat terrorists 168 out of 600-some times, even though they interviewed them extensively, conducted background checks, and used polygraphs? Hey?

Percent Of Detainees Who Return To Terrorism After Release Edges Up

If we get hit again by Muslim immigrants, it would be only fair and just that the attacks come in areas where people like you live. Wouldn't that be only fair, given the raunchy demagoguery that you and other liberals are spewing against people who simply want sane, rational, common-sense measures to protect us from more attacks?

 

[mikegriffith1]

When Hillary makes amazingly idiotic claims like "Muslims have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism," she is driving away sensible centrists and reasonable liberals. This kind of stupidity might go over just fine with the kinds of wing-nut liberals we have on this board, but it's going to turn off a lot of reasonable non-ideological people who have no problem seeing that our enemy is Muslim terrorism and who simply want prudent measures to protect us from suffering more terrorist attacks.

 

[Mac1958]

When Hillary makes amazingly idiotic claims like "Muslims have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism," she is driving away sensible centrists and reasonable liberals. This kind of stupidity might go over just fine with the kinds of wing-nut liberals we have on this board, but it's going to turn off a lot of reasonable non-ideological people who have no problem seeing that our enemy is Muslim terrorism and who simply want prudent measures to protect us from suffering more terrorist attacks.

I agree overall. Americans have obviously been paying far more attention to terrorism since 9/11 and they're understandably concerned about the threat posed by ISIS. They are also quite aware of the religion that drives that group, whether the religion deserves that guilt by association or not.

In other words, Americans don't give a crap whether "not all Muslims are terrorists", the tedious chant of the Left, is true or not when people from that group are slaughtering innocents. But they do notice who is saying that.

So when someone comes along trying to downplay the obvious, it's counter-intuitive. That's precisely the hole the Democrats are digging for themselves right now. That doesn't mean anything electorally at this very moment, but it certainly could if the attacks continue, especially here.
.

 

[LoneLaugher]

A more reasoned discussion of what the OP wants to say is here:

Scare America Stupid: Republican Fear Mongering

 

[LoneLaugher]

When Hillary makes amazingly idiotic claims like "Muslims have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism," she is driving away sensible centrists and reasonable liberals. This kind of stupidity might go over just fine with the kinds of wing-nut liberals we have on this board, but it's going to turn off a lot of reasonable non-ideological people who have no problem seeing that our enemy is Muslim terrorism and who simply want prudent measures to protect us from suffering more terrorist attacks.

I agree overall. Americans have obviously been paying far more attention to terrorism since 9/11 and they're understandably concerned about the threat posed by ISIS. They are also quite aware of the religion that drives that group, whether the religion deserves that guilt by association or not.

In other words, Americans don't give a crap whether "not all Muslims are terrorists", the tedious chant of the Left, is true or not when people from that group are slaughtering innocents. But they do notice who is saying that.

So when someone comes along trying to downplay the obvious, it's counter-intuitive. That's precisely the hole the Democrats are digging for themselves right now. That doesn't mean anything electorally at this very moment, but it certainly could if the attacks continue, especially here.
.

Absolutely! If we have a major terrorist attack here....it will mean certain defeat for the Democrats. We have precedent for that, after all.

 

[Katzndogz]

When Hillary makes amazingly idiotic claims like "Muslims have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism," she is driving away sensible centrists and reasonable liberals. This kind of stupidity might go over just fine with the kinds of wing-nut liberals we have on this board, but it's going to turn off a lot of reasonable non-ideological people who have no problem seeing that our enemy is Muslim terrorism and who simply want prudent measures to protect us from suffering more terrorist attacks.

I agree overall. Americans have obviously been paying far more attention to terrorism since 9/11 and they're understandably concerned about the threat posed by ISIS. They are also quite aware of the religion that drives that group, whether the religion deserves that guilt by association or not.

In other words, Americans don't give a crap whether "not all Muslims are terrorists", the tedious chant of the Left, is true or not when people from that group are slaughtering innocents. But they do notice who is saying that.

So when someone comes along trying to downplay the obvious, it's counter-intuitive. That's precisely the hole the Democrats are digging for themselves right now. That doesn't mean anything electorally at this very moment, but it certainly could if the attacks continue, especially here.
.

Absolutely! If we have a major terrorist attack here....it will mean certain defeat for the Democrats. We have precedent for that, after all.

What are the chances that we go the next year without an attack?

 

[Meathead]

The Republicans have only the Senate to lose in a worst case scenario because there is no way they lose the House. The Democrats, on the other hand, stand to be where the Republicans were in 2008. Given the weak candidates the Democrats have from top to bottom, especially Hillary, the latter is the most likely outcome.

 

[LoneLaugher]

When Hillary makes amazingly idiotic claims like "Muslims have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism," she is driving away sensible centrists and reasonable liberals. This kind of stupidity might go over just fine with the kinds of wing-nut liberals we have on this board, but it's going to turn off a lot of reasonable non-ideological people who have no problem seeing that our enemy is Muslim terrorism and who simply want prudent measures to protect us from suffering more terrorist attacks.

I agree overall. Americans have obviously been paying far more attention to terrorism since 9/11 and they're understandably concerned about the threat posed by ISIS. They are also quite aware of the religion that drives that group, whether the religion deserves that guilt by association or not.

In other words, Americans don't give a crap whether "not all Muslims are terrorists", the tedious chant of the Left, is true or not when people from that group are slaughtering innocents. But they do notice who is saying that.

So when someone comes along trying to downplay the obvious, it's counter-intuitive. That's precisely the hole the Democrats are digging for themselves right now. That doesn't mean anything electorally at this very moment, but it certainly could if the attacks continue, especially here.
.

Absolutely! If we have a major terrorist attack here....it will mean certain defeat for the Democrats. We have precedent for that, after all.

What are the chances that we go the next year without an attack?

I dunno. About the same as last year.....and the year before that.....and then year before that......

Can't entirely stop nuts from inflicting damage unless you want to erode our freedoms. Simple concept.

 

[Care4all]

A more reasoned discussion of what the OP wants to say is here:

Scare America Stupid: Republican Fear Mongering

this part sticks out and is what I've been saying before these bloggers have put it in print....

What happened to the Home of the Brave? Are we letting terrorism win?


America is supposed to be a world leader, and leaders don’t repeat mistakes, especially when they get countless people killed. It is poor military strategy to allow an enemy to goad you into a battle on a field of their choosing. If people are trying to scare or shame you into a fight, they do not have your best interests at heart.

Fear can be a tool used to control the stupid and the weak minded. Americans should be smart enough and courageous enough to see past and dismiss such immature playground tactics. If we can’t, then we don’t truly live in the Home of the Brave.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The Republicans have only the Senate to lose in a worst case scenario because there is no way they lose the House. The Democrats, on the other hand, stand to be where the Republicans were in 2008. Given the weak candidates the Democrats have from top to bottom, especially Hillary, the latter is the most likely outcome.

So glad you are keeping your eyes on what is really important when discussing ISIS. Well done.

 

[Meathead]

The Republicans have only the Senate to lose in a worst case scenario because there is no way they lose the House. The Democrats, on the other hand, stand to be where the Republicans were in 2008. Given the weak candidates the Democrats have from top to bottom, especially Hillary, the latter is the most likely outcome.

So glad you are keeping your eyes on what is really important when discussing ISIS. Well done.

The topic was the next election. Go out and meet some people. Get out of your little myopic hole.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

THE TRUTH IS THAT SYRIAN REFUGEES heading into the U.S. are being vetted a whole lot better than Republican candidates for president.......just pointing this out........

you mean, they actually have to produce a real and valid birth certificate?