Liberals cannot tolerate disagreement over politics
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 05400.html
They might be perfectly fine with someone who wants to be the other gender, but, heaven forbid, they find someone with a different view of government, it's just too much evil to stomach, apparently.It's not the evil we liberals can't stomach. It's the blazing hypocracy and veiled racism that gets us upset. For instance: I think we "veered off course" when we allowed Crooks and liars to send us to war for money. I think we veered way off course when we allowed the first person to be tortured in our name. And you, the people with the tea bags hanging off your hats, sat silent when when that crook in the white house robbed our treasury to pay for your tax cuts and wars. Your stone cold silence over the last eight years; and your hysterical and convenient concern for our economy now, is evidence of your real lack of concern for how much the ship of state has veered of course, and your obvious hatred of who is running the ship.
That's utter nonsense. Made up crap to try to duck the truth.
Yea...That's what I just said in so many words. I just happen to be a bit more eloquent than you. But UTTER NONSENSE works for me too. Tea bags hanging off your hats, Paul Revere outfits.
The most dangerous aspect of the tea baggers and die hard conservatives is failing to acknowledge the failures and predatory policies of the Bush\Cheney years. If anyone shows the honesty of critical evaluation and admits the travesties of bush/cheney years that are causing the tribulations of the present economy, I would recognize them and their tea bag hats. Until they are willing to stop ignoring the Reagan and Bush true legacies and their affect on current affairs they don't show me any qualifications for critical thinking.
well im sure you've heard to never discuss politics or religion! people can be really passionate about these two things. what i've began to learn is that in politics some people are like soldiers. whether their partys platform makes sense or not. that doesn't matter.thats what make the debates good!
Some comments from a WaPo forum on the matter:
I've ceased friendships over people adopting Tea Party politics and ethics. Usually they've outed themselves as being incredibly gullible and willfully ignorant. That wouldn't be enough, but they also seem compelled to be nasty to everyone who doesn't agree with them.
I take this one step further, and tell people flat out that I'm a first responder who will not stop to help someone who's got Tea Party bumper stickers on their car. My attitude is is if you want to live by a philosophy of angry nasty libertarian hate, you can die by it too.
The term "bigot" doesn't go anywhere near far enough.Another fine example of liberal virtues...
It's absolutely true. I'm a volunteer, which means I don't have to volunteer to help people who hate. Somehow Tea Party people think that it's ok to insult everyone who doesn't agree with them, that it's ok to hate anyone who differs with their opinion, that its ok to engage in radical social engineering, campaign to modify the US Constitution to take peoples rights away, and threaten secession if they don't get everything they want. There's consequences for that behavior though, and one of them is me happily watching them bleed out when they drunkenly wrap their cars around trees.
++++++++++++
So, this person (and many others) will choose to hate, to consider other people "sub human" and unworthy of living, over imagined and fictional nonsense... This hate, this intolerance as bad and as evil as blind racism is sponsored by the people who claim righteousness for being "tolerant".- PrettyPantherposted 13 years ago
0I read the article and did not come to the same conclusion you did.
"Liberals cannot tolerate disagreement over politics." SOME liberals cannot, just like some conservatives cannot. It's a matter of personality more than politics. The fact that you made a blanket statement about liberals, that is easily proven to be false, says more about your own mindset than the tolerance of either liberals or conservatives in general.Ahh, so in your mind, does calling the TEA Partiers "racist homophobic bigotted nazis" discredit the shouter?
I don't talk like that myself and would not be impressed when it comes from someone else, IF they are casting all Tea Party members in the same light. A few Tea Party members do fit that description. Most do not.
I agree that people should not be put in boxes. However, you are complaining about it being done to Tea Party members while simultaneously generalizing about liberals.
Does that discredit you?The question was rhetorical.... and I made a generalized observation to spark some discussion. From the postings, you can see that at least a few people who oppose the TP movement don't fit that generalization, but, I doubt you'll find more than a few minor exceptions.
Mind you, in that generalization, I would be immensely gratified if it were demonstrated wholly wrong, not just in a few exceptions, but by the vast majority, which would then isolate those who can't contain their rage and marginalize them. At that point, some kind of conversation could occur.
As to my "guilt or innocence" on the matter, count down through the threads in the political and social forums, and read the mentions of TEA Party people, and you're unlikely to find anything but "they are racist homophobic bigoted nazis" on the myriad discussions.
Certainly I admit it's a broad generalization... And I will be the first to say that for ANY generalization or rule, no matter how valid, some level of exceptions are going to occur. That's just human thought at work. For the most part, however, I have come to believe that it is sadly true.
I think you are taking the really, really anecdotal evidence of this article and that forum and broadbrushing practically the rest of non-tea party America.
Relax.
I do think it's hilarious to hear Tea Party people talking about "coming out" flippantly, making light of it, proud of it, and even as they appear to grasp the plight of those who they seek to suboordinate. They fail to grasp the almost perfect parallel they themselves brought up: It sucks to have people hate you for who you are.
And yes, it's not a perfect parallel, because people can change political views and do it all the time, whereas you can't just stop having biological hard-wiring. But, that enormous detail aside, the irony was painful to contemplate as I read that thing.Wow, you complain about people generalizing? This should cause great consternation. I mean, after all, this means you're going to have to disagree with the liberals who generalize TEA Partiers in all sorts of rude and crude and nastily personal ways.
And the complaints the TEA Party people are making is about a generalized lack of civility on the part of the left, who hates them with a discernibly viciousand personal hatred. By the words posted, you know it's true.
The irony, the one you fail to grasp, is that those who criticize the TEA Party people, are the ones who claim that their politics are the ones of tolerance, acceptance, diversity, and understanding. The ones who go into a fuming rage at seeing the Obama poster painted up like the Joker, thought nothing of complaining about Bushitler, and defend Democrat politicians who sponsor protests of TEA Party events by carrying around signs with various people such as Palin painted with Hitler mustaches.
