GOP Corruption and Obstruction

[Thrasher]

Knew you would like that source.

There's a video too of him denying that he was ever a maverick.

 

[dteowner]

Biased source. The video is probably fake.

 

[magerette]

Guilty as charged, and I did notice 2 of them definitely being European. Being at work, I was a bit limited on time and site selection, so I went quick and dirty. If it would make you feel better, I can do a more complete smear job here at home. How about a portrait of Cindy Sheehan as a starting point? I would do Jesse and Al, but that wouldn't even be a challenge.

Fact is, my man, the lefty loony fringe stopped being militant, violent and getting tons of news coverage back around the time Abbie Hoffman retired. This flirtation with TP anger and touting itself as 'the party of hell no!' is a phase your party is going through comparable to the 'Terrible Twos', imo, and just about as much fun to be around. (Also, Cindy Sheehan, mouthy and irritating as she is, doth not a political movement make—Jesse and Al are ancient history afa mounting political candidates to run against the establishment, and for much of anything else except as flashpoint button-pushers for rightie propaganda and talk show hosts.)

I guess my main issue is with the intellectual dishonesty of it all. In the current mainstream presentation the repubs are giving, it's all about victimhood—-there's always some way reality is twisted to make the stainless right the victim of the evil race-baiting socialist whatever left, instead of facing up to what's going on, which is a crisis in effective government that impacts both parties, and working to solve it. It's easier to use these poor loonies for some anti-Obama soundbytes than to present a coherent policy-based alternative.

AFA the populist rage and the vitriolic rhetoric that's embodied in the worst of the teabaggers, it's a moment in political time that's going to pass, just like the Sixties, and leave nothing behind but a pile of bad PR. And who is the adult in the room when it's all over?

 

[dteowner]

Fact is, my man, the lefty loony fringe stopped being militant, violent and getting tons of news coverage back around the time Abbie Hoffman retired.

This actually reinforces my point. The enviro-nuts are still spiking trees and ramming whaling ships. That's directly life-threatening and illegal shit. You're exactly right—they AREN'T getting news coverage any more. Instead, the media is screaming from the rafters, claiming that every republican in the world is plotting the end of the world with a side dish of presidential assassination, because some guys exercise their constitutional right to carry a firearm.

Is it silly to bring guns to a political conference? Sure it is. Is it directly life-threatening and illegal shit? Sorry, no it ain't. Is it silly to form a state militia? Sure it is. Is it directly life-threatening and illegal? Sorry, no it ain't. Is it silly to call Barney Frank names? Sure it is. Is it directly life-threatening and illegal? Sorry, no it ain't. About the only thing you've got are the death threats, which, a) have no evidentiary link to the tea party b) weren't limited to democrats. So why is the media painting the picture they are and not painting the picture they aren't? It screams "agenda" and "smear campaign" to me.

 

[Thrasher]

Biased source. The video is probably fake.

Yeah, all the news channels are faking it. Maybe you could pick up a few marbles that McCain has lost.

 

[dteowner]

Until I see it on Glenn Beck, it didn't happen.

 

[magerette]

This actually reinforces my point. The enviro-nuts are still spiking trees and ramming whaling ships. That's directly life-threatening and illegal shit. You're exactly right—they AREN'T getting news coverage any more. Instead, the media is screaming from the rafters, claiming that every republican in the world is plotting the end of the world with a side dish of presidential assassination, because some guys exercise their constitutional right to carry a firearm.

Your ability to pick and choose where you want to have this fight is amazing. First, I am not the media, and I'm not alleging anything about "every republican," nor is my position anything like your last sentence (see below.)

Second, Greenpeace is not a political party trying to elect candidates. The Green Party which is, is a dismal failure at either garnering soundbytes or getting anyone elected. They aren't getting news coverage anymore because they are not very numerous or vocal or interesting to the vast majority of people.They aren't marching in the streets, hollering at congressmen, forming radical militia groups or claiming the President was born in Kenya, and they don't get any coverage not because there's some conspiracy by the media to ignore them but literally, because they don't and never have been taken seriously as a shaper of actual policy for a major political party. Not to mention,(sadly)no one cares about them or their message.

Is it silly to bring guns to a political conference? Sure it is. Is it directly life-threatening and illegal shit? Sorry, no it ain't. Is it silly to form a state militia? Sure it is. Is it directly life-threatening and illegal? Sorry, no it ain't….

