Bill Moyers (I know, I know, don’t even start) interviews Sam Tanenhaus, author of The Death of Conservatism — a book that touches on many of the same themes that have been recent topics of heated discussion at Little Green Footballs. Set aside 30 minutes to watch this; it’s worth it.
(Hat tip: Locker.)
1 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:09:02pm |
Watched it on the tube last night at about 2am. I was pretty tanked, so I can't remember if I loved it or hated it.
/
He made some good points. Some I agree with, some I don't.
| 2 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:09:04pm |
You may notice that there's a new button at the bottom of the comment posting form -- "Show Users."
Click it and a panel opens beneath the form, showing the registered users who are currently reading this thread.
| 3 |
Henchman Ghazi-808 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:09:48pm |
Sorry, but I don't know if i can bear to watch it right now...
| 4 |
albusteve Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:10:23pm |
death of conservatism...yup, not a new notion to me
| 5 |
Sharmuta Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:10:30pm |
I'm sure some folks will complain about Max Blumenthal too. He's certainly biased, but having fact checked a couple of his pieces, I haven't found him to be inaccurate.
| 6 |
TheMatrix31 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:11:02pm |
re: #2 Charles
You may notice that there's a new button at the bottom of the comment posting form -- "Show Users."
Click it and a panel opens beneath the form, showing the registered users who are currently reading this thread.
That's a cool button dude.
| 7 |
Cathypop Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:14:12pm |
Why do I feel that that man is talking down to me?
| 9 |
brookly red Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:16:06pm |
| 10 |
jaunte Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:16:14pm |
Conservative revanchism; he has a good point. "We're going to take our country back" is a message we've been hearing a lot lately.
| 11 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:16:35pm |
re: #7 Cathypop
Why do I feel that that man is talking down to me?
Wow.
I didn't get that feeling at all.
| 12 |
Henchman Ghazi-808 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:16:46pm |
Ironically it's sorta like there's a 'dearth' of ideology that claims it's conservatism.
| 13 |
lostlakehiker Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:17:08pm |
Conservatism will eventually enjoy a comeback. Trouble is it will be after a spell in the wilderness. In the meantime, we can only hope that the Blue Dogs can rein in the worst-thought-through impulses of the Pelosi wing of the Democrats.
A meltdown by the democrats, featuring something such as 20 percent inflation, 20 percent unemployment, and military defeat, would grant the Republicans a quick return to electoral power, but that would merely lead to a short-lived interlude of conservative administration. Better that things run on a somewhat even keel, so that in due course, the ship of state that passes to a reborn and newly rational conservatism is not a wreck-in-the-making.
| 14 |
Mostly sane, most of the time. Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:18:34pm |
Sidebar ads: Is your bank going to close?
Economic Crisis 2009!
*Aaaaghhh*runs screaming around room*
JK
| 15 |
jaunte Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:18:48pm |
re: #12 BigPapa
The "leave me alone, you can't tell me what to do" gut reaction is hard to call an ideology, more like a feeling.
| 16 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:19:37pm |
There's no better illustration of how completely lost the GOP is than the fact that Mike Huckabee was the big favorite at the Values Voters Summit meeting.
The GOP is going all theocracy, all the time.
| 17 |
albusteve Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:19:37pm |
| 18 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:20:44pm |
re: #5 Sharmuta
I'm sure some folks will complain about Max Blumenthal too. He's certainly biased, but having fact checked a couple of his pieces, I haven't found him to be inaccurate.
Here's some interview footage he shot at teh 9-12 teabagger protest. Obviously he went looking for the crazy, but it's plain to see that teh crazy is all around him.
| 19 |
Cathypop Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:20:51pm |
| 20 |
KingKenrod Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:20:58pm |
Huckabee attacks Romney at Value Voters Summit:
[T]he only thing inexpensive about Massachusetts' health care bill is that there, you can get a $50 abortion"
More here:
[Link: www.cnn.com...]
| 21 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:22:11pm |
Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association (ever wonder why so many of these groups have the word "Family" in their names?) gave a speech at the Values Voters summit, and said the idea of church-state separation began with Adolf Hitler.
