i think the main problem here is that the terrorist label fits but you are too beholden to your party's interests to allow it to stand. i get it, you're a team player and always have been -- at least here in a public space. if you agree with the tactic, that is certainly your right. but you can't sit here and argue that the tactic of both taking the government hostage to issue political demands and threatening default on top of that are not severely destructive to the future of America. ted cruz can stand on the floor of the Senate and proclaim that Obamacare is equivalent to nazism, or paul broun can proclaim Obamacare will be "the destruction of everything", but seizing control of the federal government and issuing demands is "just a budget negotiation". sorry, the real world doesn't work like that.
one of your own put it best when he said "We have to get something out of this. And I don't know what that even is." your people don't know why they shut down the government, and have even less clue how to get out of it without having the Dems bail them out, which of course would be "capitulating" or something. even grover "drown government in a bathtub" norquist is against shutdown and default. the writing is on the wall for apparently everyone but the House gop to read that this shutdown/default fight is nothing less than insanity.
While I'll admit that there are moments when I long for the collapse of state/corporate capitalism even if it involves the suffering of many short-term while the government dissolves into chaos and anarchy, for the most part I find it better to consider that one is often judged by the quality of one's enemies. Considering the two major parties involved in this discussion, I would have to say that certainly the quality of the opposition/debate leaves a lot to be desired on several fronts...
Or in even more clear terms, I think the conflation of "opposition" with "enemy" to be rather troubling. Disliked it in the 1980s-2000s when it came to Democratic opposition to Reagan/Bush foreign policy being labeled as "pinko" or "soft on _" and I certainly dislike seeing the same wrong-headed rhetoric, which denies the validity of an opposing viewpoint, being directed toward a party which until recently (say the past 19 years or so) was one which I could plausibly consider voting for in a state/federal election. I'd much rather see more dispassionate discourse and reasonable resolution to structural issues than to see demagogues of various stripes try to dominate the discussion in a fashion similar to drunken louts at a football game. The latter are odious, sometimes violent people who make others around them feel bad about even having vague associations of fandom/loyalty with those cretins. So are you wanting those like myself to consider you in that unsavory category?
or maybe it's a performance piece designed to shake things up and troll the board for trolling's sake. did you not read my response to legolas in the "terrorists" thread? o_O
"That's the trouble with political jokes in this country... they get elected!" -- Dave Lippman