Republican Candidate Welcomes Obama To Tennessee By Showing Picture Of

[Hanafuda]

The fact is, over the past four years, the constant threats, the increase in hate groups (which were decreasing during Bush 1, Clinton and Bush 2 and have skyrocketed under Obama), the shooting of congresswoman Gabby Giffords, the Batman shooting and the shooting at the Sikh temple are prime reasons why the Secret Service and Justice Department needs to start cracking down on these dickwads

Waaaaaaay more people getting killed in Chicago by gang violence. Let's crack down on those dickwads, then we can crack down on your dickwads.

 

[mthrnite]

Let's get a little trickle-down lovenomics. It might not help Chicago, but it wouldn't cost nothin' and it damn well couldn't hurt.

 

[leic7]

~More Stuff~

Someone's getting a bit upset here. I'm merely underlining that the style of politics based on "don't vote for those people, they're totally naughty because they did this and that! Well, I suppose that you gotta vote for the only alternative then." is perhaps fitting for a playground or a sandbox - this is how children hold their debates. Why are those ads not showing the actual programme of the corresponding Democrat candidates? Why do they have to resort to attacking the opposing party, as if they had nothing to offer?

All I see is an entire channel dedicated to how the Republican party is naughty - an entire channel full of ads that are specifically aimed againts very specific people for the benefit of the Democratic party. But of course, you won't accept that due to your party affiliation, one which I fortunately don't have as I don't support either side of the conflict.

EDIT: And just to end this silly and off-topic discussion, I will conclude by saying that those DCCC adverts are sewn with threads thicker than shoelaces and you can see the subliminal messages in them even if you're standing on the face of the moon - they're the lowest of low possible political plays - when you put focus on what your oponent does wrong rather than on what your candidate does right, all you're doing is showing to the world how little you have to offer yourself.

"Someone voted for controlled abortions? Well, clearly he is againts family planning then - why else would he do that! Why would you vote for someone who's againts family values?" - not a Democratic version of a whistle? Perhaps for you, I'm not that blind. These are all attacks directed againts specific people rather than actual advertisements of the Democratic political programmes, plain and simple.

I don't think you actually understand what a "dog-whistle" is... Attack ads are not dog whistles, partisan biases are not dog whistles. mthrnite gave a pretty succinct description of what it's supposed to do, you might wanna go back and reread it.

The examples of "Democrats can be equally dirty, too" that you've provided are not even on the same level of "dirty" as the examples yuyuyup gave. Do you have no sense of scale? Just because there are less-than-classy moves by both parties doesn't mean all less-than-classy moves by everyone are *equally* distasteful. Some things are on a whole other level than others.

 

[Haloman800]

Proud to live in Tennessee.

God Bless America!

 

[BlueStar]

the "negative liberties" comment will suffice.

Wait... What? Do you think that term means that the liberties given in the constitution are 'negative' or 'bad' things?

Well...yeah. If someone says "negative liberties", I mean I guess...they mean 'negative' or 'bad' things....

Well then you've completely misunderstood then, haven't you.

http://en.wikipedia....egative_liberty

Negative liberty is freedom from interference by other people. Negative liberty is primarily concerned with the possession of sociological agency and contrasts with positive liberty (an individual's freedom from inhibitions of the social structure within the society such as classism, sexism, or racism).

What Obama said

generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf,

Negative liberties is a principle of just that, that it's liberties saying what the government CAN'T do to you (imprison you without trial, take your guns, whatever) as opposed to 'positive liberties', which would be laws saying what the government HAS to do for you (protect you from criminals, make sure you have a chance of an education etc).

Seems you were quite keen to believe something bad about Obama before even finding out what it meant.