At 9/18/10 09:28 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:
1. from the start, there were about as many liberals in the tea party as there were conservatives in fucking PETA, don't kid yourself.
It is silly because the original act that defined the original protests was thought up by a Democrat, but it was used against the utilities: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articl e/0,9171,1541281,00.html (2006)
As far as it being a "conservative" ideology, that is a complete myth. Granted I'm having a hard time finding the article I read years ago about the north east tea party in the middle of the woods. There have been too many articles since, and I don't remember who published it.
Libertarians don't usually identify with either party, feel free to ask them. They are on the site. They generally hate both political parties. And as far as social conservatism, my god, don't go there with them. So, at the very least we are both wrong as I can't find my article, but I can live with that.
2. everyone knows the tea party has always been a conservative/libertarian movement.
yet you have yet to explain why that's a bad thing.
I didn't say it is a bad thing. I said that since the party has grown it's levels of uninformed participants has as well, and that that group of people is easily swayed by media pundits who have lied on multiple occasions to win points, who have displayed an ignorance of the issues over time, and who have a political agenda that has nothing to do with tea party (beck, palin, & williams).
3. "went out into the woods and drank tea"... do i need to explain why this is absolutely retarded?
Please, don't tax yourself. :D :D :D :D
Get it? Tax yourself!
actually, it was (unofficially) started by ron paul, it had nothing to do with war, there was a separate movement for that already.
If you think it had nothing to do with war, then you don't know anything about Ron Paul. I'm a liberal and I still know one of the first things Ron Paul would do (if granted the power) is pull all of the armed forces out of anywhere that isn't the U.S.A.
1. liberals were never there to begin with, moderates didn't go anywhere, and it was founded in 2009, right before bush left office.
I see links as far back as 2006 there buddy. I think self described moderates aren't always moderates, since people like to place themselves as near the center as they can. As far as liberals, where do you think libertarians come from? Oh, classical liberals. And did you know there are left & right wing & moderate libertarians? Probably not.
2. you're just looking for any excuse to use the word "neocon".
Lol, no I'm really not. Beck wanted to restore america's honor by returning america to god. That is a neocon idea.
and the dems didn't do the same thing with the anti-war movement?
I know plenty of republicans that didn't like the war. And plenty of libertarians (oh all of them) that didn't like the war. And as far as I can see, democrats still some war hawks in congress. This isn't about dems though, so try not to go off topic.
using the Janeane Garofalo argument, I see.
Have you ever actually looked at the content of William's speaches? Go look.
And Beck certainly likes the fear & telling people what to do.
A bit about Beck 4:45 etc.
simply calling someone racist is NOT making a valid point. rather, it is the exact fucking opposite.
well, you're doing a FINE job of breaking that stereotype, aren't you?
Nah, I don't mind the libertarians. I disagree with them on some levels, but they don't scare me. And sure, I agree with them on others. The military could be reduced. The fed could be looked at closer. Taxes should probably reduced where waste can be proven. I just don't take it as far.
you're really sticking by that egregious inaccuracy, aren't you?
I wish I could, I just can't find that article.
you openly used the word "cult" to describe someone who simply disagrees with you, yet you STILL don't see how that's an insult?
People following a leader who has alternate motives. Beck, Williams & Palin. Yes I do.
yeah, because it couldn't have anything to do with the bailouts, or the election in 2012, could it?
The bail outs yes, the 2012 election was the beginning of the high jack if you are referencing Obama over McCain, instead of Ron Paul winning.
why do you liberals always use fox news as a scapegoat? you never give any reasoning apart from "0h, d3y disagr33 w1f m3 s0 d3y must b 33vul, r3v0k3 d31r 1st am3ndm3nt rit3z & tak3 d3m awff da air n@0 & r3plac3 d3m w1f sum1 unbiast li3k k33f 0bermin."
Because Fox News has demonstrated itself to be a right wing biased source of entertainment that finances right wing groups and sues democratic candidates.
Conspiracies rarely use real paper trails. There's more out there, and its generally not from crazy people.
you STILL don't see how this is generalizing?
I'm using a wide paint brush, sure. It still seems pretty accurate.
Anyway, it would be wrong of me to claim these things without some basis, so here you go:so they interviewed one sixth of one very small protest?
http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/18/tea-par ty-ignorant-taxes-opinions-columnists-br uce-bartlett.html
Its funny because when polls are taken that constitute less than 1% of the american public they are generally given more credence than what you are giving this.
And you are welcome to do more research on your own.Gladly!
Lol, we're all out here: "democrats" "republicans" & "independents"
I could easily pull statistics here about how many attendants were actually black, but whatever. The point was not that the entire movement was racist, the point I made was that the "leaders" who have high jacked the movement are in some cases racist and use racist language to provoke their followers. (beck & williams)
I'll see your two links,
and I'll even raise you one.
You missed that whole multitude of opinions didn't you? I can go get 5 links with white people saying racist things or bigoted things, and some of those things will be about black people and most of them about Muslims. But that wasn't the point.