Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Throughout his tenure, there have been several facets in which President Obama has been demonstrably weak on leadership, with the debt debate coming to the forefront in recent months. Now however, lost in that news cycle has been another failure of leadership for the President – his own request to tone down violent rhetoric in this country. For it was mere months ago that Obama stood in front of a crowd in Tucson that had anxiously sought leadership amidst the chaos of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting; a teachable moment that had The Guardian gushing about how the President had delivered “calm amid the toxic rhetoric.”

That moment of calm has long since dissipated. Where once the President had denounced discourse that places “the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do”, we hear Republicans blamed for holding the American people hostage to their economic policies. Where once we were urged to talk “with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds”, we now hear Tea Party members being denounced as terrorists.

Make no mistake, this ratcheting up of terrorism and hostage-taking discourse directly coincides with recent events in Norway. The instant that Oslo terrorist, Anders Behring Breivik, was labeled as a ‘right-wing Christian’, liberals finally had their moment to seize upon - not just a chance to label conservatives as extreme ideologues but a chance to label them as violent ideologues. This message has been a coordinated and vicious attack amongst the media, the Democrats, and most assuredly, the President.

Prior to the Norwegian massacre, references to the Tea Party as extreme were prevalent, but making the leap in logic to terrorism had been scant. After the Norwegian massacre however, liberals defining the Tea Party as hostage-taking terrorists have become far more frequent. In the last few days it has become practically commonplace.

This past Friday Politico ran an op-ed titled, The Tea Party’s Terrorist Tactics, which featured an illustration of an individual with a dollar sign-shaped bomb strapped to their chest, and argued that the party had progressed from hostage-taking to “the intentional infliction of harm on innocent Americans to achieve a political objective – terrorism.”

Joe Klein penned a piece for Time in which he accused Republicans of being beholden to ‘Tea Party robots’, and worse, that their perceived unwillingness to compromise is something that would have made Osama bin Laden proud. The exact quote being that were he alive, bin Laden “could not have come up with a more clever strategy for strangling our nation.”

Rush Limbaugh ran a montage on his radio show to demonstrate that these attacks on the Tea Party aren’t limited to the ever-biased media, but have been coordinated with their liberal leaders in government. That montage features Democrats echoing the same sentiment ad nauseam, with over 16 different politicians referring to the Tea Party or Republicans as holding the American people hostage.

Former Democratic Congressman, Martin Frost, also in the Politico, cuts right to the chase with an op-ed titled, The Tea Party Taliban. Frost argues that “like the Taliban” the Tea Party sees “compromise as an unacceptable alternative”. He claims that the party’s quest for political purity gives them “much in common with the Taliban.”

In lockstep with the sentiments of his colleagues, the President himself delivered a weekly address in which he denounced the Republican solution to solve the debt crisis as a plan that “would hold our economy captive to Washington politics.”

It is enough to make one wonder, where did our healing President go? Where is the man that calmed during a time of toxic rhetoric? Where is the man who urged Americans to talk in a way that helped rather than harmed?

That man is a myth. He simply does not exist.

We will never hear the President denounce such vile language from his side of the aisle. In fact, we consistently hear the drone of silence from a supposed leader, where such silence equates to consent.

The better question is – Where has our leadership gone?

AZGrizFan wrote:WAFJ our media has become (which I didn't think could get any worse)...and the liberals in congress and now the VP are in lock-step with them....suddenly someone who disagrees with your political ideology is no longer just your "opponent", they're "terrorists". The rhetoric from the left is fucking embarrassing, when you realize the won't even call a TERRORIST a terrorist, but they have no problem calling members of their own profession terrorists simply because they disagree on the proper direction for the country. If I were a democrat, I'd be absofuckinglutely embarrassed at the conduct of my party.


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rusty-weis ... rrorists-m" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Throughout his tenure, there have been several facets in which President Obama has been demonstrably weak on leadership, with the debt debate coming to the forefront in recent months. Now however, lost in that news cycle has been another failure of leadership for the President – his own request to tone down violent rhetoric in this country. For it was mere months ago that Obama stood in front of a crowd in Tucson that had anxiously sought leadership amidst the chaos of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting; a teachable moment that had The Guardian gushing about how the President had delivered “calm amid the toxic rhetoric.”

