Stay classy, Tea Party - Page 2

That was a completely unprovoked and inappropriate personal attack for which you have been reported.


Perhaps you could clarify...you're comparing the Tea Party to those who wanted Lincoln dead?

Oh, re-read the quote from the SF Chronicle and use your brain.



It's about language and violent rhetoric. You're not stupid.

"If They Bring a Knife to the Fight, We Bring a Gun." - President Barack Obama

After the Giffords shooting, liberals jumped on this "violent rhetoric" theme and ran with it. Calling the Tea Party racist and stupid wasn't working, so they decided to give this one a whirl. Dems decided to take a few exampled of wackadoos and make them the poster children of the movement. "Progressive" organizations even sent out "protestors" to join the group...quite literally a false flag organization.

Now of course, the new "non-violent" standards don't apply and have never applied to progressives. They can continue to use rhetoric that is actually violent, such as hoping that Rush Limaugh's kidney's fail, or stating that they think someone should put a bullet between Dick Cheney's eyes.

Come on, Mumbo...you haven't noticed? Any group with whom democrats, leftists and progressives disagree is racist, stupid, ignorant, sexest, bigoted, and even evil. This is why we have the new head of the DNC running around saying the GOP is "anti-women." Further she stated:


from here: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/was...gop-anti-women

Wait, I thought we were done with violent rhetoric? \

Let me tell you about the real opposition to the Tea Party. It's liberals/progressives/leftists and socialists who actually believed they could change the fabric of America. They are in nuclear meltdown over the fact that much of the populace...the core of the country...has finally figured out what "remaking America" actually means. Everyday Americans in the lower, middle and upper-middle class have figured it out. And they are not happy with the direction their country is going. Sure, they argue about taxes and healthcare and wars and scandals and what have you...but they don't want our free enterprise system to be drastically altered. They don't wan to be told they can't drive their kids to soccer practice or have a BBQ because it's killing the environment. They don't want NASA to have "Muslim outreach" as one of its missions. They don't want the government spending double what it takes in. They don't want the government owning auto companies, banks, etc. They've woken up.

Once folks who think like you do realized there was actual resistance to their thinking, they decided it needed to be eliminated. Cue the -isms and slander against everyday people that disagree with policies. Welcome to America.

Here's that quote from the SF Chronicle editorial on John Wilkes Booth following the assassination of Abraham Lincoln again.

A used a word.

B used the same word.

Thus b = a.

Is that really your attempt at a logical argument?

When I read this sort of thing, about your moderate centrist President and his economic policies to the right of France of Germany, I can't help but wonder when right wing America became such a bunch of hysterical pants-wetting ideologues.

You can chill out. Your government's to the right of France and Germany and to the left of Britain. For god's sake, chill the fuck out.

I see. Well, I'll have to talk to you through the fearsomely difficult point that I am making, then.

People act on violent rhetoric. Like when there was a campaign to brand Abraham Lincoln a tyrant. They couldn't disagree with him; they called him a tyrant. And someone assassinated him. Before jumping on the stage and declaring 'death to tyrants'.

You see? Really very simple.

So let's start censoring free speech and brand anyone found to be expressing opposition to the Dear Leader in any form or fashion an enemy of the state. After all, it's "for our own good".

Actually, it's already happening:

Park Ranger Orders Visitor to Leave National Military Park, Citing Objection to Ron Paul Decals on Car

EXACTLY. That kind of thing—comparing Barack Obama to the tyrannical leader of North Korea and claiming there's a system of state censorship in operation, when in reality one park ranger was a bit of a dickhead over a bumper sticker that didn't even mention the president?

Why don't you just chill out and voice your objections like an adult instead of wetting your pants about tyranny that doesn't actually exist?

One park ranger is an idiot, but the entire Tea Party Movement wants to assassinate Barack Obama.

How can you not see the inconsistency in your thinking?

Sigh.

While you're looking for the place where I said that the entire Tea Party movement actually wants to assassinate Barack Obama, why not have a bath and unwind, telling yourself 'Barack Obama isn't a tyrant and I really can breathe out now, because he's not really like the leader of North Korea.'

Here's that quote from the SF Chronicle again, by the way, about John Wilkes Booth.

Which is of course totally different from the way conservatives operate huh?

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=107127

Oh God!

Morning Mumbo!