And no, I do not accept your "moral equivalence" argument that says "no harm no foul because we think they do it too", so don't make it. The fact is, you have an entire party, and one major ideology which has decide to declare the opposition subhuman and declare that it cannot (not possible to disagree) be anything other than intellectually warped and defective.
Division? It's coming from the left. It is official policy of Democrats now. need I quote you election strategy which consists of publicly declaring a or some conservative political leaders "racists" and then just coordinate the shouting? Never mind it isn't true?
This forum is full of people who consistently shout that the "tea baggers" ( a demeaning sexual connotation) are racist, homophobe bigot nazis. And they do not get banned or disciplined for it. It is the official policy of Hubpages, actually. They don't stop it.
It isn't even a question that the TEA Party is NOT any of those things. Not even a question. The question isn't legitimate, because there is NOTHING to base it on.I find it interesting that I am agreeing wiith weholdthesetruths, because I am a socialist. I have been a (UK) Labour Party member for nearly 40 years.
I believe my views are rational, grounded in reality, and that socialism can improve the world. I am also aware that socialism has some weaknesses. Through reasoning with each other, and seeking to persuade, we can progress as a human race.
We need rational discourse, not insult.
Once you dismiss people by putting them into boxes of "bigot" "racist" "liberal" you lose sight of what positive or progressive elements there may be in their thinking. Putting everyone who disagrees with you into the "bigot" box is not helpful.
I have had card carrying Republican friends who were really nice people but just disagreed with me politically.
Most of my opponents simply disagree with me, which is their right. Over time we may persuade each other. But we can only persuade each other if we are speaking civilly to each other.
I deplore anyone who tries to argue by insult or innuendo. They demean themselves and do democracy a disservice.I could not disagree with your politics more, but if you interpret my politics as my character or my "intent", then we have no means of discussion, debate, or anything else.
Re: "the reason people oppose Obama is because he's black" is a common refrain. Sadly, the man's not even black. He's Egyptian and European caucasion. Like it matters.
It never ceases to amaze me that they are so incredibly wedded to the notion of federally provided welfare being the only true measure of compassion, but yet deny it up and down. That's when I verbally slap them. I WANT to have a discussion, but that requires two (or more) honest people. And by honesty, it means stating what you intend to do, and not assuming that the other person is morally defective for disagreeing with it.
If you'd like to have a discussion of the merits of socialism vs free market enterprise as the means of provision of the material goods and services we need, then let's have one. I, for one, have never gotten a self proclaimed socialist to ever have one. All the ones I have met claim socialism as a moral absolute, not a means of accomplishing a physical goal.I totally agree, Charles - not with your politics, but with your view of tolerance!
I know. I agree with you. It's just that I'm agreeing with you looking from both sides where you think I am looking from the left. My whole point was to say that I think it's funny to watch Tea Party people complain about being treated how they treat others. And I did not say every Tea Party person, I was responding to the article that you posted.
Yes, I do know its true. It reminds me of the signs I saw being raised and the epithets I heard being chanted by the Tea Party folks. Maybe not nearly AS hateful and viscious as the signs I have seen at Tea Party events, but it could be argued that it is similar. I'll give you that.
No, we are recognizing the same irony. You and I are. It's like you're suddenly realizing what I have been saying and yet still don't realize it. I'm not on either extreme. I sit and watch the extremes of one side treat the larger body of the other like garbage, and then act surprised when extremes from the side they just attack attacked back at the larger body opposite. It's all a matter of perspective:
1. Tea Party extremists see a cancerous agenda of hateful behavoirs poisoning the God-fearing values that made America great.
2. The left wing extremists see a self-righteous mob of Bible thumping crusaders looking to stamp out the rights of freedom that the Founding Fathers promised.
No wonder everyone calls everyone unpatriotic and all that rot. Meanwhile, everyone is screaming and yelling and marching and chanting and the most volitile on both sides are burning Qur'ans or painting Hitler moustaches like two sticks rubbing together to burn down America.
I know, you are totally right. And that ideology declaring the oppostion subhuman and intellectually warped and defective is the idealogy that is behind the acts just described. BOTH sides are practicing exactly what you say. You and I agreed at the first part about the irony. Well, we sort of agree. BUt I'm trying to show that BOTH sides have SOME (lots) of people doing just exactly as you are saying. BOTH sides have to STOP doing that. Until everyone can take a goddamn breath and realize how whipped up into emotional frenzies everyone is getting, it's just going to keep getting worse and worse. To which you might say, GOOD, LET'S GET EM. I hope you don't though. I hope you will be a voice for reason and compromise rather than a voice for escalation. SOMEONE has to turn the other cheek and let the emotion diminish some. Otherwise pride and rancor will ruin everything for everyone.
Both sides are divisive. If you are trying to suggest that the Tea Party's every move and intention, at all times, is to be the party of inclusiveness and absolute, total equality for every single human being on Earth, then you and I are living on different planets.
Um, I hate to tell you this, but the Tea Party is the one that chose that name. They were using quite happily until they decided they didn't like it anymore. You can't fault the opposition for using the Tea Party's own dumb move against it. Frankly, I consider the selection of that term early on to be clear evidence of how out of touch many of them are.
Well, the Tea Party as a whole is not anything, you are correct. I think the homo-hating element of it that hoists the hate signs out of the midst of the Tea Party rallies is where people got that idea. And the likening to Nazism is inaccurate too. Granted there is the sub-component with the gay hate thing, and perhaps a smattering of neo-Nazis tossed in here and there, but I think the reason they get lumped into that category is the highly organized religious component that seeks to make laws based on religious doctrine. I think the Nazi comparison fails there. A better comparison is Sharia Law or the law of the Inquisition or something, but it's too soon to really call it that yet. Need to let the emotions boil up some more and throw off more reason and logic first. Get everyone on both sides so furious they stop thinking and then we can move into the righteous indignation necessary for that stuff. Hopefully not, but we'll see.I have no idea how you "find" all this stuff. Whose imagination did it spring from? There is no "hate" ideology in the TEA Party as there is on the left. None. Those people holding signs you interpret as "hate" are merely speaking in the only terms that many people seem to understand, because that's the only method of speaking they've ever seen from the political class.