Yes, really.
| 22 |
albusteve Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:22:27pm |
whoa!...I thought Bill was gonna blurt out LGF!...close
| 23 |
jaunte Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:23:42pm |
re: #21 Charles
Seems like Fischer would support the concept of Kinder, Küche, Kirche.
| 24 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:24:44pm |
He's arguing that the First Amendment gives the government the right to establish Christianity as the national religion. Wow.
| 25 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:26:02pm |
The Hitler quote isn't in that clip, by the way. It's being reported at other sites.
| 26 |
Jim in Virginia Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:26:28pm |
re: #18 iceweasel
Here's some interview footage he shot at teh 9-12 teabagger protest.
Iceweasel, can we not use that word? I've never been to a tea party, I despise the Paulists as much as anyone, but it's like calling the President a socialist or saying that the overwhelming majority of his opponents are racists. It's the equivalent of Godwin's law.
| 27 |
What, me worry? Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:27:12pm |
re: #25 Charles
The Hitler quote isn't in that clip, by the way. It's being reported at other sites.
lol I was wondering. How does he fit that in? Do you have a link? I guess that means the founding fathers were... nazis?
| 28 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:27:29pm |
re: #23 jaunte
Seems like Fischer would support the concept of Kinder, Küche, Kirche.
You ain't kidding. I posted this downstairs:
Fischer basically attributed the idea of church-state separation to Adolf Hitler, who he said was the inspiration for the forces of “secular fundamentalism” who are bent on “castrating” the church and bringing America a “bleak, dark, vicious, tyrannical” future. Invoking Hitler is practically commonplace name-calling from the right these days. But it was not the most important or provocative point of his remarks.
Today Fischer went a good bit further than televangelist Pat Robertson, who notably called church-state separation a “lie of the left.” According to Fischer’s interpretation of the First Amendment, here’s what religious liberty means: Congress has the liberty to promote religion in any way, as long as it does not single out one Christian sect or denomination and make it the nation’s official religion. That’s it.
According to Fischer, “the only entity that is restrained by the First Amendment is the Congress of the United States.” Thus, he says, it is “constitutionally impossible” for governors, mayors, city councilmembers, or school administrators to violate the First Amendment. Fischer said the “incorporation doctrine” – the idea that the Fourteenth Amendment applied First Amendment protections against state governments, is the “most egregious” example of judicial activism.
So by his definition, a state legislature could declare itself an officially Christian state. Or an officially Baptist or Mormon state. Presumably any public school, city council or state government could require students to attend Christian worship or profess certain religious belief.
Fischer isn’t the only Religious Right leader who holds this radically extreme definition of religious liberty. In their 2008 book, “Personal Faith, Public Policy,” Religious Right leaders Tony Perkins and Harry Jackson said that a 1961 Supreme Court decision, which held that the state of Maryland could not require applicants for public office to swear that they believe in the existence of God, one of “the major assaults that have been successfully launched against the Christian faith in the last forty to fifty years.”
So, to these prominent Religious Right leaders, preventing a state from demanding that its employees swear to certain religious beliefs is an attack on Christianity. And any court that tries to stop a state from imposing religious beliefs on its citizens is judicial activism.
| 29 |
Danny Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:28:11pm |
Has anyone in here read Tanenhaus's book? If so, any good?
| 30 |
What, me worry? Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:29:30pm |
re: #28 iceweasel
Isn't Tony Perkins that real estate guy or am I thinking of someone else.
| 31 |
Sharmuta Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:30:17pm |
Hmm- I was surprised Tanenhaus didn't mention David Frum as a conservative. I know The Death of Conservatism is being promoted at Frum's site The New Majority. Perhaps he's not intellectual enough? Maybe it was just an oversight? I think Frum should be given a bit more credit.
| 32 |
Killgore Trout Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:30:46pm |
Thanks for posting this. I had been thinking about giving up on political though and concentrating more on Zen, flyfishing and gardening. Looks like there's still some interesting political reading to be done.
| 33 |
What, me worry? Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:30:48pm |
re: #28 iceweasel
I wonder how the rise of anti-semitism has contributed to this current climate.
| 34 |
Sharmuta Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:30:49pm |
re: #27 marjoriemoon
lol I was wondering. How does he fit that in? Do you have a link? I guess that means the founding fathers were... nazis?
