Karl Rove said Democrats offer therapy to 9/11 terroists

[No Limit]

Although I could be extremely pissed at these comments I actually want to thank Mr. Rove for sayin this, it will allow us to debate the differences between Republicans and Democrats on terrorists. So here is a list of what Democrats have done to stop terrorism I got from another post on another board:

It was a Democratic administration that captured and convicted the terrorists who attacked the WTC in 1993.

It was a Democrat who instituted the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and who appointed the nation's first national coordinator of anti-terrorist efforts.

It was a Democrat who stopped the Al Qaeda millennium hijacking and bombing plots.


And a Democrat who stopped the planned attack to kill the Pope.

And a Democrat who stopped the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.

A Democrat who stopped the planned attack to blow up Boston airport.

A Democrat who stopped the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.

A Democrat who Tried to kill Osama bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda through preemptive strikes (efforts denounced by the G.O.P.).

A Democrat who named the Hart-Rudman commission to report on nature of terrorist threats and major steps to be taken to combat terrorism.

A Democrat who sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.)

A Democrat who sent legislation to Congress to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF TERRORIST FUNDING. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests.

But it was a Republican president who flaunted a 30-day vacation at his ranch in the month prior to 9/11; a vacation coordinated by none other than Mr. Karl Rove to convey a public image of the President as "relaxed, and taking things easy."

And it was a Republican administration that drove not one but two anti-terrorism czars to resign in frustration, due to conflicts with the White House.

And it was a Republican National Security Advisor who, prior to 9/11, crafted a national security presentation that included mention of the Star Wars missile defense program, Cuba's Fidel Castro, and unaccounted nuclear materials from the former Soviet Union -- but no mention at all of Islamic terrorism.

and what wasn't in that post but I would like to add:

It was a Republican president that refused to allow a 9/11 commission (until the political pressure became too strong) and then it was a republican that when forced to allow that commission only allocated 3 million dollars for it and blocked key witnesseses.

 

[Solaris]

Im just waiting for someone to defend the republicans and talk about the patriot act.....

 

[No Limit]

Im just waiting for someone to defend the republicans and talk about the patriot act.....

It doesn't matter. I just showed another example of Republicans using 9/11 for political gain and then lying and slandering the Democrats. But that doesn't bother any Bush supporter and never will; that is the sad country we live in. Also, just added another point to there.

 

[Icarusintel]

i just hope he doesn't apologize because there's no need
and if it was anything like dick durbin's "apology" it would be completely reprehensible anyway

 

[Raziaar]

Oh... what is this, another thread of No Limit showing his limit of intelligence by mindlessly claiming the worst about every republican, based on the actions of a few? <nods>

 

[CptStern]

Oh... what is this, another thread of No Limit showing his limit of intelligence by mindlessly claiming the worst about every republican, based on the actions of a few? <nods>

for once why not try attacking the message rather than the messenger? ...lack of a properly forumlated opinion is not an excuse to attack someones viewpoint

 

[Raziaar]

for once why not try attacking the message rather than the messenger? ...lack of a properly forumlated opinion is not an excuse to attack someones viewpoint

Well... I don't disagree with the message. I'm just pointing out that its yet another post of his that is liberally sprinkled with inflammatory remarks against all republicans.


Especially since I don't view people as merely republicans, or democrats in their achievements... I view them as Americans.

 

[CptStern]

Well... I don't disagree with the message. I'm just pointing out that its yet another post of his that is liberally sprinkled with inflammatory remarks against all republicans.

so in other words you have nothing to contribute to this thread


AND STOP USING THAT STUPID TERM "LIBERAL" ..the world is NOT made up of republicans and democrats ..get that out of your head ..for all intents and purposes the democrats are just a smidgeon left of right of centre

 

[Raziaar]

so in other words you have nothing to contribute to this thread


AND STOP USING THAT STUPID TERM "LIBERAL" ..the world is NOT made up of republicans and democrats ..get that out of your head ..for all intents and purposes the democrats are just a smidgeon left of right of centre

That was no pun intended, stern. I already said before your post, that I don't see people in republicans or democrats.