What you're ignoring here is the implications that follow from these facts as well as historical precedent. Don't actions have consequences? If you legally form a militia, but your stated purpose for forming it is to overthrow the rule of the legally elected federal government, how legal are you being really? if you carry your gun to a rally, and you're a sane person, no harm no foul. If you take your gun to a rally and you're a whacko that ends up firing it and hurting or killing someone, maybe having someone you respect saying earlier this was a bad idea instead of encouraging you to grab your guns before the gummint outlaws them could have prevented that from happening.

About the only thing you've got are the death threats, which, a) have no evidentiary link to the tea party b) weren't limited to democrats.

Can you hear yourself—the only thing I've got( in my role as the personification of the media and all that is evil on the left) is the death threats. Yeah, wanting to kill people because they didn't vote the way you wanted them to is so rational and normal a part of our democratic process that how can I be regretful about it, or feel it's a danger sign? It's not like any of our elected officials have ever actually been killed in office or anything…..

I agree there's no evidence linking them to the tea party, since they were perpetrated by anonymous cowards, but there is some evidence in the words themselves that they are the product of all the ginning up about the "government takeover of health care" and so forth. Who did all that, the lefties?

So why is the media painting the picture they are and not painting the picture they aren't? It screams "agenda" and "smear campaign" to me.

Because the media thrives on controversy rather than fact. You know that. I agree that all the over the top emphasis on how dangerous the rhetoric may or may not be has been elevated at the expense of the somewhat more rational messages of smaller government and fiscal responsibility that are part of the Tea Party agenda. Nonetheless, the Tea Party gets plenty of coverage that doesn't revolve around anything but the fact that Sarah Palin is speaking at one of their events, or such and such a candidate has their backing. It's not like they're only being portrayed in one way.

The only thing I've been saying is I think the question the right needs to be asking is the same one the left already has asked and answered: does anti-government, whacko rage benefit my political message and my party's ability to not just win elections, but govern, or detract from it? Democratic Mayor Daley arrested the anti-government protesters when they attempted to get their message into the mainstream party. McCain, McConnel and Boner all want to be one.

That was my earlier point, and I don't understand why it's so hard to comprehend and has to get sidetracked into all this tea party is teh misunderstood victim crap.

 

[dteowner]

First off, allow me to de-personalize this. Ain't no "you" and "me" in this one. We're talking about groups and, admittedly, categorizing groups is a little hazardous since no group is so monolithic that they can be uniformly top-to-bottom placed in a box. I seem to do a little better job of carrying banners for armies I don't belong to than you, but I do understand that carrying a banner on an internet forum doesn't really reflect accurately on the person doing the typing.

Now, kisses and hugs safely out of the way, back to the cage match!

Don't you find it a bit disconcerting that you're terrified of a group because of what they might do down the road if certain dominoes fall certain ways, but you can casually dismiss another group that's doing bad juju right now? We're content to put nuts that call in death threats in the same box as people following the American political process as it's supposed to work simply because they share views on one particularly bad policy, but we differentiate between tree-spikers and "pro-environment" politicians such as Pelosi-ov? I simply don't understand why the Tea Party and anyone vaguely close to them are getting such bad treatment in the media compared to these other groups. Because they're pissed off? Heck, a buttload of democrats burned down LA a few years back cuz they didn't care for their government--THAT is pissed off. The rules are clearly different. That can only point to one thing, and it ain't pretty.

On a side note, I heard on the radio coming into work today that they're holding a Tea Party right here in the Bustling Metropolis. Yes, folks, with a county-wide population somewhere in the vicinity of 20,000 heads (and the Bustling Metropolis itself actually leans slightly democrat, if you can believe it), we've somehow made the grade as a hotbed of rightie activism. And no, I haven't made any plans just yet.

 

[Thrasher]

Until I see it on Glenn Beck, it didn't happen.

The scary thing is, some people actually think this.

 

[Thrasher]

About the only thing you've got are the death threats, which, a) have no evidentiary link to the tea party b) weren't limited to democrats. So why is the media painting the picture they are and not painting the picture they aren't? It screams "agenda" and "smear campaign" to me.

BS detected. Or maybe you should start scrambling for those marbles rolling on the floor… I'll give you the benefit of doubt.

Did you so quickly and conveniently forget what was on Bible Spice's website? Remember the crosshairs on congressmen who voted for the health care reform bill? And who is the defacto leader of the tea partee? And then afterwards how many people were arrested for committing federal crimes for threatening same congressmen?

Case closed.

There may actually be a case for throwing the book at alaska sass. Now that would be interesting!