James Madison = hitler!1!
| 35 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:31:09pm |
re: #30 marjoriemoon
Isn't Tony Perkins that real estate guy or am I thinking of someone else.
In 2001, Perkins addressed the Council of Conservative Citizens (successor organization to the anti-integration White Citizens Council), a known white nationalist organization.
| 36 |
Jim in Virginia Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:31:16pm |
If I'm a Methodist Alabama I might like the idea of a state sponsored religion. If I'm a Methodist in Utah- well, it's not quite the same thing, is it? And if I'm a Methodist in Dearrborn, well...
| 37 |
Locker Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:31:21pm |
re: #31 Sharmuta
Hmm- I was surprised Tanenhaus didn't mention David Frum as a conservative. I know The Death of Conservatism is being promoted at Frum's site The New Majority. Perhaps he's not intellectual enough? Maybe it was just an oversight? I think Frum should be given a bit more credit.
Do you think that's maybe why he didn't mention it? I know it's anti marketing but maybe it's to avoid any claims of promotionalism or whatever. I'm just musing out loud.
| 38 |
Danny Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:31:41pm |
re: #32 Killgore Trout
Thanks for posting this. I had been thinking about giving up on political though and concentrating more on Zen, flyfishing and gardening. Looks like there's still some interesting political reading to be done.
NOOO! Definitely concentrate on flyfishing and gardening!
| 39 |
Killgore Trout Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:31:54pm |
re: #29 Danny
I'm thinking about picking it up. Looks interesting. I also added Max Blumenthal's new book to my list.
| 40 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:32:13pm |
Tony Perkins is closely associated with Louisiana exorcist Bobby Jindal.
| 41 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:32:41pm |
re: #26 Jim in Virginia
Iceweasel, can we not use that word? I've never been to a tea party, I despise the Paulists as much as anyone, but it's like calling the President a socialist or saying that the overwhelming majority of his opponents are racists. It's the equivalent of Godwin's law.
No, the problem is that the tea partiers themselves named themselves teabaggers, and Jay Nordlinger over at NRO was suggesting just last week that the tea partiers annd conservatives claim that name as a badge of honour. Yes, really:
[Link: corner.nationalreview.com...]
It could be that conservatives will “own the insult” and use “teabagger” as a badge of honor. It could become some proud conservative N-word. President Reagan said, “I’m a contra, too.” Well, I’m a teabagger too — and the Anderson Cooper types can [go jump in a lake].
I'm all for not using inaccurate labels, but c'mon now. They're seriously asking to be mocked. I'm just not strong enough to hold out.
| 42 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:33:13pm |
re: #30 marjoriemoon
Isn't Tony Perkins that real estate guy or am I thinking of someone else.
Yeah, that's someone else. Anthony or Tony Robbins, I believe.
| 44 |
Killgore Trout Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:34:28pm |
re: #38 Danny
Financial concerns meant I didn't get a fishing license this year. I'm eating the corporate fascist frozen fish you buy at the store. Gardening is pretty much free. The Man can't keep me out of the garden!
| 45 |
What, me worry? Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:34:48pm |
re: #34 Sharmuta
James Madison = hitler!1!
I have to assume that there are some level headed people sitting in that audience. Although so far the lineup appears so freakin out there, I would have run from the room screaming long before.
| 46 |
Sharmuta Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:34:50pm |
I hope that were Buckley alive today he would be appalled to know his magazine is encouraging today's fringe instead of rebuking it. Very sad.
| 47 |
SteveC Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:35:42pm |
re: #24 Charles
He's arguing that the First Amendment gives the government the right to establish Christianity as the national religion. Wow.
