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?

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

They make us embarrassed to share nationality with them.

You don't get how some of us liberals might be a bit put off by signs like "I came unarmed THIS time?" You don't get how some of us liberals might object to being equated with Communists and traitors? You don't get that the messages of tea party heros like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, and Sarah Palin might alienate us just a wee bit?

Alienate you? I'm not going to go around looking for numbers, but I'm pretty sure there are more of you.

What they do/say shouldn't embarrass you too much, if you are separating yourselves from them.

They're like your rivals JV team, only helping you, only hurting them, why care so much?

Presumably what people have against them is the views that they hold.

What do you think "alienate" means?

I understand the movement is made up mostly of conservatives,

ding ding ding. we have a winnah.

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.

Missing the point. Why would we sympathize with a group that not only misrepresents us, but furthermore uses implicit threats, talks of secession, and backs racist policies (see Arizona)?

It's not just about playing numbers games -- it's about an entire train of thought that we dont agree with (and honestly, neither should you).

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

Who said I did? Because I'm not liberal I must be with them?

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

Yes, that would be the *only* reasons Liberals would support them...
uh huh..

not the calls of Socialism/Marxists/Fascists against Liberals?

not the calls of anti-intellectualism?

not the implicit threats of violence ("If they want my gun, I'll give them the bullets first")?

not the backing of racist policies (see Arizona)?

not that the premise of the "Taxed Enough Already" party looks silly when taxes this year were record low and next year will follow suit?

... yeah, it couldn't be any of THOSE things....

just that their conservatives....uh huh...

aren't mischaracterations fun? you should have been a propagandist.

than again. maybe you are.

they don't presume to represent you.

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.

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?

Did I say you were "with them"?? When I said "neither should you" that was a general statement - not an accusation.

What mischaracterizations?? This forum has been full of links backing
everything I just said.

Are we going to be revising history today where you claim "they're misunderstood"??

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?

liberal links backing the liberal links from liberal links? yes, such proof is damning indeed.

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?

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.

And apparently the truth of those links is irrelevant.

Arizona just passed a law legalizing racial profiling and requiring people to "carry papers" -- something I've heard support from a number of Tea Party members. You can imagine Liberals would be less than thrilled about the very police state the Tea Party accuses us of trying to create.

and signs reading "We'll give them the bullets first"?? Yeah, probably just anamolies... that keep happening over and over....

But I see your point -- so long as we attack the *source* and not the CONTENT then you can claim "mischaracterization" regardless of the truth.

It's a WIN-WIN!!

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 1 of 9