One park ranger screwed up, and you're perfectly willing to hold him responsible for his actions.

A crazed lunatic with no confirmed political affiliation or motive injures and kills people at a political rally in Tucson and you blame the so-called "violent rhetoric" of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party for his actions.

It's a shameless attempt to demonize a political figure or group of people you disagree with.

People don't act on violent rhetoric. Violent people use violent rhetoric before and after committing violent acts. Non-violent people use violent rhetoric as analogies so they do not have to commit any such acts.

People who equate the two are stupid and illogical. They are also profoundly scary and authoritarian. Finally since they cannot distinguish between actions and speech, they are worrisome since they are most likely to commit actual violent acts against others for speech since in their mind the two are the same.

In the meantime we have the classy Ed Schulz calling a talk show host a SLUT.

And some people egg their shall we say less focused followers into to doing violent acts by putting targets on a map of people.

http://www.torontomike.com/2011/01/p..._us_rep_g.html



Or how about this post from you in your rising tide etc. thread :

Yes, of course, trumptman, words have no power to persuade anyone to action, and the context of public rhetoric in which John Wilkes Booth assassinated Abraham Lincoln and the nationalistic speeches of Radovan Karadic, or Rwandan public radio, are entirely irrelevant to the violence that followed.


What a desperate, useless argument you've made, trumptman.

It's pretty clear that Jared Lee Loughner wasn't a follower of Palin. He was a hard leftist upset that Gifford's was acting like a centrist.

But let's run with your crazy logic. Clearly you're trying to cover for Barack Obama who incited Loughner into shooting people. I mean he said to bring a gun to any disagreement. Loughner disagreed and remedied that disagreement in the manner Barack Obama prescribed.

I mean how can you not follow my reasoning when Barack Obama is a Patriot Act extending, torture camp operating, bombing the whole middle east through endless wars, won't even seek the sanction of Congress kind of President?

From a person as irrational as yourself MJ, that's a compliment.

That's the worst comeback I've ever read.

You really ought to stop giving him compliments. He might think you like him or something.

Lets see :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner

So there's no direct connection to Palin but that doesn't mean he didn't see the poster and take it to heart.

Yes, yes, of course trumpy hard left!

You ignored the parts I bolded above.

And you also ignored the fact that taking everything into account he really can't fit into the carefully contrived Right or Left molds.

He is an anomaly. A loner. He is a crazed lunatic who probably never saw Sarah Palin's map.

And a registered Independent!

Seriously I didn't ignore anything and I still maintain political figures shouldn't be making posters with targets on people's names for obvious reasons.


You have no way of knowing that.

Neither do the people claiming Palin's map has had ANYTHING to do with the Giffords shooting or any other violent act.

I knew you'd say that so at best we have no way of knowing either way but the graphic was on the news so lots of people did see it.

And what you fail to understand is that we're not France, nor Germany. We became the economic power of the world because our policies were different. And our President is the most liberal President we've ever had. He is at odds with the vast majority of the country. This is the guy who was recorded saying "people in small towns cling to their guns and their religion." He's an elitist, progressive-socialist. The media worked to cover his true beliefs, associations and backstory...instead focusing on "Hope and Change." Is it really any surprise people don't like the guy?

And as for the SF Chronicle: That has got to be one of the weakest "points" I have ever seen.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2....php?ref=fpblg

Translation you don't like that guy.

And : http://articles.philly.com/2011-05-1...g-big-majority


Here SDW you can jump on this one : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43080973


However that's still 46 %.

He got a bump from the capture of bin laden. Prior to getting bin Laden, his approval was down to 41 percent according the Gallup. It's now hovering in the high 40s. That's according to pollingreport.com.

And honestly, this is one time I don't trust the polls. I think Obama (and you, apparently) have grossly underestimated the wake-up call the electorate has had in the past two years. And you're ignoring the fact that Obama in alienating voters at the center and the left. Given a strong GOP candidate, he's got a tough road.

Why are you acting out like this, SDW2001?

No, Barack Obama is not a "progressive-socialist" (to use a term invented by Fox News pundits.)

If you think Barack Obama's a socialist, you really, truly don't know what socialism means. You don't know what it is. He's a big private capital-protecting tax-cutting capitalist, which is why your taxes have gone down, SDW, and he's nowhere near as "progressive" economically as FDR. Go and make some herbal tea and put some whale sounds on and thank god you don't have the tax thresholds you had before the war.