 

[blahblahblah]

I believe I'm sensing some anti-republican comments from this thread. Not quite sure though...

It would make me, personally, feel better if you said "I hate republicans and what they stand for". An acceptable alternative would be "Republican's are all spawns of Satan"

Now, that we have my point out of the way. Lets assume your post is 100% absolutely correct in all interpretations. How does your post (assuming I'm a republican) change my opinion? Well, from my perspective, it doesn't because it is written in such a hostile format. You blatantly assault my beliefs and then feel proud like you have accomplished something.

Lets continue analyzing your post though. It is apparent that your post cannot be considered to unbiased (obviously) due to the written nature of the source. It also cannot be consider a persuasive post because of its inherently hostile nature. That leaves use with one option, propaganda.

Propaganda - The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

It should be noted that propaganda is not a form of intelligent debate like you have posed in your opening sentance. Perhaps you should do a /propaganda tag at the end of your post.

 

[Icarusintel]

"Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers."

where does he use the word democrat?
and besides, this is directed at moveon.org, not all democrats

 

[No Limit]

Well... I don't disagree with the message. I'm just pointing out that its yet another post of his that is liberally sprinkled with inflammatory remarks against all republicans.


Especially since I don't view people as merely republicans, or democrats in their achievements... I view them as Americans.

Give me a f*cking break. Karl Rove works for the Bush administration (which today said what Rove said was right). As you know Bush and his administration represents your party. If I am wrong tell seinfeldrules, tell foxtrot, tell his brother, tell Dag, tell Icarusintel, tell yourself, to come in here and admit that what Rove did is sickening and the fact that Bush agrees with it is even more sickening. However, I already know that will never happen which is why I apply the label to all (okay, I should have said 99%) Republicans. Go read http://www.freerepublic.com to see what your republican friends are saying about his comments.

 

[No Limit]

where does he use the word democrat?
and besides, this is directed at moveon.org, not all democrats

What the hell are you talking about? Liberals implies Democrats. Hello!!!!

 

[CptStern]

sure you do ..."liberal or conservative" ...same thing in the eyes of americans

 

[Icarusintel]

What the hell are you talking about? Liberals implies Democrats. Hello!!!!

um, no, liberal talks about a certain group of democrats, not democrats in general

 

[Raziaar]

sure you do ..."liberal or conservative" ...same thing in the eyes of americans

I view them as americans. I only EVER view people in those terms of politics, when the discussion is about politics. And most people hate discussing politics, as do I, so I don't view them immediately in such a way.

I'd sooner make friends with them, than enemies because of some stupid thing like politics.

 

[CptStern]

I believe I'm sensing some anti-republican comments from this thread. Not quite sure though...

It would make me, personally, feel better if you said "I hate republicans and what they stand for". An acceptable alternative would be "Republican's are all spawns of Satan"

Now, that we have my point out of the way. Lets assume your post is 100% absolutely correct in all interpretations. How does your post (assuming I'm a republican) change my opinion? Well, from my perspective, it doesn't because it is written in such a hostile format. You blatantly assault my beliefs and then feel proud like you have accomplished something.

Lets continue analyzing your post though. It is apparent that your post cannot be considered to unbiased (obviously) due to the written nature of the source. It also cannot be consider a persuasive post because of its inherently hostile nature. That leaves use with one option, propaganda.

Propaganda - The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

It should be noted that propaganda is not a form of intelligent debate like you have posed in your opening sentance. Perhaps you should do a /propaganda tag at the end of your post.

well the burden is on you, not the author ..if you dismiss it without fact checking you've done yourself a diservice ...all you have to do is fact check ...propaganda doesnt stand up to facts ....this does

 

[CptStern]

I view them as americans. I only EVER view people in those terms of politics, when the discussion is about politics. And most people hate discussing politics, as do I, so I don't view them immediately in such a way.