As for the TEA Party crowd declaring the opposition "sub human", that is pure fiction. Your accusation is incredibly insulting to everyone's intelligence, as it has absolutely no basis.
Of course, there's nuts in every crowd, I'm not basing anything on them, and I don't try to hold anyone but them accountable, either. No matter what side's rally they wander into. For instance, you've never seen me accuse Democrats of rioting and burning things. But, every time we see any signficantly large protest based on liberal activism, it tends to happen. Along with a bunch of arrests and civil disobedience. But not at a TEA Party rally, where the ONLY violence comes in the form of union thugs committing violence upon others, which seems to have become a feature of Democrat politics, because it is so widespread, and no Democrat will condemn it, and instead, just shouts down and insults anyone who points it out.
First, the TEA Party has no religious aspect at all. It is a movement based almost entirely upon the fiscal irresponsibility of Congress, and the extreme overreach of the federal government. This has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. How you can construe this into "wanting to enforce religious doctrine" I don't know. It has be purely imaginary, because there's no factual basis at all.
Second, the only real "cultural" aspect of the TEA Party movement is a move away from the isolated, unreality of the talking heads, political class, and academic hoi poloi, and toward that of a normal, reality based culture of responsibility and accountability. The TEA Party people don't really care if someone got divorced or once made a speech about masterbation...or is gay. It just isn't even relevant in any fashion.
The only rationale I can think of, is that it is done as a pre-emptive argument, to try to declare that opposition cannot be intellectual, that disagreement is factually impossible, and that the only possible means anyone would have for wanting a smaller government is some kind of religious doctrine. A complete absurdity.
And no, please don't accuse me of thinking anything like you. Never make such presumptions. they are wholesale insulting. If you want to know what I think, just ask.Well, I guess someone should tell everyone in the Tea Party to get on the same page.
I think you have decided that I am against you, however, so you are infusing a lot what I've written with stuff that isn't there and are ignoring my larger points in favor of defensiveness, and, frankly, are having some very selective and peculiar lapses in memory when it comes to the purity of the Tea Party and its members. So I guess I must resign myself to the fact that you are determined that I am delusional and stand in opposition to any good ideas the Tea Party has.
It never ceases to amaze me how many people on HubPages prefer to just argue no matter what as opposed to recognizing common ground, much less that there might be more gray area in life than black and white.There are no "members" of the TEA Party. It isn't even a party. It has no structure, no organization, no roll call, no registration, no leaders, no followers, nothing to enable you to even determine who is or is not part of it, except as they claim to be.
Hmmm, does it feel like wethinkweholdthesetruths put you in a box? lol
"people can change political views and do it all the time"
Those people have no political views.
Those people are called moderates and only vote for those who they think will "give" them something.
The sooner they are gone the better.""people can change political views and do it all the time"
Those people have no political views."
Consistency is what's important, eh? We need leaders who will think on Wednesday exactly what they thought on Monday, no matter what happened on Tuesday?
What was it the man said about a foolish consistency and little minds?No, "consistency" means nothing. "change" means nothing. PRINCIPLE is what matters.
Well, I personally found it hateful that they brought guns to Obama's speeches.
I found it hateful that they stood there with a sign with Obama as a voodoo witch doctor--bone through his nose and all.
I find it hateful that one of their "leaders" had a sign using the N word.
I find it hatful that the "leader" here in Boston couldn't remember if she called the Obamas "another black family on public housing."
I find it hateful that they won't answer questions from the press and dismiss them as if they are a bother to "your highnesses".
I find it hateful that Ms Bachman tears down the federal gvt on the one hand, while taking money from it on the other.
I find it hateful that the one in New York threatened to kill someone.
I find it hateful to read a sign saying "we won't shoot....this time."
And I find it hateful that 5 of them already say a girl is not entitled to an abortion even if she is raped.
Where you see decent Americans, I see hate-filled, greedy people.People with delusions find lots of things that aren't there. From your postings and your slavish obeisance to party, I find no surprise in what you 'find". Surely you demanded to see it, and your imagination supplied it. And now you're justified in your hate.
It's all so neat, clean, convenient... and wrong.Now, see, here is a problem. Your rebuttal to Chris is that her imagination supplied those things in her list and you imply she is delusional. I KNOW that some of them are accurate without even looking them up because I've seen them myself and I have a feeling the rest are also accurate.
If you have evidence that they are untrue, then provide that evidence. Or, ask Chris to provide evidence that they are true. If you merely state that she is delusional and made them up, then you are no better than those you are criticizing. It's difficult to take you seriously when this is how you respond.See, what we have is a failure to think critically.
"I find it hateful that they brought guns to Obama's speeches".
Huh? Does the word "non-sequitur" mean anything to you?
The "I find it hateful" rant is nothing substantive. Of course the writer "finds it hateful", because that's what the writer wants to find it. And somehow, wants to magically make you "find" it too, even though it's pure fiction.
I could just list any one of a gazillion items and just say "I find it hateful", and thus, blam, instant reality? Please. The posting is pure drivel.There you go with another insult. Why? I'm trying to have a conversation with you.
Okay, let's think critically about just that one statement. "I find it hateful that they brought guns to Obama's speeches." That is not a conclusion; it is an opinion. It is a fact that self-proclaimed tea partiers brought guns to Obama's speeches. Chris finds that hateful. So, how did you conclude that she is delusional from a factual list of items on which she voices her opinion?
Many people share that opinion, by the way. I realize that maybe you do not, so my second question is: what do you believe was the intent behind bringing guns to a speech by a presidential candidate? I would really like to know, since Obama has never proposed taking away anyone's guns.LOL, oh, my. Ok, I had thought you'd just think about this a bit and catch on. But, no, so, here goes:
1. Chris has no ability whatsoever to peer into the souls of people he or she reads about in a story, or see on TV momentarily. Thus, to tell us that the souls of these people contains "hate" is, well, flatly absurd.