That moment of calm has long since dissipated. Where once the President had denounced discourse that places “the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do”, we hear Republicans blamed for holding the American people hostage to their economic policies. Where once we were urged to talk “with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds”, we now hear Tea Party members being denounced as terrorists.

Make no mistake, this ratcheting up of terrorism and hostage-taking discourse directly coincides with recent events in Norway. The instant that Oslo terrorist, Anders Behring Breivik, was labeled as a ‘right-wing Christian’, liberals finally had their moment to seize upon - not just a chance to label conservatives as extreme ideologues but a chance to label them as violent ideologues. This message has been a coordinated and vicious attack amongst the media, the Democrats, and most assuredly, the President.

Prior to the Norwegian massacre, references to the Tea Party as extreme were prevalent, but making the leap in logic to terrorism had been scant. After the Norwegian massacre however, liberals defining the Tea Party as hostage-taking terrorists have become far more frequent. In the last few days it has become practically commonplace.

This past Friday Politico ran an op-ed titled, The Tea Party’s Terrorist Tactics, which featured an illustration of an individual with a dollar sign-shaped bomb strapped to their chest, and argued that the party had progressed from hostage-taking to “the intentional infliction of harm on innocent Americans to achieve a political objective – terrorism.”

Joe Klein penned a piece for Time in which he accused Republicans of being beholden to ‘Tea Party robots’, and worse, that their perceived unwillingness to compromise is something that would have made Osama bin Laden proud. The exact quote being that were he alive, bin Laden “could not have come up with a more clever strategy for strangling our nation.”

Rush Limbaugh ran a montage on his radio show to demonstrate that these attacks on the Tea Party aren’t limited to the ever-biased media, but have been coordinated with their liberal leaders in government. That montage features Democrats echoing the same sentiment ad nauseam, with over 16 different politicians referring to the Tea Party or Republicans as holding the American people hostage.

Former Democratic Congressman, Martin Frost, also in the Politico, cuts right to the chase with an op-ed titled, The Tea Party Taliban. Frost argues that “like the Taliban” the Tea Party sees “compromise as an unacceptable alternative”. He claims that the party’s quest for political purity gives them “much in common with the Taliban.”

In lockstep with the sentiments of his colleagues, the President himself delivered a weekly address in which he denounced the Republican solution to solve the debt crisis as a plan that “would hold our economy captive to Washington politics.”

It is enough to make one wonder, where did our healing President go? Where is the man that calmed during a time of toxic rhetoric? Where is the man who urged Americans to talk in a way that helped rather than harmed?

That man is a myth. He simply does not exist.

We will never hear the President denounce such vile language from his side of the aisle. In fact, we consistently hear the drone of silence from a supposed leader, where such silence equates to consent.

The better question is – Where has our leadership gone?

Go ahead, liberals, and denounce the source. Because the FACTS are indisputable...your party leaders are a fucking embarrassment to this country with their antics.

SuperHornet wrote:I don't know that I'd whitewash the entire lib establishment with that, AZ. But it's certainly true of the (relatively few) lib trolls here on CS.com.

AZGrizFan wrote:Let what be? You and I both know the lib establishment's first tactic when they can't refute the facts is to attack the source, even when the facts are TRUE and speak for themselves.

You HAVE to go to a conservative source for this stuff, because the 90% of media that's liberal sure as fuck ain't gonna self-report.

D1B wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:Let what be? You and I both know the lib establishment's first tactic when they can't refute the facts is to attack the source, even when the facts are TRUE and speak for themselves.

You HAVE to go to a conservative source for this stuff, because the 90% of media that's liberal sure as fuck ain't gonna self-report.

Not here, fuckhead. You conks are more known for that.

AZGrizFan wrote:WAFJ our media has become (which I didn't think could get any worse)...and the liberals in congress and now the VP are in lock-step with them....suddenly someone who disagrees with your political ideology is no longer just your "opponent", they're "terrorists". The rhetoric from the left is **** embarrassing, when you realize the won't even call a TERRORIST a terrorist, but they have no problem calling members of their own profession terrorists simply because they disagree on the proper direction for the country. If I were a democrat, I'd be absofuckinglutely embarrassed at the conduct of my party.


