Turns out that this latest string of denials that the teabaggers used the N and F words, despite independent testimony from numerous sources that they did, is nothing more than the latest Republican Talking Point. It’s taken them over a week to think this one up, and now they’re all repeating it.
they must have been waiting for one of their talking heads to conjure up the new game plan on a podcast or opinion show. the independent thinkers are a real cohesive one-minded unit. very tough to defend against, very well coached.
Yeah, it sure is interesting that so many people on the left are getting riled up over the Tea Party protesters…categorizing them as unpatriotic rednecks that are a danger to national security. 
Maybe some of them are intolerant, but let’s not forget the number of intolerant, stupid, historically ignorant, and idiotic Democratic Party protesters there have been. And how many people on this forum thought these Cindy Sheehan type of activists were so sage and all. :roflmao:
It’s quite entertaining…some of the same posters vocally criticizing these tea party protestors were probably lauding the type of protesters in the video below during GWB’s presidency.
I think that speaks volumes on the hypocrisy demonstrated by so many on the left. 
Chris and Craig, how many people do you think were involved in the name calling and spitting? Was it just a few individuals or are we talking about large numbers of protesters?
This whole thing seems to have been blown up out of proportion.
Isn’t that how politics usually works?
Isn’t that how politics usually works?[/quote]
Indeed, but this episode seems to involve above average blowing.
Isn’t that how politics usually works?[/quote]
But it is necessary that we on this forum follow the trend?
Well, granted there may not have been as many as like the whole teabagger party, but it is fair to wonder if the other extreme elements weren’t, you know, tied up with other pressing engagements at the other party.
[quote]Republican National Committee spent nearly $2,000 at West Hollywood strip club Voyeur
Talk about grand ol’ partying.
The “family values” Republican National Committee spent almost $2,000 last month at an erotic, bondage-themed West Hollywood club, where nearly naked women - and men - simulate sex in nets hung from above.
The RNC’s risqué business expense covered a night out at the high-end S&M club Voyeur Feb. 4, Federal Election Commission records filed by the RNC show.[/quote]
Men and women, eh? Pity the toilet toe tapper quit. he might have found a comfortable support group here.
Oh such ghastly mental images!
HG
The Tea Parties (which I’ve had to cover in Chicago) aren’t parties. (Irony here) These are some seriously angry white folks, with a few nutty who need serious approval type of black men, running around with posters of Obama as Hilter. Some of them are so angry that I want to give them the noose and white sheets so they can just get out of their system. Now, the “educated” ones(meaning they didn’t show up looking like Bubba but a good WASPY surburbanite) I’ve interviewed make good points and I can understand their arguments.
But overall the group mentality of these parties aren’t focused on scones and cucumber sandwiches.
[quote=“Namahottie”]
But overall the group mentality of these parties aren’t focused on scones and cucumber sandwiches.[/quote]
But my point is that either were the anti-Bush rallies. A lot of the same type of hatred was being displayed at these, and they weren’t nearly as harshly condoned by the media or by the peanut gallery on Forumosa for that matter. In fact, they were often covered with sympathetic coverage by the media.
I agree with you–there are nasty elements within these protests…but aren’t these common in lots of political protests from all sides of the spectrum?..Political rallies are full of tribalism and ‘bread and circuses’ acts, and I think people that are sneering at these rallies should ask themselves if they were equally as critical in times past. I think the answer, for the most part, would be a resounding no. And that, my friend, is hypocrisy, is it not?
[quote=“Chewycorns”]
But my point is that either were the anti-Bush rallies. A lot of the same type of hatred was being displayed at these, and they weren’t nearly as harshly condoned by the media or by the peanut gallery on Forumosa for that matter. In fact, they were often covered with sympathetic coverage by the media.[/quote]
You know, the real problem with your whining that equivalency = hypocrisy is that (1) it is total bullshit and (2) you’ve totally failed to put your finger on actual hypocrisy among liberals.