2. I have no idea who "they" are who "brought guns to Obama's speeches". I seriously doubt Chris does either, other than a picture on a website or on TV or something. But, the use is in context with the TEA Party movement, so obviously, the implied reference must apply to you know who. Not adult enough to deal in facts, it's just base fictionalized smearing of the unknown.
3. "I find it hateful the one in New York threatened to kill someone". Not a clue what this is or who is it about, nor does anyone else, but again, it's just a 'guilt by my making the two associated in your mind", which is patently dishonest.
4. "I find it hateful that they won't answer questions from the press and dismiss them as if they are a bother to "your highnesses"." So, dissing the press, who is trying their utmost to smear the TEA Party people is an act of hate? No, it's using your brain. But, it is counted with the "evidence against TEA Party people".
As you can see, no matter how far we go through this, you'll find there isn't a single intelligent, cogent, or even HONEST statement in the whole bunch. The whole thing is based upon premise stated in #1, which is false in the first place, and makes Chris nothing more than a judgmental crank, spewing partisan rhetoric hoping to emotionally influence you into never examining what's actually said or the real issues. Oh, and it obviously worked, because you defended it. I am flat out dumbfounded that ANYONE would fall for it.Well, I tried having a real discussion with you, but again, you refuse to do it without asserting your superiority complex.
Believe it or not, I have discussions with conservatives every day and not once have they implied that I don't have the intelligence to understand their point.
You, whether you can see it or not, are a big part of the problem in this country. There really is no point in trying to have a rational discussion with you.
Have a nice day.And so you too, engage in the "imagine, and lo, it is so" method of thinking. I never implied you're lacking in intelligence. But you wanted to see that there, so you found it all for yourself, and by yourself. He who seeks offense will never fail to find it, because even imagined offense is sufficient cause to claim offense.
I hope you have a nice day too, but somehow, I doubt that will happen. You will find offense at all turns and by all people, leading no doubt, to failure to be happy.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/1 … 56614.html
Here's a guy wearing a gun and he is holding a sign which quotes Jefferson, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed..."
I know what this quote is about, and I believe you do also. Do I think he's hateful? I don't think it's a stretch! I'm more concerned that he marginalizes himself as an idiot and harms rational discourse; I don't know that he's a Tea Party type, but it wouldn't be a stretch to say he's a sympathizer. It doesn't take an American History/ English professor to decifer that the combination of the weapon and sign was a threat.
You claim to want a civil discourse, and that's pretty much all I engage in, but I am not sure you're willing to engage in an honest discourse.I can find no relevant point to your posting. What on earth is it?
BTW, Obama brought all the "gun" stuff on himself, by his own hate-filled rhetoric.Your words- "1. Chris has no ability whatsoever to peer into the souls of people he or she reads about in a story, or see on TV momentarily. Thus, to tell us that the souls of these people contains "hate" is, well, flatly absurd.
2. I have no idea who "they" are who "brought guns to Obama's speeches". I seriously doubt Chris does either, other than a picture on a website or on TV or something. But, the use is in context with the TEA Party movement, so obviously, the implied reference must apply to you know who. Not adult enough to deal in facts, it's just base fictionalized smearing of the unknown. "
So, relevence is determined by your ability to answer, interesting.You should try logic sometime, it is fantastically helpful. That, combined with knowledge, will prevent a lot of confusion on your part.
First, we have no idea WHO the guys were who showed up at the protest, armed. Are they self proclaimed TEA Party? Don't know. Do they claim leadership of the TEA Party movement? Don't know.
The TEA Party movement has no leader. No structure. No organization. No financial backing. No sponsors. No membership roll. No accounting, no platform, no structure whatsoever. It is spontaneous grassroots response to overwhelmingly stupid behavior in Washinton DC.
So, when someone demands you remove "racists"... how do you do that? Even if some kooks show up at some rally, there is no authority to tell them to leave, other than the combined disapproval of the crowd (and that happens routinely, where offensive people are chased off by others). The movement is about what people say they want. Polls reveal that those who say they are part of it, list a few top items of great importance, and that's basically to get spending under control, and to push the federal government back within its proper boundaries. Lots of individuals within it may have all kinds of specific wishes, but they're so few in number that they don't show any other agenda in studying the movement.
This is why when someone shouts "racist movement" they're just liars. When someone says "I know what motivates them", they're just liars. When someone "sees" any manner of ill motivations, they're just lying. The only people who can answer the questions, are the indivdiuals themselves, and if you ask them, you get as many answers as there are individuals, but they have 2 common themes.
Lastly, the TEA Party movement doesn't prescribe "programs", it has "principles". Politicians promise "programs" as if convoluted legislation X is going to work miracles. It never does. TEA Party people want people who VOTE ON PRINCIPLE, and the first two and most important are: Fiscal responsibility, and restraint of the overreach and overgrowth, and over-regulation of the federal government.
If those two are "radical" to you, then defend your position, by explaining your belief in never ending growth of taxes, spending, and governmental controls over the public. Otherwise, you have NO valid argument, period.
"BTW, Obama brought all the "gun" stuff on himself, by his own hate-filled rhetoric."
Ahhhhhhh---FINALLY some truth outta your mouth.
So, it's Obama's fault that people want to kill him, huh?
I mean, if someone shoots him, it's all his fault, right? Is that what you mean? Subliminally?
Subliminal....that's how the big money racists operate.
Cause you know, they aren't going to come right out and SAY it, so they use ole Glenny-Boy Beck and Russsshhhhhhhhhh to do it for them.
So, what harm does it do to push people in that direction, eh bagger-leaders?
I mean, if someone gets hurt, it's not YOUR fault.
Brood of Vipers.
PP, (heh, your initials are 'PP,' that appeals to my inner 5th-grader), your efforts have been valiant, but it's important to realize that you're rassling with the proverbial pig here. You're both getting dirty and the pig likes it. Or if you prefer, you're trying to teach the proverbial pig to sing. You're wasting your time and annoying the pig.
