(no subject)

[oportet.livejournal.com]

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?

Comments

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

why do you limit that litany to conservatives?

[paft.livejournal.com]

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

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

jefferson davis.

care to answer my question now?

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

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.

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

true. they're both worthless and weak today. the republicans obstruct, the democrats whine, and both spend money they don't have hand over fist.

[rainynights.livejournal.com]

I totally agree with you!

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

my logic is undeniable.

[rainynights.livejournal.com]

I love the way you think! You say things that I am thinking just can not find appropriate ways to express them without being obnoxious haha.

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

don't underestimate yourself. obnoxious is good.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

You (and I) don't find don't find him (?) obnoxious because we agree with him :D

[paft.livejournal.com]

So you had to go back over a century.

You do realize, don't you, that the Democratic Party of Jefferson Davis was not the moderate-to-liberal Democratic party of today right?

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

you didn't specify time frames. but since we're all upset about arizona, if you'd asked which modern liberal-democratic president interned minority american citizens, i could have said roosevelt.

but once again. you didn't answer my question.

why do you limit that litany to conservatives?

[paft.livejournal.com]

d: you didn't specify time frames.

So you're not debating issues so much as playing a sort of verbal footsie.

d: but since we're all upset about arizona, if you'd asked which modern liberal-democratic president interned minority american citizens, i could have said roosevelt.

Did I ask that? And what does that have to do with my question about calls for secession?

d: but once again. you didn't answer my question. why do you limit that litany to conservatives?

Because it's the right wing that's been doing these things in today's America. Not liberals. Oh, I'm sure you can find some obscure case where someone on the left showed up packing heat in the vicinity of a conservative president, or invoke that tongue-in-cheek call for "secession" by a few people in Vermont, but there's nothing on the left to compare with Rick Perry's recent invocation of secession, or the recent cases of people "protesting" by bringing guns to public rallies.

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

the issue was the tea party. and you used -that- as an excuse to toss in the anti-conservative boogeymen you always rail on about, such as your anecdotes about the 1960's civil rights demonstrations.

so since we're playing that game, i took the liberty of tossing in a few of my own. chessdev brought up arizona by the way.

. Oh, I'm sure you can find some obscure case where someone on the left showed up packing heat in the vicinity of a conservative president

i'd never be able to provide such examples since no true scotsman would ever do such a dastardly deed.

[paft.livejournal.com]

d: the issue was the tea party.

Yes. We were asked to explain why, as liberals, we object to the Tea Party movement.

d: and you used -that- as an excuse to toss in the anti-conservative boogeymen you always rail on about, such as your anecdotes about the 1960's civil rights demonstrations.

What happened to 1960s civil rights activists are not "anecdotes." They are facts of history.

d: so since we're playing that game, i took the liberty of tossing in a few of my own.

In other words, you can't argue the issue on the facts, so you argue in bad faith.

PFT: Oh, I'm sure you can find some obscure case where someone on the left showed up packing heat in the vicinity of a conservative president
d: i'd never be able to provide such examples since no true scotsman would ever do such a dastardly deed.

Now you're just babbling.

You always run out of arguments so fast in these exchanges.

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Because that is the group most of those people have claimed allegance with.

Furthermore the Tea Party has **not** disavowed those people or tried to control "the message".

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

a fair number are independents and blue-dog dems.

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

Independents, yes, blue dog dems, no.

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/90541-survey-four-in-10-tea-party-members-dem-or-indie

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

The national breakdown of the Tea Party composition is 57 percent Republican, 28 percent Independent and 13 percent Democratic, according to three national polls by the Winston Group, a Republican-leaning firm that conducted the surveys on behalf of an education advocacy group. Two-thirds of the group call themselves conservative, 26 are moderate and 8 percent say they are liberal.


Uh....the percentages are virtually negligible for the point you're trying to assert. Try again.

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

say what? thirteen percent dems is negligible? why that's the percentage of blacks in the united states. do you consider them negligible too?

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

Stop with the strawmanning and bait... it's cheap.

Considering the poll was a telephone survey given by a conservative group already we have potential bias in leading questions.

Then from THAT we still have 2 points unaccounted for in the survey (57+28+13 = 98) which means anyone of the numbers probably has at least a +/- 2 percent margin; which is pretty high considering how small those numbers are for the "Democrat" listed.

Finally, 13% really IS a small number until you can show me these are people who claim membership rather than sympathize on 1 or 2 issues -- which a phone survey doesnt make clear.

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

That's not a poll I respect. Among many weaknesses, it doesn't show registered liberals.

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

great. find one that confirms your biases.

[sealwhiskers.livejournal.com]

All the anti democrat signs in the gatherings I've been to gave me a clue. Get a clue.