talkpolitics | (no subject)

Entry tags:

(no subject)

I'm not a liberal, but if I was, I can't imagine what I would have against the Tea Party movement - so hopefully a liberal/democrat could help me out with this.

I understand the movement is made up mostly of conservatives, so wouldn't that either be a good, or at worst, neutral thing for you when elections come around?

Sure, the Tea Party isn't an official party with representatives, but when a big (or the big) election comes around, they'll most likely endorse someone (If they don't, that would fall under neutral). If the person/people they back are Republican, you saw it coming, and you'll pretty much have the same outcome there would have been if the TP never existed (again, neutral result). If the person/people they back aren't Republican, it wouldn't be taking many, if any, votes away from your side - nowhere near the number it would be taking away from Republicans (this would fall under good for you).

Or am I missing something?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

to make unfriendly, hostile, or indifferent especially where attachment formerly existed

Actually, that is what Webster thinks it means, and I see your point for the first 6 words, not so sure about the last 5 though.

Playing semantics to miss the point? Makes your sincerity to discuss this highly dubious...

Using grown up words where they make no sense makes your sincerity to discuss this highly dubious also.

I do believe her point was clear; The "confusion" seemed to be held only by you. Again, you can't claim you want to talk if you're going to play semantics unless those semantics are critical to the point.

Okay, she asked what I thought, and I went to the dictionary because I didn't see a point in arguing over definitions for an enitre thread.

Personally, before looking it up, I thought to be alienated from a group, it would have to be a group you either belong to or want to belong to.

There is the confusion, liberals don't belong to that group, and as far as I know don't want to.

Is my side of the confusion cleared up now?

I can remember when it was only the very extreme right wing who resorted to yelling "you're a commie" when you disagreed.

Semantics aside, do you understand why I, as a liberal, would object to right wingers carrying signs that threaten violence if they don't get their way? Do you understand why I, as a liberal, would object to being called a communist and traitor? Do you understand why I, as a liberal, would be profoundly insulted by the things Beck, Limbaugh,and Palin say?

Yes, I understand you have different social and political beliefs from them. I thought that was a given without mentioning it in the post.

They say mean things about you and hurt your feelings - I get it - but hasn't that been going on long before they came around? Maybe it's a on a little bit larger scale now, but my point is, aren't they helping you more than they're hurting you?

o: Yes, I understand you have different social and political beliefs from them. I thought that was a given without mentioning it in the post.

You can have different "social beliefs" without accusing the people with whom you disagree of treason, and without threatening them with violence.

o: They say mean things about you and hurt your feelings - I get it -

No, actually, you don't. This isn't about having my "feelings hurt." There is a difference between debating issues, and simply attacking people on a personal level.

It's one thing to say, "I disagree. I think you're wrong. Here's why," and quite another to say, "I disagree. You're an evil traitor. Shut up or we'll hurt you."

o: Maybe it's a on a little bit larger scale now, but my point is, aren't they helping you more than they're hurting you?

Not if they start shooting at people. And the Tea Party approach to "debate" is simply to shut down debate by yelling and threats.

Not if they start shooting people...

So they haven't done that yet, right? And until they do, you see my point, right?

They're aren't wild vigilantes, their barks much louder than their bite.

They make posters, they go to the city and get permits and permission slips to have rallies. How intimidating does that sound?

paft heard gunshots on new year's. it must have been those tea partiers shooting up the illegals again..

o So they haven't done that yet, right?

Tiller? Slepian? Yes, rightwingers who approach "debate" the way the Tea Partiers do have already shot people.

o: And until they do, you see my point, right?

No. I can't imagine how someone could defend the rhetoric used by Tea Partiers. Even if they don't graduate to shooting those guns, shutting down debate as they do and spreading the wild eyed conspiracy theories they embrace (Obama is a Commie/Musim/Kenyan) is NOT good for this country.

o: They're aren't wild vigilantes, their barks much louder than their bite.

I heard "barks" like that in the '60s south during the Civil Rights era. Churches were burned. People were beaten. Some were even killed.

Can you name a Tea Party member, or someone who killed in the name of the Tea Party?

Churchs burning and people being beaten and killed aren't barks, those fall under bites.

People making posters and calling in their rants to talk radio would fall under barks.

o: Can you name a Tea Party member, or someone who killed in the name of the Tea Party?

No. And I don't want us to get to the point where I can.

Had the Tea Party movement existed in 2008, have no doubt that Jim David Adkisson would have been an enthusiastic Tea Partier. The rhetoric of his "manifesto" is very similar to what I've seen coming from the Tea Party movement.

O: Churchs burning and people being beaten and killed aren't barks, those fall under bites.

Exactly.

o: People making posters and calling in their rants to talk radio would fall under barks.

History has shown that violence in rhetoric very often leads to violence in fact, especially when it becomes mainstreamed and validated by prominent people. The louder and more widespread the cries that liberals and Democrats are "traitors," that the President is out to deliberately destroy the country, that the right is at "war" with liberalism, the more likely it is that come crackpot is going to take this stuff literally and act on it.

So, you're in favor of censorship, and you're against people carrying legally obtained and permitted weapons of self defense.

Gotcha.

(no subject)

paft.livejournal.com - 2010-04-28 16:33 (UTC) - Expand

ah, but it's fine when you label others as racists, bigots, and gun-toting secessionists?

i see...

I don't label all conservatives as "racists, bigots, and gun toting-secessionists" -- only those who embrace the idea that black people are dumber, more violent, and more untrustworty than whites, those who cheer calls for secession, and those who bring their guns to public gatherings.

why do you limit that litany to conservatives?

Do cite an elected Democratic official akin to a State governor who's called for secession.

jefferson davis.

care to answer my question now?

Disingenuous; The Democrats and Republicans of a century ago (let alone two) are very different ideologically than the parties of today -- and you know it.

a fair number are independents and blue-dog dems.

Independents, yes, blue dog dems, no.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only