I'm dealing with a similar phenomenon with a couple 'birthers' who're commenting on a hub of mine. I've posted three links with evidence that the president is indeed a US citizen, but they continue to discount facts that disprove their narrative.
Political discussions would be raised to a new level if people would realize that while they're entitled to hold whatever crazy opinions they want to, nobody is entitled to their own facts.Yes, that is why I gave it up. However, I am a liberal Pollyanna at heart, so I'm sure I'll try again. :-)
What's your understanding of citizenship law as of the day of Obama's birth, and what hospital was he born in?
Every time this subject comes up, I find fascinating "angles" where people think they've found some "interesting" new twist.
I think mr holdanythingbutthetruths is way too busy with his pseudo intellectual rants to ever contemplate an opposing view. He appears to systematically trash posts that he can't address and patronise any poster who doesn't align themselves to his facile self righteous points.
He has a one eyed view of his small world and his view is a mirror.
He is the president of his own fan club.
Not a club I wish to join
If I get banned for this it was worth it.Why do you think you'd get banned for that? You c an hate conservatives all you want, here, the management agrees and condones it.
Ehhhhhhhh--wrong.
Been banned twice.....how about you?
(CNN) – A confrontation Wednesday night between New York gubernatorial hopeful Carl Paladino and a reporter threatened to turn physical.
The dustup was captured in an exclusive cellphone video by CNN affiliate YNN Albany. It began with New York Post statehouse columnist Fred Dicker pressing Paladino to back up an explosive allegation he made to the Politico website Wednesday that his opponent, Andrew Cuomo, had taken "paramours" during his marriage to Kerry Kennedy.
"Do you have any evidence of the charge you made?"
"You'll get it at the appropriate time. You're not entitled to it," retorted Paladino, who then derided Dicker as Cuomo's "stalking horse" and "bird dog."
The confrontation escalated from there.
"You send another goon to my daughter's house and I'll take you out, buddy," an apparent reference to the Post's coverage of a daughter Paladino had out of wedlock.
Dicker shot back: "You gonna take me out?"
"Yeah."
"How you gonna do that?"
"Watch," Paladino ended with, before walking off.
Paladino is a Tea Party candidate.
Tea-Party gov from Arizona refused to answer reporters questions about her comment that people were being be-headed and left in the desert. This later turned out to be a lie.
O'Donnell refused to answer questions from reporters about her college app, and has since said she will not go on national tv (except for Fox).
Sharron Angle also refuses any interviews except on Fox. She is Tea Party.
Boston radio host Jim Braudy said that the co-ordinator for the Palin tea-party event in Boston had sent out e-mails stating that the Obama's were "just another black family on public housing."
He asked her about it, and she said that she "couldn't recall".
Do you think that is a favorable view towards black people, or hate-ful?
Guns to an Obama rally:
"August 17, 2009
A man is shown legally carrying a rifle at a protest against President Obama on Monday in Phoenix, Arizona.
A man toting an assault rifle was among a dozen protesters carrying weapons while demonstrating outside President Obama's speech to veterans on Monday, but no laws were broken. It was the second instance in recent days in which weapons have been seen near presidential events.
Video from the protest in Phoenix, Arizona, shows the man standing with other protesters, with the rifle slung over his right shoulder."
Tea-party people for Joe Miller marched with assault rifles....
Did any of this happen with Bush? If not, why now?
A sign with Obama as an African voodoo witch doctor and a bone through his nose is hateful any way you slice it.
Kind of like Russsshhhhhhh telling a caller, "Take the bone out of your nose and call me back."
Like Beck saying Obama hates white people--is that spreading Love or Hate?
Making fun of Malia and saying "Daddy, why do you hate black people so?" "Cause I'm half white."--yeah, all love there.
Tammy Bruce, on Ingraham's show: "We now have trash in the white house."
ALL of right wing talk radio is Tea-Bag.
Sorry---you don't need to "peer into any soul" to see this for what it is.Yes, you do. In fact, your "hate" is just fiction.
So, when Bob Etheridge (D), assaulted a student on the street, for asking him simple questions, did you call it hate? Of course not. You praised him for standing up the punks.
When the Governor said that people had been beheaded in the desert and left there, the only mistake was that that she didn't back it up, as it is true. The number of people killed by criminals in cross border crime is huge.
I think calling the Obama's "just anothe family in public housing" is quite funny. And true. The man's never had a productive job his entire life.
When the protestors shows up with guns, they were protesting the hate speech Obama himself had engaged in, when he slandered and ridiculed the people he is supposed to SERVE. Here's his statement:
You go into some of these small towns in, in, Pennsylvania, a lot, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced 'em. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate, and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to their guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or ... uh, anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
Not only do I agree with thier actions in protesting his hateful denigration of the people, I fully believe showing up armed is both our right and obligation.
you asked "Did any of this happen with Bush? If not, why now?"
Of course not. The threats, anger, and hate was as it still is, all on the left. Bush was respectful to the nation, not hateful and belittling.
Yes, Obama does hate white people. And yes, we do have trash in the White House. Arrogant, elitist, know-nothing juvenile trash.Total BS. NO BEHEADINGS happened in the AZ desert. If even one happened it would appear in a police departments records - none do. There are no "huge numbers" of murders happening in the desert, you are simply lying.
I've seen the pictures of the bodies. Please don't argue it doesn't happen. WE KNOW IT HAPPENS.
Then you are the only one, unless you're just lying once again. Produce the pictures from a credible source (no photoshops) or apologize to the community for lying.
Brewer blew it saying that ever happened. Never did. We're here in Az. it would've been all over the news. Not one cop or sheriff has admitted to finding any beheaded bodies.
And now the DPS is investigating the incident where a Pinal county Sheriff's deputy was allegedly shot by illegals. The evidence suggests that he shot himself.
Yeah, I've been hearing about that. These idiots on the extreme sides will go way too far to push their agenda. But shooting yourself? Give me a break! That was stupid in so many ways! Two guys robbed their own station, and shot each other to make it look real. They almost killed each other. I'm laughing too hard. I gotta go!