And his poll figures are excellent. They're much better than Reagan's or Clinton's were at this point in their presidencies.

I think it most likely at this point that he'll see a second term. Anyone who doesn't see that is practicing wishful thinking.

He always acts like this.

Is this a serious reply? The map wasn't on the news. It was on her website for her political action committee.

trumpy because of it's controversial nature yes it was on the news ( I mean painting targets on people isn't very nice ). I'd heard of it before the shooting.

Plus this guy was fairly political he may have gone to her website or linked there from some other political website. It's the 21rst century trumpy wake up!

I'm sorry, I didn't know disagreeing with you was forbidden.


He is. He's a progressive with socialist leanings....at least he is in our political spectrum.


Funny, because I agree with most of that. Obama is not a socialist like say, Chavez is a socialist. But for our system, he's about as progressive as it gets. I will grant you two or three exceptions: Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and FDR. That said, those men were presiding over a very different system. Social Security didn't even exist when FDR took over. Much of the spending he did was on direct infrastructure and jobs. I don't agree with much of what he did, but comparing our nation's policy spectrum today to that time is a bit silly.

Obama believes in things many Americans simply don't. He believes in "redistributive change." He believes the Bill of Rights is a "charter of negative liberties...it says what the government can't do, but not what it must do on your behalf." He says "I think when we spread the wealth around, everyone's better off." He had associations with the former radical, Bill Ayers...associations the media covered up (they were close). He had a radical, anti-American pastor. And he had people like Van Jones (former member of STORM). These are all facts. They are not rumors, lies, innuendo, etc. Obama is one of, if not the most radical Presidents we've ever had.


Eh...not really. Averages show he's about equal...in the low forties (where he will soon be again unless the economy improves dramatically or an unforeseen geopolitical event occurs). Clinton and Reagan both had 35 percents ratings at one point, of course. But I really think the numbers are not telling the whole story. This is purely anecdotal, but I have never seen such negativity amongst people I speak with. I know many people from various walks of life who are now completely opposed to Obama's policies and decisions. These include liberals, moderates, conservatives, and formerly non-political types. One of my uncles is in the latter category. Prior to Obama, he was very nonpolitical with, I would say, liberal leanings. He's now a staunch opponent. I've seen lifelong Democrats state they can't vote for the man again. Why is this happening? It's because Obama doesn't view the country as other Presidents have. I'll say it...he doesn't love the country. I'm not saying he hates it, but he doesn't love it, or maybe even like it. Coupled with obscene spending and government intervention, moderates are turning from him in droves.

Like the President, I think you're grossly misjudging the character of mainstream America. And you're ignoring those factors that are not shown in the polls. He was elected by moderates and good liberal turnout. But he's upsetting many on the Left with the continuation of the wars, Gitmo, extension of the Bush tax cuts, etc. The result? Liberals will still vote for him, but they won't be energized. It will much like conservatives with McCain. Worse still, he's losing moderates over deficit spending, his Israel policy, government intervention, and arrogant/aloof demeanor. Obviously conservatives aren't going to vote for him. The result is a vastly weakened political base and an energized Republican Party.

One last point: I've stated this before, but it's worth repeating. I did not vote for Obama, but I had high hopes for him. I hoped that he governed like he campaigned. That campaign was based on competence, level-headedness, efficiency, transparency, pragmatism, bipartisanship and fiscal responsibility. But he has governed in the exact opposite way. He's been incompetent (see BP oil spill), defensive/arrogant/aloof (see almost every interview), inefficient, more secretive than ever, ideological, viciously partisan and unbelievably reckless from a fiscal standpoint. In fact, I don't believe ever seen a politican on either side that has governed in the polar opposite way he campaigned.

So to sum up the thread we've got an allegation. One photo that was an attempt to prove it with claims of many more. the one was disproven and the many more not provided. We've got a claim that because the Lincoln assassin and Obama critics used the same word that.... well it never even attempted to draw a conclusion. Then we've got Giffords was shot because someone on the internet put a graphic on their website and we don't know that it was seen but surely must have been the cause as reasoning and proof.

Oh and of course a dozen replies from anyone that noted the crap allegations and proof alleging and calling them half a dozen things.

So you contend the summation is factually wrong because you want to call names. Nice reasoning there. Where's the proof for the claim?