Why do Republicans ALWAYS take our talking points and mirror them back to us as though they made it up?

Question

It's the political equivalent of playing "I know you are but what am I?" with a 3 year-old.

Here are just a few examples:

D - Bush did not take necessary action to prevent 9/11
R - Well, Clinton didn't either.

D - Bush is a totalitarian nationalist whose favorite word is Veto.
R - Hitlery Klinton is a socialist, but I don't know why, just wait and see... she'll destroy the world!

D - The Patriot Act is unconstitutional.
R - Well.... democrats are terrorists and don't care about "liberty".

Answer 1

==========

wichitaor1 –

Well, if we look at the historical record, the Clinton/Gore Administration led the fight against terrorism (over strong opposition from Republicans in Congress and the pro-Republican Media).

February, 26, 2007, barely a week after Clinton and Gore took office; terrorists detonated more than 1,000 pounds of explosives under the World Trade Center

What did Clinton-Gore do?

-- Found and had arrested four of Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman's disciples
-- Gave them a speedy trial where all were convicted them for the bombing
-- Sentenced them to 240 years in prison

All by March 1994, only 13 months after the bombing.

Officials captured the prime suspect Ramzi Ahmed Yousef in 1995. A court convicted him in November 1997 and sentenced him to 240 years in prison as well.

As for the USS Cole incident, it was Bush who ended the investigation, recalling the dozens of FBI and other Federal Agents Clinton had sent to investigate the matter

------------------------------

Let’s look at how Clinton and Bush dealt with the terror risk pre-9/11:

What did CLINTON do:

-- 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).

-- 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.)

-- sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for better tracking of explosives used by terrorists.
(It was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA.)

When Republicans couldn't prevent executive action, Clinton - Gore:

-- Developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.

--Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Boston airport.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.

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

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

-- Tripled the budget of the FBI for counterterrorism and doubled overall funding for counterterrorism.

-- Detected and destroyed cells of Al Qaeda in over 20 countries

-- Created a national stockpile of drugs and vaccines including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine.
---------------------------------------------

Here, in stark contrast, is part of the BUSH anti-terrorism record before 9/11:

-- Backed off Clinton administration's anti-terrorism efforts.

-- Shelved the Hart-Rudman report.

-- Appointed new anti-terrorism task force under Dick Cheney. Group did not even meet before 9/11.

-- Called for cuts in anti-terrorism efforts by the Department of Defense.

-- Gave no priority to anti-terrorism efforts by Justice Department.

-- Ignored warnings from Sandy Berger, Louis Freeh, George Tennant, Paul Bremer, and Richard Clarke about the urgency of terrorist threats.

-- Halted Predator drone tracking of Osama bin Laden.

-- Did nothing in wake of August 6 C.I.A. report to president saying Al Qaeda attack by hijack of an airliner almost certain.

-- Bush - knowing about the terrorists' plans to attack in America, warned that terrorists were in flight schools in the US - took a four week vacation.

-- By failing to order any coordination of intelligence data, missed opportunity to stop the 9/11 plot as Clinton-Gore had stopped the millennium plots.

=====

wichitaor1 –

Fair enough.

Answer 2

Can you answer your own "talking points"?

1. How could the 9/11 be prevented? Maybe by effective retaliation after the attacks on the embassies in Africa, on Khobar Towers, and on USS Cole. Now who was president during those attacks? Did you criticize him?

2. I would ignore any asinine statement about the president being "a totalitarian nationalist". That statement is too stupid to require an response.

3. How is the Patriot Act unconstitutional. If you feel that way, file a lawsuit against the government and see how the federal courts view it. That is why we have a Supreme Court. If you feel something is wrong, go through the system to rectify it, not rant on the Internet.

BTW. "Rabble rousing" does not good but stir up trouble. If you want to "repair" the country, do something positive besides senseless ranting.

>Gary F. Great stop of the planned 2000 attacks, one blown when a terrorist panicked at the border station in Port Angeles and the explosive laden boat headed toward USS The Sullivans sank. I am sure Clinton/Gore spearheaded that.