If it turns out that he did indeed shoot himself, it's likely that he was generously paid to do so.
It's true.
Not ALL teabaggers are racist. But when the NAACP called for the Tea Party to denounce racism and expell members who advocate racism - the TP movement refused.
Of course they did toss a Teabagger who had an official position with Tea Party Express who made a blatently racist online post, but he went on to NYC to head up a group that wants to ban the Islamic center a few blocks from ground zero.
Just because this ex-official TP Express is a racist and a bigot, doesn't make ALL teabaggers racist and bigots. But it's my opinion if you do a head count of Islamaphobes, you will find a significant number are also teabaggers.
It's not an article of faith among ALL teabaggers that President Obama was born in Kenya, but I betcha a head count of people with that opinion would significantly overlap teatards.
It's not the official position of the Tea Party that President Obama is a Muslim (a blatent lie) but whenever something to that effect is posted on hubpages, it's a safe bet a teabagger posted it.
Not all teabaggers want to gut federal regulation on workplace safety (like mines) and give big business the power to pollute the environment & maim employees without penalties. That's just the effect that would follow the policies of the libertarian wing.
Not all teabaggers want to give evangelicals government authority over the most personal and intimate aspects of our lives from the point of conception to the point of death. But that's exactly what the evangelical wing of the Tea Party is anticipating.
Not ALL teabaggers are out to gut Medicare and turn Social Security over to Wall Street. In fact, it may be that a majority of teabaggers are on those programs and depend on them. But if you check the fine print of the policies that the tea party leaders advocate, these teabagging fools are cutting their own throats.
I'm disgusted by what the movement stands for in reality. Yes, they want to sugar-coat it with patriotic costumes and wrap it all in the flag and pretend it's a return to fundamental American values. But look at where it's going and it's fascist, racist, hostile to the rights of women, and gays and the near-opposite of the values of the founding fathers.
I'm likely to pour scorn and sarcasm on anyone who wants to associate themselves with this movement. I will try to show them what they are really signing up for, who is really behind it (and funding it), and what they really stand for.yup, libtard, your sexual fetishes about Obama are going to go unfulfilled.
See, I can engage your nonsense. it's really easy. Dont' think, don't have any facts, just make up nonsense willy nilly, and there you go, you have a liberal's "reality".
Hear Hear!
And more people are seeing it for what it is.
Even Ron Paul, whose original idea was thwarted by big monied interestst like Armey and Palin.
But look around ........ not too many are joining up these days.
Beck has been exposed.
All the women candidates are looney-tunes.
Did you see McMahon side-step the question of her paying lobbiests???
Oh, she did....quite a lot when she was at the WWE (WWB?...what is it?)
And she doesn't have a clue what the minimum wage is....why should she, when she makes the hourly wage in 1 second of her time.
Yeah....chuckle chuckle....grassroots.
Sure......Astroturf!!! (as Pelosi says)
Pelosi: the most hated woman on earth! And yet, LOOk at what she has accomplished!!
Versus Palin/Bachman/Angle/McMahon/O'Donnell
Boy, that's a no-brainer.
Which one you going to tell your daughter to emulate?
ahahaha---heheheheeeee
You Baggers are losing steam.
Even your smears are not believed any more.
"Mommy,the president doesn't hate America, does he?"
"Where'd you hear that Janey?"
"From the Patriots."
See the irony??? It OOZES.The only irony, is that while you blather on, the Democrats have the lowest percentage of the population as members of the party in a long time, they're about to lose the majority of governorships, both majorities in the house and senate, and in two years, the presidency.
In addition to that, they have no idea how to stop the loss, and most have no idea why they're losing, other than they think they've failed to "sell" their talking points by repeating them enough.
You, of course, are blind, not only to that, but to EVERYTHING that's going on, and in your delustional world, you think the nation's turning to your juvenile and destructive little trash of an ideology.
Sorry, you are done. Never again will this liberalism be a signficant force in politics. You've had your run, you destroyed the nation and almost the whole world, and now the adults have decided to end your nonsense. Goodbye.You're a perfect example as to why so many are afraid of the bible thumping right whack jobs. Calm down, dude. With so many democrats saying they'd like to repeal health care, they just might sell the idea they need to stay in power. What will you do if that happens? Look rather dumb, maybe? You need to win the elections first, before claiming victory. Sounding like Palin, makes me like the dems more. And I'm anti-leftist.
Who is so brain dead stupid as to think Democrats will repeal Obamacare? And even if they did, whatever they cobbled up would be even WORSE, if that's possible.
Like I said, it's time for responsible people to hold office, and by definition, Democrat is not. Their ideology is one based upon centralized control of everything, and that does NOT work. They have destroyed our industrial base, they have destroyed our financial system. They have destroyed the currency. They have destroyed our work ethic, they have destroyed our limited faith that government will self restrain within the Constition. Instead, they mock the Constituitonal limits and brag about how much they can ignore it, as they're 'smarter, newer, and more modern' than that "old failing document'.
The Democrat party's right arm - the labor unions - have started, with the help of the party - all public employees, so that public employees can then blackmail the public and ignore the public's will with impunity, and not be fired for incompetence. The left dishonestly uses billions and billions of dollars of giveaway money to "educational organizations" like ACORN, whose only purpose is to churn out life long, mind-numbed Democrats, dependent upon handouts.
There is no reason to EVER want a Democrat again. There is no redeeming value to thier sewage of a party, the wholesale pervasive corruption that they've coded into law. And they still seek to control more and more, EVEN KNOWING THE BACKLASH.
LAME DUCK Congress will frantically try to pass a dozen measures, each utterly unwanted and bad for the country, but it gives the government more power, so they're determined to do it, going on faith that government = salvation.
Oh, and I'm being nice. Don't make me made and start telling the WHOLE truth. I will never for Democrat, even with a gun to my head. I would rather be executed for principle, than commit treason.So, the OP should include yourself? You sure can't tolerate anyone disagreeing with you. I could care if they repeal or not, even though they got it all wrong. It's what they're campaigning, and if they get the voters out again, you'll see at least the House still dem controlled. Then what?