Bush, Cheney and co, were, by any objective measure, people who engaged in Nazi tactics and behaviors. Invading prostrate foreign nations that were no threat to them. Murdering hundreds of thousands. Erecting torture/murder and extralegal kidnapping regimes. Denying that the law applied to the President or that there were any legal limits to what he could do. Engaging in spying on Americans and erecting enormous and illegal databases of citizen communications and activities. Co-opting the private sector into this security state. Ignoring the courts when – inevitably – Bushco got slapped down. The left protests that equated Bush and Cheney to Nazis and Gestapo were dead on.
By contrast, the Teahad claims that Obama is Hitler because…he passed health care legislation. Yeah, right.
The real hypocrisy of the Left isn’t correctly identifying what Bush was: a sick, twisted, anti-American, Anti-democracy dictatorial fuck of the Mussolini/Hitler/Franco variety, but that when Obama preserves, elaborates, and expands the Bush era domestic spying programs and security state at home and abroad, the liberals are …silent.
Vorkosigan
[quote=“Chewycorns”][quote=“Namahottie”]
But overall the group mentality of these parties aren’t focused on scones and cucumber sandwiches.[/quote]
But my point is that either were the anti-Bush rallies. A lot of the same type of hatred was being displayed at these, and they weren’t nearly as harshly condoned by the media or by the peanut gallery on Forumosa for that matter. In fact, they were often covered with sympathetic coverage by the media.
I agree with you–there are nasty elements within these protests…but aren’t these common in lots of political protests from all sides of the spectrum?..Political rallies are full of tribalism and ‘bread and circuses’ acts, and I think people that are sneering at these rallies should ask themselves if they were equally as critical in times past. I think the answer, for the most part, would be a resounding no. And that, my friend, is hypocrisy, is it not?[/quote]
Critical of what? You know what never mind…Forget that I made a snide remark, at the benefit of the Prez only to be almost caught up. …But here’s some humor I found for ya on HuffPo…(Disclaimer— It’s humor. So I don’t endorse it unless you have a laugh.)
Those valiant defenders of family values are at it again . . .
[quote]Republicans do it again: phone sex fund raiser
The best thing the Republican party can say about this week is it is almost over.
First came news that the US Republican National Committee (RNC) paid $US1,946 ($A2,120) for a visit by young Republicans to a sex-themed Hollywood club. The money is to be paid back.
Now it turns out the RNC inadvertently listed a phone-sex number on a fundraising letter sent to potential donors. People who tried to call the committee were instead offered “live, one-on-one talk with a nasty girl” for $US2.99 a minute.[/quote]
HG
That was no mistake. Sarah Palin was manning the phones.
[quote=“Vorkosigan”][quote=“Chewycorns”]
But my point is that either were the anti-Bush rallies. A lot of the same type of hatred was being displayed at these, and they weren’t nearly as harshly condoned by the media or by the peanut gallery on Forumosa for that matter. In fact, they were often covered with sympathetic coverage by the media.[/quote]
You know, the real problem with your whining that equivalency = hypocrisy is that (1) it is total bullshit and (2) you’ve totally failed to put your finger on actual hypocrisy among liberals.
Bush, Cheney and co, were, by any objective measure, people who engaged in Nazi tactics and behaviors. Invading prostrate foreign nations that were no threat to them. Murdering hundreds of thousands. Erecting torture/murder and extralegal kidnapping regimes. Denying that the law applied to the President or that there were any legal limits to what he could do. Engaging in spying on Americans and erecting enormous and illegal databases of citizen communications and activities. Co-opting the private sector into this security state. Ignoring the courts when – inevitably – Bushco got slapped down. The left protests that equated Bush and Cheney to Nazis and Gestapo were dead on.
By contrast, the Teahad claims that Obama is Hitler because…he passed health care legislation. Yeah, right.
