The thing is, there really AREN'T enough of these I'm-a-good-Pavlov's-dog-so-just-say-the-word-terrorist- and-I'll-do-anything-you-want fear-driven voters to swing the election against Obama if things stay as they are today.
But if there were to be a real terrorist event between now and the election, staged by BushCo and McCain and the neocon madmen behind them, taking place on American soil, how many otherwise sane people would suddenly remember the link that the Repugs have tried to establish between Obama and terrorism *then*, eh? Would the Repugs do such a thing? Of course they would, if they thought they could get away with it. The only question is whether they think they could get away with it. IMO, all it would take is one small bioweapon set off in a shopping mall, and blamed on an Arab with dark skin who had been set up to take the fall, and Obama would be toast. Of course this is pure science-fiction speculation on my part, and I hope that nothing like this ever happens. The thing is, in today's America, it could. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozguru@> wrote: > > > > CNN showed a view of Republicans somewhere watching the debate > > and Democrats somewhere watching the debate. I'd love to have > > had a picture of those two views side by side. In years past > > you would have seen a bunch of business like people at the > > Republican gatherings whereas last night it looked like a > > Beavis and Butthead crowd. The Democrat's crowd looked > > way smarter. > > I noticed the same thing. The fascinating thing > from my perspective, trying to read energy signatures > as much as one can via television, is that all of the > Republican viewers they showed in these clips can be > described, energy-wise, in one word: AFRAID. The fear > just *poured* off of them. > > And look at some of the folks here who seem to have > jumped on the "Obama is a terrorist" bandwagon. The > fear just *pours* off of them, too. > > It's like they are dogs who have been taught by some > mad Republican Pavlov to cringe in fear the moment > they hear the words "terrorism" or "terrorist." They > lose all ability to think, and just automatically > say to the person who has said the code word, "Ok, > I'm afraid...I'm salivating...do whatever you want, > as long as it makes me less afraid." > > I get the feeling that some of these people -- like > Willytex and Raunchydog -- would allow Homeland Sec- > urity to cart their MOTHERS away to Guantanamo if > someone in power or in the media called them a > terrorist. They wouldn't hesitate for a moment; in > fact, they'd probably help the Homeland Security > guys dope her to keep her quiet as they dragged > her to the car. "Just go quietly, Mom...it'll be > better for all of us." > > It's the same kind of Pavlovian, knee-jerk reaction > we see in Shemp when anyone mentions the words social- > ism or communism. He loses the ability think rationally, > and can only rant. (Shemp is an old-school dog, still > stuck on the code word "commie," and who hasn't caught > up to the newer, more modern code word, "terrorist.") > > As far as I can tell, this reaction CAN be described > using the term "Pavlovian response." It's not the kind > of response that anyone is born with; it has to be > trained into you. > > And it has been. There is a certain percentage of the > U.S. population that would *gladly* ship their mothers > to Guantanamo if someone on TV called Mom a terrorist. > So when they hear someone on TV claim that Obama is > a terrorist, are they going to hesitate for a moment, > or do any fact-checking? > > Of course they aren't. They're going to vote with their > fear, just as the people saying these things expect > them to. And there is not much that any of us can do > about this, because the cringing dogs have been so > thoroughly trained to do this that now they can't > NOT do it. > > The only thing we can hope for is that there aren't > enough of these trained dogs to swing an election. >