Like I said, you're showing everyone how dangerous the tea party can be. You'd rather be executed? You're not even bright enough to give straight forward arguements to your stances. Just rhetoric, as most reps have done for years. Dems too. Extremists keep it up on the right, the voters will say screw it, and let the libs stay in to finish what they've started. Change takles time. Ranting cuts down your own time, to get in to correct what they've done. Which is better? Your silly ranting, made you miss I believe the libs need to be defeated. Listening to you, I'm wondering if I'm actually wrong. Thanks for making me rethink this.
- Amie Warrenposted 13 years ago0
Look, there are liberals, and there are falling-off-the-left-edge-of-crazy liberals.
Then there are Republicans and falling-off-the-right-edge-of-crazy tea baggers.
The ones in the middle, who are most of them, are largely ignored because the others are so damned noisy. The noisy ones distract us from the real issues, which are not abortion and health care. The ones in the middle are the ones working on the real issues.
Try to get to know some moderates and forget about the Tea Party and Nancy Pelosi's crowd. They are all hot air and no substance.A moderate, by definition, has no principle and no structure to this thinking.
No moderate has EVER effected change, has ever inspired anything great, nor accomplished ANYTHING of substance. Ergo, there is no reason to be "moderate" which means to compromise everything you think, just to 'get along'. So, no, I have no interest in moderates. They're spineless and direction-less, having no idea what's good or bad.I'll say it again. You are a perfect example of what is wrong with this country. Keep writing, so we can all see what we'd be getting with the Tea Party.
WHAAAAAAAAT??? Most laws are passed by the votes of the moderates. There aren't enough on either fringe to pass a law without them.
Thanks for the laugh, though.Yeah, right. Just remember what we'd be like if we all subscribed to the "moderate middle".
No American revolution.
So freedom to slaves.
Hitler would have won.
Martin Luther King would have been an unknown, like most of us.
See, all of these were reactions to the violation of principle. None of them were "moderate" in even the slightest fashion. Neville Chaimberlin was a "moderate", who sought compromise to prevent war. Instead, he caused WWII to be global, because he failed to stand on principle.
No, we do not need squishy moderates to stand for nothing, we need principles to stand for the right thing EVERY time and ALL the time.Deleted
Can you make an argument without name calling?
I have to withdraw any respect that I may have, in a moment of delusion, afforded you. I would love to help educate you, but you have no interest in learning. A supposed constitutionalist, you deny the importance of moderate voices and compromise; you have a limited understanding of your constitutional history. You rail against phantom attacks on the Constitution from the left, yet do not recognize that the most egregious attack in recent history came from the right and was successful, or that the Arizona battle is an attack on the Constitution
I know what your response will be, before you respond. You are not original; you are not reasoned; you are not honest; you are not even amusing anymore. You are persuading no one and seem to have no interest in it; therefore, you are irrelevant.How is the Arizona battle an attack on the constitution?
I believe the Arizona law violates the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments and is being challenged on those grounds, as well as on 1st Amendment grounds.
I will recomend this blog as a good explanation for the layperson:
http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2010 … troubling/
I would add:
I think the 1st Amendment challenge seems like a stretch, though case law seems to support the challenge of, at least, part of the Arizona law. Additionally, I won't argue that the federal government has done its job, here. Clearly, had they been adequately addressing the problem, we wouldn't be debating it here. I am all for states having the right to remedy situations where the fed defaults on their responsibility.
I would close by saying: If there is a problem with illegal immigration, handle it some other way. Force the federal government to develop a coherent, cohesive, effective policy and enforce it. If you believe that Arizona has the right to handle this problem, by virtue of the 10th Amendment, fine; i won't argue that the fed has done its job. However, do not let them handle the problem by abridging the rights afforded us in the U.S. Constitution. Giving up your rights, because you think it will only impact hispanics or other illegals, is foolish and shows no understanding of The American Bill of Rights.
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
Benjamin Franklin
Let's look at a few of birdbrain's quotes after his feathers get ruffled by civil disagreement from the left. This birs is more of a vulture than an eagle.
"I fully believe showing up armed is both our right and obligation..."
In the OP, he wants to portray teabaggers as nice civilized folks, the kind of club you want to join. Violence is part of their creed.
"The threats, anger, and hate was as it still is, all on the left... "
Psychologists call this projection - taking your problem and claming it's them not you with the fault. Time did an article this week on nutty right-wing militias. You would find it hard to find evidence of left-wing militias.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article … 16,00.html
"Yes, Obama does hate white people. And yes, we do have trash in the White House. Arrogant, elitist, know-nothing juvenile trash."
Psychological projection may be the unifying feature of the fragmented tea party movement. Rather than confront your own racism, you accuse your opponent of racism. President Obama's mother was white - he grew up in a white family. Obama is under pressure from the Black Caucus for not doing enough for black causes. There's racism in the last quote, but it's not Obama's racism.LOL, what nonsense. You can't possibly psychoanalyze the movement you know nothing about and what you do think you know is a lie...
It would be nice to hear an argument without name calling.
You cannot be serious that all liberals fit into that cubby hole you created for them. Is that not a rather generic and general comment you are trying to make all of them fit into?
Read their mind-numbed responses, where they c an't think, won't think, and refuse to do anything but continue with the tired old refrains of personal attack and personal abuse. It is pervasive, from the President down to Dogcatcher, that anyone not in lockstep with the ideology must be destroyed, defamed, libeled, slandered, mocked, ridiculed, abused, and ultimately forced to conform with whatever moronic idiocy the children dream up in Washington DC.
Unfair? Perhaps. The five nice liberals in the country probably are unfairly charged, but since I don't know who they are, I can't help it.Have you been sniffing high test again, Bubba?
This is the thoughtless reaction of the left.
Thank you for demonstrating.Deleted
Why can't you make your argument without name calling?
You should ask as weholdthesetruths that.
I think a lot of things happen in Governor Brewer's mind that don't happen anywhere else.