I'd sooner make friends with them, than enemies because of some stupid thing like politics.

ya I'm sure you're just dying to call me "friend"

 

[Icarusintel]

I'm just sad NoLimit didn;t take the time to read or listen to his actual statement, and yes, it's all in the symantics

 

[No Limit]

I believe I'm sensing some anti-republican comments from this thread. Not quite sure though...

Let me help you out, yes, the post was anti-republican. No need to guess.

It would make me, personally, feel better if you said "I hate republicans and what they stand for". An acceptable alternative would be "Republican's are all spawns of Satan"

Will me saying I dislike republicans because they will not face simple facts (as you just demonstrated) help you out?

Now, that we have my point out of the way. Lets assume your post is 100% absolutely correct in all interpretations.

Lets not assume anything. If I am wrong post how I am wrong, if you can't the post is fact.

How does your post (assuming I'm a republican) change my opinion? Well, from my perspective, it doesn't because it is written in such a hostile format. You blatantly assault my beliefs and then feel proud like you have accomplished something.

I am not attacking your beliefs directly. I am attacking the beliefs of anyone that says liberals gave therapy to 9/11 attackers, such as that asshat named Karl Rove.

Lets continue analyzing your post though. It is apparent that your post cannot be considered to unbiased (obviously) due to the written nature of the source. It also cannot be consider a persuasive post because of its inherently hostile nature. That leaves use with one option, propaganda.

Propaganda - The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.

It should be noted that propaganda is not a form of intelligent debate like you have posed in your opening sentance. Perhaps you should do a /propaganda tag at the end of your post.

No what you should do is try to refute what I said. Karl Rove, along with 99% of Republicans claim that Republicans are stronger on terrorism and liberals are just down right pussies that wont do anything about terrorism. I just flat out refuted that idiotic claim repeated by every conservative pundit out there, from O'Reilly to Rush. If you expect me to be nice to people that say I hate my country and I want terrorists to win you are going to be greatly disappointed. Republicans have been doing this to us for years and they brainwashed a lot of people with this method (I hear what Rove said repeated over and over in one form or the other from Republicans). It is time for Democrats to grow some balls and end this bullshit. When someone attacks you you attack them back, you don't sit around thinking of how to solve this without insulting them while they contiunally lie and misrepresent facts to destroy you.

With that out of the way what was factual about this administration saying liberals give therapy to terrorists (specifically the 9/11 hijackers).

 

[Raziaar]

ya I'm sure you're just dying to call me "friend"

Sure I would. If I was able to take the chance to get to know you. Politics aren't really how people are, in the way they always behave. I know I dont behave like I do on these forums... not even close.

I get along great with people who differ in views when you apply them to more social settings, such as playing battlefield 2, etc.

 

[Lemonking]

you guys are like childern....omg teh liberals suck no the republicans suck.,..jeez No Limit u are a no good so are Raziaar

 

[No Limit]

um, no, liberal talks about a certain group of democrats, not democrats in general

99% of democrats are liberal (the one exception I could think of is a fraud democrat by the name of Zell Miller). Unless you would like to give me some examples?

 

[CptStern]

I'm afraid to play bf2 with some of you ...dont like constantly looking over my shoulder

 

[No Limit]

you guys are like childern....omg teh liberals suck no the republicans suck.,..jeez No Limit u are a no good so are Raziaar

Cut it out. If you have nothing to contribute don't post. If you don't like me posting facts thats fine, ignore me. But I will not allow you to turn this thread in to a flame war and get it locked.

 

[blahblahblah]

well the burden is on you, not the author ..if you dismiss it without fact checking you've done yourself a diservice ...all you have to do is fact check ...propaganda doesnt stand up to facts ....this does

Hold on, you have multiple disanalogies.

1) The author has the obligation to do his own fact checking. For me to post 1 + 1 = 6 is absolutely wrong. I should already assume that his facts are correct. The fact that the original poster may have left out some key facts is a completely different subject though.

2) I repeat the definition for propaganda is "The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause." Propaganda does not have to be lies or deceit, it just merely paints a picture a different way.

