Why do reactionaries lie about "libs" "wanting" terrorists?

Question

The bitterness from the far Right feild is a spectacle to behold this election year.I want to hear from a few strong,fighting Dems not having this kind of crap:

Buffman31:
on a beatiful sunny day the libs would blame Bush for the sunlight in their eyes. If it was cloudy, they would blame Bush for polution. If it was rainy and thunderstorming, they would blame Bush for making a deal with God.
If it was raining terrorists, they would thank him


The "libs" would thank Gawd for it raining terrorists? wtf.
I dont know about you,but between Rush Limbaugh's medicine cabinet and right-wing conformists making the above statements
its apparant that rabbid drug use sound like the domain of the Far Out Reicht,or Far Out Right.

Maybe the Right wants terrorists to blow up any non-Republican Americans,you know,the 72% MAJORITY of adults over 18 who didnt vote for our Divider in Cheif in 2004.
(28% of Adults over 18 voted for Bush in 2004).

Answer 1

These are all variants of the absurd claim that Democrats "support" terrorism. Rove inspired rhetoric from the administration of McKinley or Garfield, and a future rationale perhaps to declare dissidents as enemy combatants.

Here's a discussion from today's paper of the new "anti-terror" bill in Congress:

"the new provision would be a precedent-setting congressional endorsement for the indefinite detention of anyone who, as the bill states, "has engaged in hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States" or its military allies.

The definition applies to foreigners living inside or outside the United States and does not rule out the possibility of designating a U.S. citizen as an unlawful combatant."
-----
The President will get to decide what "purposeful" and "material" support are!

Answer 2

Personally, I believe both sides are guilty of saying "the other side wants the terrorists". Now, I'm neither Republican, nor Democrat... neither liberal nor conservative. What I am : sick of politics.

When I believed Bush did the right thing after 9/11, I heard it blasted from Liberals that "You righters just want the terrorists to attack so you can take away our liberties". When I began to believe Bush had a hand in 9/11, I heard it from Conservatives "You lefters just want the terrorists to attack so you can be political martyrs and say 'I told you so'".

I think BOTH sides are full of crap, and need to put this partisanship aside.

Work toward the good of ALL Americans. Not just those Americans who like their rights, not just standing for the unborn Americans. ALL Americans. Regardless of age, preferences, locales, or whatever else may divide us.

For if we do not, how can our nation stand?

It cannot.

Answer 3

Perhaps not all libs want to aid the terrorists and this is what causes you to question these reactionaries. It's possible you are one of the libs who do not wish to make life easier for the terrorists. Judging from what I know about you, this is the case. There are however liberals who do wish to make life easier for the terrorists and I know; even though it pains you to admit it, much less even see it happen, you are aware that it is happening. It is easier to attack the whole liberal movement based on the few wackos, who actually do support measures that would aid the terrorists or at least protect them, than it is to sort them out from the majority.
Some people always choose the easy path.

Answer 4

Go back in history - Nazi Germany is a great example - also quite a lot of good material in Soviet era USSR.

It's called propaganda.

It's an effective tool used by government heads to sway the citizens to believe a reality that isn't real.

And it is highly useful in the situation we are in right now. The only way to keep the idiots in power is to polarize the population.

So it's liberal/democratic abortion/choice christian/????? - if we were to all get together, to unify, that would be truly frightening to the people in power.

And, I hate to say it, but you are propagating this lie by your question. You are serving to further polarize us.

FP

Answer 5

Coragryph has a point, its easier to insult a group, which you have done your share of that. So much that its all escalating.... I mean, so much for good debates, its all gotten too personal, and its not so much fun any more!

You have your views, I have mine, we dont agree with each other, probably not on most things, but, you will not hear me calling you names, or insulting you.... Its your right to believe what you want to, as it is for me to do the same..... Its called respect!

Answer 6

Guess what? Who opposed the patriot act?
Al Qaeda and the democrats

Who opposed the eavesdropping on international calls from terrorist?
Al Qaeda and the democrats

Who wants the terrorist prisoners to have rights?
Al Qaeda and the democrats.

Al Democrats hahaha

Answer 7

Governments don't want anyone or anything against them.

In Peru, if you dindn't support Fujimori, you were a communist, you supported "traditional polticians" (old politicians), you were an agitator. If you protested that would be "special terrorism" (that was invented, of course).

Answer 8

I think it's because Cons are really just the same kind of religious terrorists and who are just as bad. Both are killing innocent people.

Answer 9

Because it's easier to just insult a group mindlessly, than to actually listen to the arguments and address the issues on the merits.

It's the old all-or-nothing argument of "with us or against us". It just promotes polarization, and hate-mongering. And gets people to focus on who is speaking, rather than on the message.

Which is a very effective way of willing a debate purely based on emotional manipulation, when you don't have anything substantive to offer on the merits of the argument.