Really? I got a bunch of guys who signed the damn thing who will argue differently. I win.
| 48 |
What, me worry? Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:35:59pm |
| 49 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:36:03pm |
I don't think that conservatism in general is dead, but I do think that within the GOP, conservatism has been dying a slow death by poisoning for quite some time now.
| 50 |
Killgore Trout Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:36:38pm |
re: #44 Killgore Trout
Trader Joe's is the best place to buy corporate fascist frozen fish. I loaded up on Ahi steaks this week, about $4 a pound. Nice.
| 51 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:36:48pm |
At Americans United for Separation of Church and State: Strange Days: Getting Psyched For The ‘Values Voter Summit’.
| 52 |
Danny Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:37:26pm |
re: #50 Killgore Trout
Trader Joe's is the best place to buy corporate fascist frozen fish. I loaded up on Ahi steaks this week, about $4 a pound. Nice.
My wife swears by Trader Joe's. She even tried to get a job there.
| 53 |
SteveC Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:37:28pm |
re: #27 marjoriemoon
lol I was wondering. How does he fit that in? Do you have a link? I guess that means the founding fathers were... nazis?
You gotta say it right. Use your Church Lady voice:
So the Founding Fathers were...NAZIS?
/
| 54 |
Jim in Virginia Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:38:03pm |
re: #41 iceweasel
I'm all for not using inaccurate labels, but c'mon now. They're seriously asking to be mocked. I'm just not strong enough to hold out.
Nordlinger also said
Still, I find the word kind of sickening, and its rapid spread and acceptance even more sickening.
| 55 |
SteveC Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:39:10pm |
re: #51 Charles
At Americans United for Separation of Church and State: Strange Days: Getting Psyched For The ‘Values Voter Summit’.
"Americans United for Separation of anything" just sounds wrong.
| 56 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:39:51pm |
Some more fun footage from the Value Voters Summit.-- anti-choice activist Lila Rose, in the course of bragging about all her great work attacking Planned Parenthood (a very small portion of their work involves abortions, btw) had this great suggestion about abortion: So long as it's legal, why don't we have them performed publicly?
That should shame those hussies getting one, right?
Background on Lila Rose here.
| 57 |
Sharmuta Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:41:00pm |
Joe Wilson- striking a blow against civil society. For my friends who have read about Visions- I would say that's very unconstrained.
| 58 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:41:05pm |
re: #54 Jim in Virginia
Then he should blame those conservatives who named their movement that. Not the people who pointed and laughed at them.
| 59 |
Danny Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:41:08pm |
Tanenhaus sounds like a straight up guy in this interview.
| 60 |
albusteve Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:41:09pm |
thanks for posting this interview Charles...much appreciated
| 61 |
Locker Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:41:46pm |
re: #11 Charles
Wow.
I didn't get that feeling at all.
Man... you've got an insane amount of courage. Much respect for putting this up.
| 62 |
brookly red Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:42:20pm |
re: #56 iceweasel
Some more fun footage from the Value Voters Summit.-- anti-choice activist Lila Rose, in the course of bragging about all her great work attacking Planned Parenthood (a very small portion of their work involves abortions, btw) had this great suggestion about abortion: So long as it's legal, why don't we have them performed publicly?
/I can't even smoke publicly...
| 63 |
albusteve Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:42:46pm |
re: #57 Sharmuta
Joe Wilson- striking a blow against civil society. For my friends who have read about Visions- I would say that's very unconstrained.
a minor thing...in a few weeks few will recall the incident...sort of like the town hall screamers
| 64 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:42:53pm |
re: #55 SteveC
"Americans United for Separation of anything" just sounds wrong.
I like them. AFAIK they're a good organisation, and they fight creationists all the time.
[Link: www.au.org...]
| 65 |
jaunte Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:44:02pm |
re: #56 iceweasel
Sounds like Andrew Breitbart's ACORN film crew borrowed their idea from her.
| 66 |
Jim in Virginia Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:44:08pm |
re: #56 iceweasel So you'll call teabaggers what they want to be called , but you'll use your own term for pro life activists?
| 67 |
brookly red Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:45:38pm |
re: #66 Jim in Virginia
So you'll call teabaggers what they want to be called , but you'll use your own term for pro life activists?
/teabaggers, carpet baggers... it all just sucks
| 69 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:46:08pm |
re: #55 SteveC
"Americans United for Separation of anything" just sounds wrong.
Americans United (AU) is a nonpartisan organization dedicated to preserving the constitutional principle of church-state separation as the only way to ensure religious freedom for all Americans.