 

[magerette]

@ dte: Thanks for taking away my group identity. For me this isn't an "us or them" world.
(Well except for my normal class warfare thing. )

Okay—you're saying everybody is basically getting their undies in a wad over nothing about the Tea-hadists. I'm going to make a guess that this is because the anger isn't directed at you and everything you believe in. When it is, i.e., Sharpton, Sheehan, and the greenies, you see it differently and find it alarming, yes? As usual, everything is relative.

I'm not terrified of the Tea Party, but they do make me uncomfortable with their angry view of the world, because in it my world and the things that I value in it —you know, sanity, a social safety net, legal elections where the winner gets to govern even if it's the other side, sensible government by two balancing parties, blah blah—are apparently scheduled for demolition in favor of…what? No taxes, and NObama. The two worlds really aren't going to co-exist, any more than the Yippies could make a world where Glenn Beck could feel happy.


So it's reassuring to hear you aren't heading out to join the Tealiban just yet. I expect something from here to end up in your wardrobe anyway, though. (I kind of like that "Honk if I'm paying your mortgage" one.)

 

[dteowner]

http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/14/tea-party-trickster-may-be-sent-to-the-principal’s-office/

Now we've got people actively trying to discredit the Tea Party folks. Wonder if the media will give this any coverage.

 

[Thrasher]

Probably not, because its fake...

 

[dteowner]

Okay—you're saying everybody is basically getting their undies in a wad over nothing about the Tea-hadists. I'm going to make a guess that this is because the anger isn't directed at you and everything you believe in. When it is, i.e., Sharpton, Sheehan, and the greenies, you see it differently and find it alarming, yes? As usual, everything is relative.

You're hitting all around it, but still missing the crux of the issue. It's all about the media portrayal, not the characters and their actions.

You've got pissed off righties (example-Tea Party). Media swoops in for the kill. Pick a bad apple and put a spotlight on it, label the whole barrel. Ignore the actual message. Tout it as the end of the world.

You'v got pissed off lefties (example- LA riots). Media supports how they're standing up for their beliefs and fighting for their rights and overcoming oppression. Find some diamond in the cesspool and put a spotlight on it, excuse the stink. Ignore the actual carnage. Tout it as a triumph of the human spirit.

It's simply not consistent. I fully understand that the media loves a spectacle and isn't shy about manufacturing one given half a chance, but they're picking and choosing which issues to turn into a circus and somehow there's a very obvious common thread to their choices.

You personally ran a poll about the need for additional parties in US politics. The idea is that it allows for tighter definitions of an individual party's platform, which means people have a closer representation of their personal beliefs when they cast a ballot. Although we all seem to agree that it won't play well in the US, we generally agree that it's a good idea. Well, you've got it. Should be a good thing, even though the most recent seed to germinate will look like a weed to you (much like the Nader party looks to me). Now, the media has spun this thing so hard that what we all agreed was a good idea scares the bahjeezuz out of you. Summin ain't raht thar.

 

[Thrasher]

Wow! I remember vividly the riots, and I don't remember a single media person standing up for the rioters... Something strange is going on here...

 

[Thrasher]

We didn't have Nader party leaders encouraging people to shoot their congressmen.

DTE, you're really missing the point here...

 

[dteowner]

Wow! I remember vividly the riots, and I don't remember a single media person standing up for the rioters… Something strange is going on here…

Reginald Denny ring any bells? That's just the easy one.

 

[Thrasher]

Reginald Denny is Rodney King. The guy that was beat up by cops, that eventually led to the riots. He is no media journalist.

 

[dteowner]

Go search some website you trust, Thrasher, because you're looking like an idiot. Reginald Denny was the white truck driver pulled from his truck by a group of black teens and beaten senseless with a fire extinguisher and left for dead while a TV camera in a traffic helicopter caught the whole thing live. The guy ended up with permanent brain damage. Everybody thought it was a wonderful thing when the teens got off with a slap on the wrist since it wouldn't incite another riot. The media ate it up (particularly when Denny asked the judge to go light on the guys so there wouldn't be more violence) and praised the wisdom of the judge for picking compassion over justice. Somehow, nobody gave two shits about Denny. Funny enough, to this day some people apparently think it's an alias for Rodney King, showing just how bad the liberal media spun this thing to praise the liberal-demographic criminal and forget the victim.

 

[Thrasher]

I stand corrected. Though I don't remember thinking it was a wonderful thing that they got off, nor the press praising the criminals. That's a bit over the top don't you think?

But perhaps it was wiser in the bigger picture than inciting another riot. Tough call.