You guys have got to get your act together before people start taking you seriously...otherwise just make your platform, "we hate n***s and scs!" not saying he speaks for all of you, but if you see this stuff you've got to get rid of it or speak volumes in your silence.
Non issue. I am happy to have idiots vote against progressivism. Better than idiots supporting progressivism. Unless you propose some sort of qualification for casting a vote, it will remain a battle for those that just don't get it.
Jesus Christ, another one of these threads. Stop bombarding us with examples of hate/violence/racism within the Tea Party. Stop bombarding us with examples of hate/violence/racism within the Democratic Party. We get it: this shit occurs on both sides of the fence. Should we ignore it or dismiss it as a non-issue, regardless of what party we're talking about? Of course not. The behavior in and of itself is atrocious no matter who it comes from.
If we want to have any sort of civilized discussion here, then Federalist, tell me what you are going to do to help end racism/hate/advocacy of violence within the political party you belong to instead of filling this site with examples of the opposition's behavior in this vein. Or do you deny that this stuff happens in whatever party you belong to. If you truly belong to a party that is not guilty of this shit, good for you.
To the Tea Partyers/disgruntled Repubs and so forth: tell us what you plan on doing to stop this behavior in YOUR party instead of filling up this site with examples of the opposition's behavior in this vein. Otherwise this whole thread is doomed to the same rhetorical bullshit going on in virtually every other thread in this forum.
I have not really been following the tea party people, but this idiot was kicked out of the protest for waiving that sign. . .
Not really. Nobody has to apologize for the actions of anyone else. The "Tea Party" isn't an official club with a membership roster so "we" can't just kick people out. It's regrettable that the freedom movement attracts racists, but I'm not responsible for what anyone else says or does just because they hold the same political views as me.
So since few Muslims denounce terrorism, you think the vast majority of Muslims countenance terrorism?
you're right to an extent.
You see, the OP needs to make points like this. Of course we all know, that you have wackos on both sides of the issue, and you also have people who are intelligent and reasonable as well. But it is due to people like the OP, who needs to fan this flame, and sidestep the issue that someone might disagree for intelligent, and dare I say feasible reasons.
Could the hc bill be fiscally irresponsible? Of course, it is certainly possible. Could the bill fly in the face of the freedoms our Constitution grants us? Absolutely. Could I disagree with the whoring, anal lubing, and knee padding to get this bill passed? Sure, but those who demonize the rational Tea Party people don't like the idea that intelligent thinking like that could exist. They need them to be crazy, they need them to be out of their minds. Because it diffuses any idea that the bill just might be insane itself. Do you see many pics of protesters who are calm and peaceful ?
After all, Obama could never, would never, lie.
Agreed. I mean think about it: who has a better chance of removing the aforementioned elements from the Tea Party in a manner that destroys their credibility, the Dems or the Tea Party? The Tea Party. If I've got a messy room and you have a messy room, don't burst into my room, take a bunch of pictures and start displaying them all over the place saying "see, his rooms filthy it's stinking up the whole house!" I'll clean my room, you clean yours. If I don't clean it and I try to walk around the house saying I live a clean lifestyle, no one will believe me and eventually I'll destroy my credibility all by myself.
Don't forget though Maximus, there's a flip side to the coin. Those who demonize the rational Democratic Party people don't like the idea that people like that could exist. They need them to be crazy, they need them to be out of their minds. Because it diffuses any idea that the bill just might be sane itself.
yeah, to the FULLEST extent. Stop....just stop....
The ends of the bill do not justify the means. We would all love a utopia, but it comes at a price. In this case, the price is more than the reward.
This thoroughly defines effective campaign management on either side in 2 sentences. Unfortunately liberalism is generally much easier to package for simpletons. You have committed politically aware blocks on the right and left (in a nutshell), but elections are decided by the convictionless middle for whom the lure of sugar coated, deviously disguised "compassionate" progress is all too often too much for them to withstand.
The left will always vote left and the right will always vote as right as they can though our options are waning fast. The middle will vote for whoever sounded best to them in this years ads and sound bites.
I think it would be dangerous for the tea party to allow that guy to speak for them. He would have to be vetted . who is he , criminal past ? Drug useage :)? We can already tell he is some what a nut job:)
Wherever a social, political, or economic movement exists, there too will be unscrupulous, malevolent, or even simply immature individuals within the fold. Such individuals exist within both statist and liberty-based movements. Their existence however does not necessarily invalidate the principles the movement purports to uphold.
Having stated this however, it would be quite bizarre for a true racist--that is, an individual who ventures beyond simple and childish name-calling into the realm of committing physical violence against the hated target--to pronounce liberty from an overbearing government. This should be obvious since policies that physically, socially and/or or monetarily oppress a minority target always require a government apparatus in order to achieve such nefarious goals, whether this be limited at the city, state, or federal level; particularly the latter.
Additionally, keep in mind that however immature or hateful the hurling of a given set of racial epithets at any individual may be such language is also often delivered in an emotionally-charged atmosphere. That is, they are not necessarily racists but their uncontrolled rage impels them to injure another party, if only emotionally. Obviously, this does not provide an excuse for such behavior but rather a possible explanation. Whether or not this is actually the case however is known only in the mind of the individual hurling such epithets, unless of course his/her actions and/or have a history of this type of reprehensible behavior.
Nevertheless, such behavior has no place in public discourse, regardless of the reasons for which it is being acted upon.
Don't worry, we can let those who vet Obama's cabinet do the vetting. They did a marvelous job.
If I had any clue who the fuck Dale Robertson was, I would seriously care about his stupid and misspelled sign.
Do you really want to start a pissing contest on who is more violent and biggoted in there protests? Between peta, now, naral, greenpeace, etc. there's a lot of low hanging fruit.
Is this your measuring stick on how to behave:
I guess we should follow your unsullied reputation for proper behavior.
Instead of "not posting" and "not talking about it," people from both sides should KEEP showing the other side these types of events/things. Do it right when they happen and have people actually denounce it. All too often both sides pretend that it's only "the other side" or that "well...the other side is MUCH worse." I think there should be more threads that point out the extremes of both sides to keep them on the periphery. If this doesn't happen, one risks having, for example, Sarah Palin as a VP (or president).
Shit, look at the violence thread I started. People actually are denying that those events took place. Others are saying that violence against children "makes sense." These people SHOULD be brought out in these type of conversations. They should be exposed and denounced.
In threads on PWI I've seen regular posters on this site advocate for mass deportations (from the USA) of Muslims. I've seen the worst kind of personal attacks leveled against homosexual posters. The list could go on and on. Why shouldn't these type of people be brought to the front and ostracized? If it isn't done from "the other side," I don't think it will ever be done.
BTW, IMO this is the value in FOX/MSNBC. When they go after the worst elements of "the other side," they force change where otherwise there might not be change.