I am not saying that Clinton/Gore were negligent on terrorism, but they were far from perfect.

Answer 3

The interesting thing is that they love Bush but hate Clinton, even though they claim Clinton did the same things as Bush. So in other words, they're saying "both guys are bad, I'm just choosing to ignore the guy on my side".

That saddest part is that Clinton was great for the country. The economy was great, there was no division amongst the citizens, he took care of us. The only problem he had was with Monica and that had no effect on the country. Bush on the other hand has only hurt Americans. His actions have directly affected every citizen of this country and many citizens of other countries. It's a shame that people defend him. Most Bush defenders aren't bright enough to know what or why they're defending so you can't blame them for being brain washed. That's what happens to stupid people.

Answer 4

You are so right and Bert T gave you some more good examples. I get the same thing all the time. It's birthed in ignorance. They are basically just followers who cannot form an original thought on their own.
Edit: I just read all of the answers. The neo-cons definately need to brush up on their history.

Answer 5

i think that you nailed it. that is the #1 defensive tactic that they employ. funny thing is, they have much success with it. it does not say much for the electorate.

dems need to stick to their guns and not be wusses. when they are called traitors by the administration for not funding the military, they should simply point out that a draft dodger like bush has no idea how to run a war. and where was he stationed in viet nam? did you complete your air national guard time, mr president? no? well you better take that flight jacket off, you imposter.

i feel for this country if we elect another one like him.

Answer 6

D- Outing Valerie Plame is a criminal act in peacetime, in wartime it's treason.
R- She made coffee at Langley, so who cares?

D- Republicans talk about "Traditional Family Values" while molesting children and engaging in high risk gay sex.
R- Those aren't Republicans, they're socialists who spent their political careers acting like Republicans so who cares?

D- We borrowing trillions from China to pay for this war
R- Dems are "Tax and Spend" idiots with no fiscal responsibility, so who cares?

D- Where is Osama bin Laden?
R- Who cares? He didn't kill any Americans WE know, and even if we DID catch him, someone else would just take his place.

D- Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks on 9/11.
R- Yes he did and we will keep saying this with no proof until everyone in the world believes us.

D- Where are Hussein's nuclear weapons?
R- Who cares? We aren't there for that, but it will make a convenient excuse to invade a few more countries in the area.

D- Why are you cutting soldiers' pay and benefits to fund your tax cuts?
R- We support the Troops We Support the TROOPS WE SUPPORT THE TROOPS!

Answer 7

You are so right on!

They are the most frustrating people to try and debate. How do you talk rationally with irrational people.

(You watch a Republican will say something very similar about Dems.)

Answer 8

You really blame Bush for not preventing 9/11?
Seriously?
I have never heard anyone blame FDR for not preventing Pearl Harbor. Or Clinton not preventing the original bombing of the World Trade Center. See it is relevant to give like examples of your idiotic argument. This points out to a person not lacking reason the absurdity of the argument.

Answer 9

Yes they do because they know they cant mount a successful argument against these legitimate points. Here's another good point hedge funds are donating more money to the democrats. Reason - democrats know how to run a profitable business and republicans like bush know how to create a very large deficit. Big business will invest with the profit makers every time.

Answer 10

For starters, Republicans can't understand you talking points. They are based on lack of knowledge, emotion, consensus science and conspiracies. (kind of like a 3 year old).

After trying time and time again to debate based on fact, logic and hard science only to get the same talking point in response we just give up. It's easier to talk to you at your level.

Actually, the fact that you blather on with useless talking points is actually a major part of the problem. Think for yourself a little.

Answer 11

Or
D- We are for Free Speech and yet we want to regulate the speech on AM radio

D- The Patriot Act is unconstitutional

R- It is the same set of laws used to take down organize crime

D- We don't want buffer zones that limit our protest. Yet we want to setup buffer zones to limit Pro-life protests.

You want a great example since you brought up 9/11 how 1/3 of the DNC believes in the conparcy theories.

I think both sides have enough work to get the logs out of their own eyes before going after the other's spec.