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/rusty-weis ... rrorists-m" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Throughout his tenure, there have been several facets in which President Obama has been demonstrably weak on leadership, with the debt debate coming to the forefront in recent months. Now however, lost in that news cycle has been another failure of leadership for the President – his own request to tone down violent rhetoric in this country. For it was mere months ago that Obama stood in front of a crowd in Tucson that had anxiously sought leadership amidst the chaos of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting; a teachable moment that had The Guardian gushing about how the President had delivered “calm amid the toxic rhetoric.”

That moment of calm has long since dissipated. Where once the President had denounced discourse that places “the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do”, we hear Republicans blamed for holding the American people hostage to their economic policies. Where once we were urged to talk “with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds”, we now hear Tea Party members being denounced as terrorists.

Make no mistake, this ratcheting up of terrorism and hostage-taking discourse directly coincides with recent events in Norway. The instant that Oslo terrorist, Anders Behring Breivik, was labeled as a ‘right-wing Christian’, liberals finally had their moment to seize upon - not just a chance to label conservatives as extreme ideologues but a chance to label them as violent ideologues. This message has been a coordinated and vicious attack amongst the media, the Democrats, and most assuredly, the President.

Prior to the Norwegian massacre, references to the Tea Party as extreme were prevalent, but making the leap in logic to terrorism had been scant. After the Norwegian massacre however, liberals defining the Tea Party as hostage-taking terrorists have become far more frequent. In the last few days it has become practically commonplace.

This past Friday Politico ran an op-ed titled, The Tea Party’s Terrorist Tactics, which featured an illustration of an individual with a dollar sign-shaped bomb strapped to their chest, and argued that the party had progressed from hostage-taking to “the intentional infliction of harm on innocent Americans to achieve a political objective – terrorism.”

Joe Klein penned a piece for Time in which he accused Republicans of being beholden to ‘Tea Party robots’, and worse, that their perceived unwillingness to compromise is something that would have made Osama bin Laden proud. The exact quote being that were he alive, bin Laden “could not have come up with a more clever strategy for strangling our nation.”

Rush Limbaugh ran a montage on his radio show to demonstrate that these attacks on the Tea Party aren’t limited to the ever-biased media, but have been coordinated with their liberal leaders in government. That montage features Democrats echoing the same sentiment ad nauseam, with over 16 different politicians referring to the Tea Party or Republicans as holding the American people hostage.

Former Democratic Congressman, Martin Frost, also in the Politico, cuts right to the chase with an op-ed titled, The Tea Party Taliban. Frost argues that “like the Taliban” the Tea Party sees “compromise as an unacceptable alternative”. He claims that the party’s quest for political purity gives them “much in common with the Taliban.”

In lockstep with the sentiments of his colleagues, the President himself delivered a weekly address in which he denounced the Republican solution to solve the debt crisis as a plan that “would hold our economy captive to Washington politics.”

It is enough to make one wonder, where did our healing President go? Where is the man that calmed during a time of toxic rhetoric? Where is the man who urged Americans to talk in a way that helped rather than harmed?

That man is a myth. He simply does not exist.

We will never hear the President denounce such vile language from his side of the aisle. In fact, we consistently hear the drone of silence from a supposed leader, where such silence equates to consent.

The better question is – Where has our leadership gone?

Go ahead, liberals, and denounce the source. Because the FACTS are indisputable...your party leaders are a **** embarrassment to this country with their antics.

AZGrizFan wrote:

D1B wrote:
Not here, fuckhead. You conks are more known for that.

D, EVERYONE here knows conks argue with facts, donks argue with emotion. Both here and on the national scene. To claim otherwise is pure stupidity on your part.

Cap'n Cat wrote:The "Liberal Media" thing is a myth perpetuated by the right wind to cover for their failures in getting the US populace to accept their abusive, money-grubbing, war-mongering and backward ideas.

bulldog10jw wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:The "Liberal Media" thing is a myth perpetuated by the right wind to cover for their failures in getting the US populace to accept their abusive, money-grubbing, war-mongering and backward ideas.