If I have to pick sides between the fanatics who show up at the Values Voter Summit, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State -- I am 100% committed to the latter.
| 70 |
albusteve Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:46:29pm |
re: #66 Jim in Virginia
So you'll call teabaggers what they want to be called , but you'll use your own term for pro life activists?
controversy is a large part of ego...it draws attention and some people thrive on it
| 71 |
Sharmuta Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:47:56pm |
I think it's interesting Tanenhaus mentions the 1992 election as the end of conservatism. That was when the fiscal rift happened with Perot- who stressed how government was spending it's money.
We see this rift playing out again at this point with the false flag of auditing the Federal Reserve. This does nothing to correct bad spending practices on the part of government. Those who are rightfully concerned with Congressional spending habits have no leader to voice their concerns at this time, and it's to the detriment of fiscal conservatives and the country.
| 72 |
SteveC Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:48:08pm |
re: #68 Slumbering Behemoth
BBL
Keep your foot hard on the pedal; son, never mind them brakes.
Let it all hang out 'cause we got a run to make.
The boys are thirsty in Atlanta and there's beer in Texarcana.
And we'll bring it back no matter what it takes.East bound and down, loaded up and truckin',
we're gonna do what they say can't be done.
We've got a long way to go and a short time to get there.
I'm east bound, just watch ol' Bandit run.
| 73 |
Summersong Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:48:31pm |
It's talk like a pirate day, again.
[Link: www.talklikeapirate.com...]
| 74 |
Desert Dog Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:48:32pm |
re: #7 Cathypop
Why do I feel that that man is talking down to me?
Both of them are, you are not imagining that.
| 75 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:48:43pm |
re: #54 Jim in Virginia
BTW, Jim, I have no problem avoiding the use of the word. I save it for special occasions. I think this is only the second time I've used it here about them (as opposed to discussing the term as we are now.)
I'm a little irritated because I've been looking at this flickr stream and it's freaky. Don't know if these have been posted before:
The Single Craziest Sign I Have Seen Yet
More Tree of Liberty/Warnings That We're Armed shite
And, since we've been demanding to see Obama's birth certificate, and his penis, and his school transcripts, why not this as well?
Not sure, but I think that last sign might be related to the theory that Obama is a space alien and that closeups of his arms prove it. (I'm not making that up; I've posted about it here before)
| 77 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:48:59pm |
In case it wasn't obvious yet -- the right wing has lost me completely, if they ever had me, which they didn't. There's a serious bad craziness on the right. I want no part of it.
| 78 |
albusteve Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:50:05pm |
re: #71 Sharmuta
I think it's interesting Tanenhaus mentions the 1992 election as the end of conservatism. That was when the fiscal rift happened with Perot- who stressed how government was spending it's money.
We see this rift playing out again at this point with the false flag of auditing the Federal Reserve. This does nothing to correct bad spending practices on the part of government. Those who are rightfully concerned with Congressional spending habits have no leader to voice their concerns at this time, and it's to the detriment of fiscal conservatives and the country.
pyrotechnics and noise makers...ideology is secondary, if there at all...a significant observation
| 79 |
SteveC Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:50:34pm |
re: #64 iceweasel
I like them. AFAIK they're a good organisation, and they fight creationists all the time.
[Link: www.au.org...]
re: #69 Charles
If I have to pick sides between the fanatics who show up at the Values Voter Summit, and Americans United for Separation of Church and State -- I am 100% committed to the latter.
I really don't know anything about them, just the name of the group sounds like a contradiction. Like "I'm from the government and I am here to help."
| 80 |
jaunte Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:51:48pm |
re: #69 Charles
AU has a magazine "church and State." Take a look at this report on a religious lobbying group, The Family, and what they're giving some members of Congress:
The Family shuns publicity. Its current director, Doug Coe, adopts a style far removed from the flashy television evangelists and inside-the-Beltway Religious Right leaders who love to hobnob with presidents, senators and members of Congress at press conferences and public events.Coe, according to investigative reporter Jeff Sharlet, rarely gives interviews and has been described as a “stealth persuader.” Sharlet reports that Coe, who has led The Family since 1966, has talked about the need for the group to “submerge” and be “invisible.”