*cue Twilight Zone music*The principles of polite respect for one's opponent and courteous discourse seem to be fraying here.
There are people associated with the tea party who seem to have behaved improperly. There are opponents of the tea party who seem to have behaved improperly. Some folk seem to be stating things as fact but are then unable to back up their assertions.
Many people become angry with their opponents, and the conversation dissolves into exchanging insults and the "did didn't" of the schoolyard.
When people give blanket condemnations of entire political parties my respect for their intellect diminishes.
Can we try moving back to discussions of principle? Are the Tea Party "liberals"?Without massive financial support from Rupert Murdoch and the Koch Brothers, the Tea Party would be what it was at the beginning- a bunch of misfits angry at something (their lives mainly) who needed a safe i.e. not too personal, target to vent on.
Now it is a phenomenon that could poison US politics irredeemably.Paul Krugman explains what's really happening here:
As Politico recently pointed out, every major contender for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination who isn’t currently holding office and isn’t named Mitt Romney is now a paid contributor to Fox News. Now, media moguls have often promoted the careers and campaigns of politicians they believe will serve their interests. But directly cutting checks to political favorites takes it to a whole new level of blatancy.
Nobody who was paying attention has ever doubted that Fox is, in reality, a part of the Republican political machine; but the network — with its Orwellian slogan, “fair and balanced” — has always denied the obvious. Officially, it still does. But by hiring those G.O.P. candidates, while at the same time making million-dollar contributions to the Republican Governors Association and the rabidly anti-Obama United States Chamber of Commerce, Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, which owns Fox, is signaling that it no longer feels the need to make any effort to keep up appearances.
Something else has changed, too: increasingly, Fox News has gone from merely supporting Republican candidates to anointing them. Christine O’Donnell, the upset winner of the G.O.P. Senate primary in Delaware, is often described as the Tea Party candidate, but given the publicity the network gave her, she could equally well be described as the Fox News candidate. Anyway, there’s not much difference: the Tea Party movement owes much of its rise to enthusiastic Fox coverage...
As the Republican political analyst David Frum put it, “Republicans originally thought that Fox worked for us, and now we are discovering we work for Fox” — literally, in the case of all those non-Mitt-Romney presidential hopefuls. It was days later, by the way, that Mr. Frum was fired by the American Enterprise Institute. Conservatives criticize Fox at their peril.
So the Ministry of Propaganda has, in effect, seized control of the Politburo. What are the implications?
Perhaps the most important thing to realize is that when billionaires put their might behind “grass roots” right-wing action, it’s not just about ideology: it’s also about business. What the Koch brothers have bought with their huge political outlays is, above all, freedom to pollute. What Mr. Murdoch is acquiring with his expanded political role is the kind of influence that lets his media empire make its own rules.
Thus in Britain, a reporter at one of Mr. Murdoch’s papers, News of the World, was caught hacking into the voice mail of prominent citizens, including members of the royal family. But Scotland Yard showed little interest in getting to the bottom of the story. Now the editor who ran the paper when the hacking was taking place is chief of communications for the Conservative government — and that government is talking about slashing the budget of the BBC, which competes with the News Corporation.
So think of those paychecks to Sarah Palin and others as smart investments. After all, if you’re a media mogul, it’s always good to have friends in high places. And the most reliable friends are the ones who know they owe it all to you.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/04/opini … ef=opinionI would say that people that are deeply entrenched in their beliefs are often very resistant to accepting "opposing viewpoints".
It is not limited to "liberals" or "conservatives".People call names on both sides, really they do. I am a very liberal Democrat that even voted Green Party and Peace and Freedom party for a couple of candidates. There are some people that love to spar with each other, but I no longer can participate in those online discussions. What is the point anyway? No one is going to change their opinions because of what someone posts in a political forum.
I primarily focus on my hubs, blog, and novel writing these days
.Conservatives aren't any better. As bad as atheists and deists. WORD
"Independent" and looking for campaign promises to come to fruition. Politics nothing but a shameless game.
Could I respectfully suggest that taking a gun to a political meeting being attended by the President of the United States is inappropriate? Even if you are seeking to exercise your Constitutional rights it is a distraction to the Secret Service agents seeking to protect the life of the President.
Related Discussions
- 75
All democrats are racists
by weholdthesetruths 13 years ago
all liberals are fascistsAll democrats are nazisObama is a naziKerry is a NaziGore is a naziHarry Reid is a tyrantPelosi is a communistThere, that's a complete rebuke of every Doug Hughes posting. It even covers everything that Seriously, you liberals, if you have nothing to do other than...
- 94
Why Liberals Hate The Tea Party
by Poppa Blues 14 years ago
"Tea Baggers" Bring Out the Worst in Some LiberalsAh, the good old days. Remember when bringing down "the man" made it worth getting out of bed in the morning? Whether joining a grassroots uprising, speaking at an anti-war rally in Washington, or spending the afternoon...
- 34
Who needs "infiltrators" when there's Tea Baggers like these around?
by mikelong 14 years ago
The "informed" conservatives behind the Tea Party....I wonder what schools these men and women attended....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeN0JRFGPD0&NR=1
- 73
"White Men with Guns.., Reconstruction Redux"
by Julie Grimes 13 years ago
I just received a crazy text from EbertChicago. It reads,"The true face of today's American racism. Uncensored and cruel. Read this and weep." ......and then it lists the url. So I went to the site. I guess I figured I needed something to weep about. Well I found...
- 10
Tea Party strong grasp of politics, weak on facts
by Susan Reid 12 years ago
Read this in my local newspaper yesterday.http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/03/453245 … party.htmlSeems to me the author (co-author of "The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservativism") is trying really hard to be fair and balanced in her view.Article basically comes down...
- 106
Democrats Fear The Tea Party!
by lady_love158 13 years ago
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/201 … party.htmlAs well they should! In spite of that dumb a** Reid saying they are going away, they aren't! They will be a force to be recend with as anyone can see in these budget negotiations and in the republican candidates for president!