The real hypocrisy of the Left isn’t correctly identifying what Bush was: a sick, twisted, anti-American, Anti-democracy dictatorial fuck of the Mussolini/Hitler/Franco variety, but that when Obama preserves, elaborates, and expands the Bush era domestic spying programs and security state at home and abroad, the liberals are …silent.
Vorkosigan[/quote]
I agree with Dr V, and I’ve written as much on some thread somewhere before. There is no comparison between outrage at the invasion of Iraq and it’s subsequent costs in lives and dollars, to outrage at attempting health care reform, financial regulations aimed at consumer protections and avoiding another economic melt down and environmental policies that would hopefully keep the world around for a few more generations to enjoy.
And I would call out anyone who protested Bush’s domestic spying, which Judge Walker has now confirmed was illegal, but supports Obama’s doing the same. I’m disappointed that Obama has now authorized offshore drilling even though even at the best estimates there is about a 2-weeks supply at our national rate of consumption. I have read complaints about both, so I wouldn’t say all liberals have rolled over. Perhaps some have been somewhat desensitized to the programs after all the erosion of civil liberties and privacy since 9-11. The other issue is that big ships can’t turn on a dime. I’m pretty impressed with what Obama’s been able to accomplish in his first year in office. Some messes take time to clean up.
And so help me God, if I find that my phone calls have been tapped without a warrant, I’ll be making a call to my buddy Vaughn back in SF.
[quote=“almas john”]Chris and Craig, how many people do you think were involved in the name calling and spitting? Was it just a few individuals or are we talking about large numbers of protesters?
This whole thing seems to have been blown up out of proportion.[/quote]
It’s a little bigger than exactly how many people hurled spit-balls or racial/homophobic epithets at elected congressmen. It’s symbolic of the rage, at what object/action/idea is unfathomable to me, that is bubbling over in unhealthy, dangerous ways. It’s not OK to call a black person a nigger or a gay person a faggot. It’s not OK to fly an airplane into a building housing an IRS office because you are upset about something. It’s not OK to bomb Federal buildings. It’s not OK to plot to murder police officers. It’s not OK to make death threats.
It’s equally not OK for left-wing radicals to do it either, but I think I’d agree with Eugene Robinson that those nutballs have mostly disappeared, and when they were doing their shit, they were called out on it.
EDIT: I think I understand the rage, actually. There are a number of folks in the US who are pissed that a black was elected president. People are pissed about the unemployment, but that rage is a little misdirected as the slide started well before Obama became president and indications are that it’s turning around. I believe the Republican party is fanning the flames to their political advantage, which has the rage at the boiling over point.
It was probably a small number. But those around them weren’t stopping them; they were egging them on, according to the reports.
One thing I would like to see is for the leaders of the teabag movement to make an active statement of repudiation of racism. “We, the Tea Party, do not tolerate racist sentiments, statements or actions among our ranks, and we well take active steps to address this problem,” for example. If they have already done so, then good. But all I’ve seen lately is denial and blame-shifting.
But hasn’t Obama continued a lot of Bush’s programs?
google.com/webhp?hl=en#hl=en … cbbf06dc4f[/quote]
Yes, to my disappointment. But the ship of state has a lot of inertia; only time will tell.
Despite this, he’s accomplished dozens upon dozens of things I support in just his first year, in contrast to perhaps three or four things that Bush did that I support in all of his eight years.
No, it is not. Hypocrisy is “the practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtures that one does not hold or possess; falseness.” If a person falsely proclaims that they believe in, and that everyone should follow, “family values”, when they are in fact whoring around at the same time, that is hypocrisy. If someone runs on a Prohibiton platform but carries a hidden flask, that is hypocrisy.
This is obviously different from variation in responses to external stimuli, such as a change in the level or nature of criticism directed toward others over time, which can be caused by various factors including but not limited to the situation at hand, ingroup-outgroup mentality, a change in perspective or maturity levels, different levels of involvement or understanding of different situations, rationalization driven by cognitive dissonance, and so on, ad nauseam.