Despite the secrecy, some light was thrown on the organization in 2003, when the Associated Press reported that six members of Congress were living at C Street at what would be considered bargain rent for D.C. – $600 per month.
Over the years, many members of the House and Senate (from both parties) have lived there. The house, valued at nearly $2 million, is close to the Capitol and provides a convenient and affordable living space – along with regular Bible study and prayer. (The property is tax exempt, classified as a religious structure.)
The Washington Post and other media outlets have reported that the house’s current residents include Ensign, Coburn and U.S. Reps. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.), Bart Stupak (D-Mich.), Heath Shuler (D-N.C.), Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.). [Link: www.au.org...]
| 81 |
Sharmuta Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:52:08pm |
re: #79 SteveC
I really don't know anything about them, just the name of the group sounds like a contradiction. Like "I'm from the government and I am here to help."
Do you have any idea where they got their name from? It's one of the most important aspects of this country- the separation of Church and State. WTH?
| 82 |
Locker Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:52:54pm |
re: #79 SteveC
I really don't know anything about them, just the name of the group sounds like a contradiction. Like "I'm from the government and I am here to help."
You'll never prove a thing copper! I'm just a part-time electrician.. I'm... I'm... BAD IS GOOD! DOWN WITH GOVERNMENT! - The Evil Midnight Bomber What Bombs at Midnight
| 83 |
albusteve Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:53:31pm |
re: #77 Charles
In case it wasn't obvious yet -- the right wing has lost me completely, if they ever had me, which they didn't. There's a serious bad craziness on the right. I want no part of it.
I feel the same way about the left...I'm no fan of the GOP but I will never walk away from my principles however I get labled
| 84 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:53:39pm |
re: #66 Jim in Virginia
So you'll call teabaggers what they want to be called , but you'll use your own term for pro life activists?
Too many in the so-called pro-life movement show zero interest in women's lives, or the lives of children once they're out of the womb.
I prefer anti-abortion, to refer to those in the pro-life movement who are opposed to abortion and would like to see less of it, but aren't trying to outlaw abortion. Some of those folks are genuinely pro-life.
And I reserve anti-choice for the theocrats who are interested in taking away a woman's right to choose.
I think these terms are more accurate, and allow me to recognise the good and decent people who don't like abortion and are working towards goals that all who care about women and children can endorse-- while also recognising the theocrats and misogynists who are invested in controling the sexual and reproductive lives of women. It allows me to avoid lumping them all together.
| 85 |
Henchman Ghazi-808 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:53:53pm |
re: #77 Charles
In case it wasn't obvious yet -- the right wing has lost me completely, if they ever had me, which they didn't. There's a serious bad craziness on the right. I want no part of it.
They had me. Now it's a whole lotta GAZE...
Shockingly, and I would have never thought this in a million years... I'm GAZEing more at the right than our sekrit commy muslim alien president. A lot more.
| 86 |
Jim in Virginia Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:54:05pm |
re: #75 iceweasel
And, since we've been demanding to see Obama's birth certificate, and his penis, and his school transcripts, why not this as well?
I was more than a little afraid to click on that.
I have absolutely zero interest in seeing Obama's penis. Nor Dick Cheney's.
| 87 |
SteveC Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:54:20pm |
re: #77 Charles
In case it wasn't obvious yet -- the right wing has lost me completely, if they ever had me, which they didn't. There's a serious bad craziness on the right. I want no part of it.
my grandmother, the inventor of the "If you can't say anything nice..." policy, would probably say there is some strangeness there. But we're well beyond that, we're into full blown crazy.
| 88 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:55:44pm |
re: #80 jaunte
AU has a magazine "church and State." Take a look at this report on a religious lobbying group, The Family, and what they're giving some members of Congress:
That's why I asked if anyone was wondering why they all use the word "Family."
It sounds innocuous. It isn't.
| 90 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:56:44pm |
| 91 |
Desert Dog Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:56:47pm |
I respect Sam Tanenhaus. He is a smart fellow, and this book was not a leftist screed bend on discrediting. He actually looked at the conservatives in this country and came up with some deductions. I disagree with his deductions. Bill Moyers? Well, he is who he is.