3) Debate can't happen when this "painting" is so horribly shaded towards one direction. Proper debates begin with both sides on a equal footing. In this case, an equal number of points pro/con democrats/republicans should be presented. Therefore a debate can't happen.

 

[Icarusintel]

99% of democrats are liberal (the one exception I could think of is a fraud democrat by the name of Zell Miller). Unless you would like to give me some examples?

how do you know this? seriously, i wanna see where this number came up, examples or not that number is ridiculous

 

[No Limit]

how do you know this? seriously, i wanna see where this number came up, examples or not that number is ridiculous

No you are being ridiculous and you aren't making any sense. The definition of Democrat is virtually liberal. Sure there are some cases where you have a democrat that is socially liberal and conservative with fiscal policies but that doesn't have anything to do with what Rove was talking about. 99% of Democrats are liberal, especially when we are talking about the war on terror (which is what Rove was talking about).

 

[No Limit]

Hold on, you have multiple disanalogies.

1) The author has the obligation to do his own fact checking. For me to post 1 + 1 = 6 is absolutely wrong. I should already assume that his facts are correct. The fact that the original poster may have left out some key facts is a completely different subject though.

2) I repeat the definition for propaganda is "The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause." Propaganda does not have to be lies or deceit, it just merely paints a picture a different way.

3) Debate can't happen when this "painting" is so horribly shaded towards one direction. Proper debates begin with both sides on a equal footing. In this case, an equal number of points pro/con democrats/republicans should be presented. Therefore a debate can't happen.

All you have to do is refute one thing, you can't.

The problem is I'm not even asking you to refute anything; all I'm asking is for you to say Rove and Bush (for supporting what Rove said) are liars that are using 9/11 as a political tool. My facts are there that say this, yet you are tryin to spin this by saying I am too mean. *insert crying smilie here*

 

[Icarusintel]

No you are being ridiculous and you aren't making any sense. The definition of Democrat is virtually liberal. Sure there are some cases where you have a democrat that is socially liberal and conservative with fiscal policies but that doesn't have anything to do with what Rove was talking about. 99% of Democrats are liberal, especially when we are talking about the war on terror (which is what Rove was talking about).

there are such things as moderate democrats, I have a few friends who are
liberal, at least as the definition appears to me is someone who is as far to the left as they can go, on everything
while a conservative is as far right as they can go on everything

 

[CptStern]

Hold on, you have multiple disanalogies.

1) The author has the obligation to do his own fact checking. For me to post 1 + 1 = 6 is absolutely wrong. I should already assume that his facts are correct. The fact that the original poster may have left out some key facts is a completely different subject though.

nope, it's up to YOU to disprove him

2) I repeat the definition for propaganda is "The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause." Propaganda does not have to be lies or deceit, it just merely paints a picture a different way.

you inserted that part yourself but that's inaccurate ...propaganda by nature is dishonest ...that's why it's called "propaganda":


"ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause or to damage an opposing cause; also : a public action having such an effect"

3) Debate can't happen when this "painting" is so horribly shaded towards one direction. Proper debates begin with both sides on a equal footing. In this case, an equal number of points pro/con democrats/republicans should be presented. Therefore a debate can't happen.

please dont play the victem here blah you're a veteran of these forums and you know as well as I do that the right is more inclined to shout and scream than provide facts to back them up .....because there isnt any

 

[blahblahblah]

All you have to do is refute one thing, you can't.

Fine.

It was a Democratic administration that captured and convicted the terrorists who attacked the WTC in 1993.

A democrat was in office when the attack on WTC (1993) happened.

 

[No Limit]

Fine.



A democrat was in office when the attack on WTC (1993) happened.

And a Democrat caught them, whats your point?

My point is, which you are missing completely, that Bush used 9/11 to try and discredit liberals by saying we offer therapy to terrorists. Along with that he said, through Rove, that we haven't done anything to stop terrorists. Hope that makes it a little clearer for you as we went through 3 pages and not a single person has addressed this.