You forgot terrorists, racists, and balancing the budget on the backs of seniors and the poor. Try to keep up.

edit to add: and don't forget "tax cuts for their wealthy friends"

D1B wrote:

AZGrizFan wrote:
D, EVERYONE here knows conks argue with facts, donks argue with emotion. Both here and on the national scene. To claim otherwise is pure stupidity on your part.

LMFAO!

Yeah, Commander Z here are your Top 5 "Conk" Facts:

1. There are WMD's in Iraq
2. Trickle down economics works, not just in theory
3. Ronald Reagan is god
4. Roe V Wade is unconstitutional
5. "John McCain could not have picked a better VP candidate than Sarah Palin"

The gift that keeps on giving......

houndawg wrote: How could anyone denounce a source that cites a montage on Rush Limbaughs show that proves that the liberal leaders are behind everything the media does?

Cap'n Cat wrote:The "Liberal Media" thing is a myth perpetuated by the right wing to cover for their failures in getting the US populace to accept their abusive, money-grubbing, war-mongering and backward ideas.

kalm wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:The "Liberal Media" thing is a myth perpetuated by the right wing to cover for their failures in getting the US populace to accept their abusive, money-grubbing, war-mongering and backward ideas.

The right has always had better rhetoric and now the Dems get tough with their messaging and someone's feelings get hurt.

There are few true libs in the msm and corporate media these days and lumping politico in with them as a source is as laughable as describing Obama a progressive socialist.

Now however, lost in that news cycle has been another failure of leadership for the President – his own request to tone down violent rhetoric in this country. For it was mere months ago that Obama stood in front of a crowd in Tucson that had anxiously sought leadership amidst the chaos of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting; a teachable moment that had The Guardian gushing about how the President had delivered “calm amid the toxic rhetoric.”

AZGrizFan wrote:

kalm wrote:

The right has always had better rhetoric and now the Dems get tough with their messaging and someone's feelings get hurt.

There are few true libs in the msm and corporate media these days and lumping politico in with them as a source is as laughable as describing Obama a progressive socialist.

There's a difference between "rhetoric" and what these yahoos are doing. And if it were just limited to the media then maybe we could all just write it off as the "liberal media".....but when senators and congressmen from the opposing party and the fucking vice president of the United States starts using the same rhetoric, well I'm sorry but that's just not acceptable...and it's also highly, highly hypocritcal given the president's insistence that we all "tone down the rhetoric" following Gabby Gifford's shooting.

Now however, lost in that news cycle has been another failure of leadership for the President – his own request to tone down violent rhetoric in this country. For it was mere months ago that Obama stood in front of a crowd in Tucson that had anxiously sought leadership amidst the chaos of the Gabrielle Giffords shooting; a teachable moment that had The Guardian gushing about how the President had delivered “calm amid the toxic rhetoric.”

But, then again, this is the same guy who in 2006 said that it was irresponsible to continually raise the debt ceiling and then begs and pleads as president to raise the debt ceiling so they can pay for all his programs that are bankrupting the country so why should we expect him to remember what he said 5 months ago?

kalm wrote:
I'm only here to make fun of conks.

bulldog10jw wrote:

kalm wrote:
I'm only here to make fun of conks.

Wouldn't it be better to try to do something at which you are actually good?

kalm wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:The "Liberal Media" thing is a myth perpetuated by the right wing to cover for their failures in getting the US populace to accept their abusive, money-grubbing, war-mongering and backward ideas.

The right has always had better rhetoric and now the Dems get tough with their messaging and someone's feelings get hurt.

There are few true libs in the msm and corporate media these days and lumping politico in with them as a source is as laughable as describing Obama a progressive socialist.

bulldog10jw wrote:

kalm wrote:
I'm only here to make fun of conks.

Wouldn't it be better to try to do something at which you are actually good?

AZGrizFan wrote:

bulldog10jw wrote:
Wouldn't it be better to try to do something at which you are actually good?

That would require him to actually be good at something.