I think both of these guys are clueless about the ground swell before them. It's not just the nuts and kooks that are motivated and more interested in politics than they have ever been, it's the run of the mill garden variety conservatives like me as well. Just as Obama motivated huge amounts of people to get active, he has, with his policies, motivated an equal amount to come out and take it back. These midterms will be a bloodbath for the Dems if they continue on the path they are heading. If President Obama and the Democratic controlled Congress manage to sneak this healthcare bill through, we will have a turn over to the Republicans on the magnitude of 1994.
But, that's ok. I hope the Democrats continue to pretend this is not happening. It will make taking back the Congress that much easier.
The Death of Conservatism? I think we might be witnessing the Death of Progressivism right before our very eyes.
| 92 |
Locker Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:56:53pm |
re: #89 Danny
Always vote the candidate, not the party.
Say it again for me one time... Always vote the candidate, not the party (in my opinion )
| 93 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:58:12pm |
re: #65 jaunte
Sounds like Andrew Breitbart's ACORN film crew borrowed their idea from her.
I really think they might have, yeah.
| 94 |
Locker Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:58:17pm |
re: #91 Desert Dog
I respect Sam Tanenhaus. He is a smart fellow, and this book was not a leftist screed bend on discrediting. He actually looked at the conservatives in this country and came up with some deductions. I disagree with his deductions. Bill Moyers? Well, he is who he is.
I think both of these guys are clueless about the ground swell before them. It's not just the nuts and kooks that are motivated and more interested in politics than they have ever been, it's the run of the mill garden variety conservatives like me as well. Just as Obama motivated huge amounts of people to get active, he has, with his policies, motivated an equal amount to come out and take it back. These midterms will be a bloodbath for the Dems if they continue on the path they are heading. If President Obama and the Democratic controlled Congress manage to sneak this healthcare bill through, we will have a turn over to the Republicans on the magnitude of 1994.
But, that's ok. I hope the Democrats continue to pretend this is not happening. It will make taking back the Congress that much easier.
The Death of Conservatism? I think we might be witnessing the Death of Progressivism right before our very eyes.
I know we completely disagree on this but well written my friend.
| 95 |
SteveC Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:58:17pm |
re: #81 Sharmuta
Do you have any idea where they got their name from? It's one of the most important aspects of this country- the separation of Church and State. WTH?
Of course I do. It was just the wording that made me go "Huh?"
| 96 |
albusteve Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:58:20pm |
re: #91 Desert Dog
I respect Sam Tanenhaus. He is a smart fellow, and this book was not a leftist screed bend on discrediting. He actually looked at the conservatives in this country and came up with some deductions. I disagree with his deductions. Bill Moyers? Well, he is who he is.
I think both of these guys are clueless about the ground swell before them. It's not just the nuts and kooks that are motivated and more interested in politics than they have ever been, it's the run of the mill garden variety conservatives like me as well. Just as Obama motivated huge amounts of people to get active, he has, with his policies, motivated an equal amount to come out and take it back. These midterms will be a bloodbath for the Dems if they continue on the path they are heading. If President Obama and the Democratic controlled Congress manage to sneak this healthcare bill through, we will have a turn over to the Republicans on the magnitude of 1994.
But, that's ok. I hope the Democrats continue to pretend this is not happening. It will make taking back the Congress that much easier.
The Death of Conservatism? I think we might be witnessing the Death of Progressivism right before our very eyes.
you speak for me...thanks
| 97 |
jaunte Sat, Sep 19, 2009 6:58:24pm |
re: #88 Charles
Fundamental conflict in their principles:
“The Family was founded on the idea that there’s an interventionist God at work in every aspect of our lives,” Sharlet said. “Our job is to ‘let go and let God,’ as the saying has it. Now, apply that to the economy, and you get a laissez-faire approach hostile to market regulation and organized labor.”