 

[Icarusintel]

Along with that he said, through Rove, that we haven't done anything to stop terrorists. Hope that makes it a little clearer for you as we went through 3 pages and not a single person has addressed this.

While Bush may be defending Rove over his statement it is irresponsible for you to instigate that Bush told Rove to say what he did

 

[CptStern]

we went through 3 pages and not a single person has addressed this.

that's always the case ...they just do the ol' "evade and diffuse" tactic they're so good at

 

[No Limit]

While Bush may be defending Rove over his statement it is irresponsible for you to instigate that Bush told Rove to say what he did

No, it is irresponsible for you to instigate that I said that. What I said was that Rove originally said those statements. But today at the white house press conference they said that what Rove said was correct, meaning they support it. If Bush went a head and said what Rove said was out of line I wouldn't have a problem. But what Rove said is exactly what the right has been saying since 9/11 (using it for political gain) and finally the democrats are going to stand up to this and not let them get away with this out right disgrace to the americans that died that sad day.

Nobody should ever use 9/11 for political gain, yet they do this on a daily basis. The problem was the white house never flat out said it until today. So spare the bullshit and get back to the topic, yes you can cry over what I'm about to say all you want but the fact is I am starting to hate the far right more and more each day and the far right keeps moving more and more in to the Republican base (as demonstrated by virtually every Republican on this board).

 

[blahblahblah]

And a Democrat caught them, whats your point?

You asked "to refute one ponit (in the context of propaganda)". I merely pointed out that you failed to mention the 1993 WTC bombings happened when a democrat was in office. That is propaganda - you mention a democrat capturing the criminals, but you fail to mention the criminals committed the acts during a democratic presidency.

I'd also like to point out, that I don't believe any administration is guilty for the WTC 1993 or 9/11. As an accountant with a focus on auditing, it is very very difficult to pick up such facts that we now know and attribute them to some horrible incoming disaster. However, that does not mean there were problems with our current system. I just say that predicting and stopping terrorism is a terribly iffy thing to do.

I'm side tracking, but this is a quick (and possibly uniformed) example. In Arizona some muslims took flight training lessons, the trainers felt suspicious and contacted the FBI. Now look at the previous sentance and tell me (not knowing anything else), what would you do? Especially when you can get in fairly deep trouble if you say the sky is gonna fall and it doesn't happen.

My point is, which you are missing completely, that Bush used 9/11 to try and discredit liberals by saying we offer therapy to terrorists. Along with that he said, through Rove, that we haven't done anything to stop terrorists. Hope that makes it a little clearer for you as we went through 3 pages and not a single person has addressed this.

ok, good constructive. Point me out the sentance that Bush said "we offer therapy to terrorists" and provide me the context of the situation. Also, realize politics dictates that people take all the credit that they can. Even if that means stepping on their faces. Both parties are guilty on stepping on people when they can advance their own interests.

 

[blahblahblah]

that's always the case ...they just do the ol' "evade and diffuse" tactic they're so good at

the point was NEVER addressed in the op.

 

[CptStern]

the point was NEVER addressed in the op.

you've lost me ....not addressed where? I'm referring to the right-wingers in our community

 

[blahblahblah]

Nobody should ever use 9/11 for political gain, yet they do this on a daily basis. The problem was the white house never flat out said it until today. So spare the bullshit and get back to the topic, yes you can cry over what I'm about to say all you want but the fact is I am starting to hate the far right more and more each day and the far right keeps moving more and more in to the Republican base (as demonstrated by virtually every Republican on this board).

aiming for the elusive triple post.

I agree with you, but you said

"A Democrat who sent legislation to Congress to TIGHTEN AIRPORT SECURITY. (Remember, this is before 911) The legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines.)

A Democrat who sent legislation to Congress to allow for BETTER TRACKING OF TERRORIST FUNDING. It was defeated by Republicans in the Senate because of opposition from banking interests."

Those quotes imo qualify as political gain (if posted, repeated, and used) from the result of 9/11.

Politics = Dirty

Not even CptStern or you can refute my profound statement.