Don't be dense, ET. You can disagree with someone's politics without calling them a terrorist. There's a literal and very obvious difference. Frankly what you said is on par with people thinking Obama sides with the terrorists because of his middle name.

Lummox JR wrote:
Maybe the Pavlovian thing is regional; I've never met a Republican who thought the birth certificate thing was worth worrying about, and at least around here the birther craze is rightly regarded as a lunatic fringe thing. So too in much of the right blogosphere.

It's not as rare as you may think. And again, one cannot speak anecdotally outside one's region, however national polls try to overcome this restriction:

http://pollingreport.com/obama_ad.htm

To reiterate, this was a gaming play made for the approximate quarter of the entire US voting populace who had this incorrect belief -- not to intelligent folks like yourself or Fugsnarf.

Those poll questions seem a little unclear. You can qualify as a natural-born US citizen even if you're born off of American soil. I think a lot of people never necessarily questioned his citizenship who couldn't be sure of where he was born. Still the intent of the questions does seem clear enough, so maybe I'm being a little too generous towards the respondents.

Everyone knows ET is a troll, why even bother?

Lummox JR wrote:

ET, terorrism has a distinct definition. It isn't just a label that gets slapped willy-nilly on any act of war you disapprove of. Also, your Lincoln rant is so ridiculous it borders on surreal. I do encourage you to apply common sense in your future endeavors.

Your way of thinking is my point. Any time America does something, it's "a war act" to "defend the country". We're just a country of saints aren't we Lummox? No evil exists here in the good ol' land of the free right? You're the one who lacks common sense - this is the same country in which the land was stolen from the Natives, the same country that turned water hoses and sent dogs on blacks. When did we become such a holy nation, Lummox? Apply common sense and tell me why Bush's actions are justified, why he isn't a murderer and a terrorist. Because he isn't apart of al Qaeda? Because of 9/11? Please.

This isn't a matter of opinion, Lummox. By definition, Bush is a terrorist - the only reason people don't call him that is because his actions are labeled otherwise.

It's the same with porn stars. What's the difference between a porn star and a prostitute? They both sell their bodies for money. Yet, if you decide to just do it on a corner rather than go to California and get it recorded, it's a "crime". It's the same thing, just different labels. There is no difference in a porn star and a prostitute you can pick up off the street.

You're right that the definition isn't a matter of opinion, ET. Unfortunately either you don't know what the definition is or you don't know what "definition" even means. Despise Bush and his policies all you like, but they are very definitely not terrorist acts even by greatly stretching the definition of terrorism.

Saying you think Bush overstepped his authority does not make him a terrorist. It may make him other things, but a terrorist is not one of them. And even whether he overstepped any authority is a matter of debate. But again, I don't care which side of that debate you fall on; either way Bush isn't a terrorist any more than Obama, Carter, or the Geico gecko. The word terrorist does not mean "someone who did something war-like that I don't agree with".

I think most of us are mature enough to have our own opinions, ET. We aren't brainwashed. Just settle down.

Okay, I admit it. The men in black suits showed up one night and forced me to buy a dictionary.

Again with the labeling.

What is war, CauTi0N? Don't tell me about if it was "retaliation" or how evil Osama was. What is war? You keep fishing for ways to justify it when, as I said, there is really no difference. A murderer is a murderer no matter which way you want to twist it and say someone "deserved" it. Bush's actions make him a murdering terrorist. We only think otherwise because it was done in the name of "defending our country", "searching for WOMD", or "counter-terrorism" as you mentioned. Labels that were applied to an immoral action to justify it.

It's no different than if I were a soldier. You notice how they don't call soldiers "murderers"? They're called "heroes" and "brave men and women", but not once do you hear them called simply what they are - murderers. This is done on purpose. Because they know if they make ads saying "Come join the army so we can train you to be a murderer!" that doesn't sound right. They have to use terms like "Hero", or "Leader", or "Army Strong" rather than "Murderer", or "Trained Killer", or "Man who specializes in taking the lives of others". These are all mind-games. Titles and phrases to distract you from the actual reality of it all.

You need to look past labels and titles and see things exactly the way they are and not the sugar-coated way they are presented to you.

EmpirezTeam wrote:

What is war, CauTi0N? Don't tell me about if it was "retaliation" or how evil Osama was. What is war? You keep fishing for ways to justify it when, as I said, there is really no difference. A murderer is a murderer no matter which way you want to twist it and say someone "deserved" it. Bush's actions make him a murdering terrorist. We only think otherwise because it was done in the name of "defending our country", "searching for WOMD", or "counter-terrorism" as you mentioned. Labels that were applied to an immoral action to justify it.

I walk up to you and try to stab you. Somehow, in the ensuing struggle I wind up dead. You're now a murderer, go to jail you piece of scum. Really? I guess you should've just let me kill you.

EmpirezTeam wrote:

It's the same with porn stars. What's the difference between a porn star and a prostitute? They both sell their bodies for money. Yet, if you decide to just do it on a corner rather than go to California and get it recorded, it's a "crime". It's the same thing, just different labels. There is no difference in a porn star and a prostitute you can pick up off the street.

Well, you're wrong here too. The important differences are that porn stars are tested for diseases regularly and aren't constantly in a drugged stupor while their counterparts are typically the opposite. The key point being that while they perform similar work one is semi-regulated and the other is a prime cause of STD/STI transmissions.

EmpirezTeam wrote:

Exactly. Do you know why you think this way? Because you're conditioned to believe that way. You were TOLD it wasn't terrorism. And this is the issue - we need to stop accepting whatever is TOLD to us and start looking at things the way they are. If you buy the Iraq invasion nonsense, there is really no hope for you.

What did you just tell me?

Pow.