They can't trust enough to let go, so they lobby like crazy.
| 101 |
jaunte Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:02:05pm |
re: #98 barb42
But his theories, 19th century theories, desperately need to be updated
This is called evolutionary biology, and it's being updated every day.
| 102 |
Henchman Ghazi-808 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:02:13pm |
| 104 |
McSpiff Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:02:34pm |
re: #101 jaunte
This is called evolutionary biology, and it's being updated every day.
Crafty darwinists, always one step ahead!
///
| 107 |
Sharmuta Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:04:08pm |
re: #95 SteveC
Of course I do. It was just the wording that made me go "Huh?"
You mean wording that was originated by Thomas Jefferson?
| 108 |
Henchman Ghazi-808 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:04:34pm |
Charles, just a tad OT:
Do you use Bandwidth Meter Pro? I tried it for work troubleshooting and now that I've had it I just love seeing bandwidth on my laptop going up and down when it's doing it's thing.
Not making the world any better, but it sure seems that way. I wonder what it would look like on your server!
| 109 |
SteveC Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:06:17pm |
re: #107 Sharmuta
You mean wording that was originated by Thomas Jefferson?
"United for Separation" - these words don't go well together.
I do not own a saddle; neither do I own a donkey. Go ride someone else's ass.
| 110 |
Danny Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:06:30pm |
re: #98 barb42
Wow, you're so lucky you escaped the melting pit!
| 111 |
Salamantis Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:06:39pm |
I have always and ever been a limited government fiscal/economic conservative, and will forever remain one.
I have never been a domestic social conservative, and will most definitely not start now.
And I have always and ever been a forward-leaning freedom-and-democracy-facilitator on foreign policy, and ever and always will be.
| 112 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:06:41pm |
The new 'Show Users' button is very interesting.
Next I'll figure out how to code it to show who's about to melt down. Maybe shades of red.
/
| 113 |
Locker Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:06:49pm |
re: #110 Danny
Wow, you're so lucky you escaped the melting pit!
Ok that one made me laugh out loud.
| 115 |
A Man for all Seasons Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:07:09pm |
re: #108 BigPapa
Charles, just a tad OT:
Do you use Bandwidth Meter Pro? I tried it for work troubleshooting and now that I've had it I just love seeing bandwidth on my laptop going up and down when it's doing it's thing.
Not making the world any better, but it sure seems that way. I wonder what it would look like on your server!
Servers in Datacenters use real world professional tools...If Charles is running on HP blades they are using sightscope
| 117 |
pingemi Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:07:19pm |
Two things concerning this:
First for all the problems of conservatism it sure beats Ex Carter guys take on things:
Brzezinski: We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?
DB: What if they fly over anyway?
Brzezinski: Well, we have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse.
Secondly his primary job is editor of the New York Times book review. His opinion on conservatism might be more interesting if he was willing to review books that had opposite views that have spent weeks and months on the times book review. No matter what you think of them as of today Malkin and Levin have spent a combined 32 weeks on the top ten list and the editor of the book review has apparently been too busy to assign people to do it.
Must be that short staffing that Jill Abramson was talking about a couple of weeks ago.
Full disclosure: I haven't read his book (or Levin's for that matter) yet but I do plan on dosing so eventually so I reserve the right to change my opinion afterwords at that time.
| 119 |
Sharmuta Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:08:23pm |
re: #109 SteveC
"United for Separation" - these words don't go well together.
I do not own a saddle; neither do I own a donkey. Go ride someone else's ass.
Look, dumbass- I'm not the one who can't grasp what Americans United for the Separation of Church and State stands for. You want your ass to not get ridden? Don't talk stupid.
| 120 |
What, me worry? Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:08:39pm |
re: #112 Charles
The new 'Show Users' button is very interesting.
Next I'll figure out how to code it to show who's about to melt down. Maybe shades of red.
/
It's pretty groovy. I usually jump from thread to thread and often would like to comment on something I missed but seems dead. Then I looked and saw about a dozen people reading, too, so maybe not as dead as I thought.
| 121 |
pingemi Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:08:41pm |
re: #117 pingemi
That should have said "doing so" of course. Don't know where the s came from.
| 122 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:08:52pm |
re: #90 Charles
The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power.
In a new August 17, 2009 Maddow show segment [link to MSNBC page with viewable show segment], Rachel Maddow and Jeff Sharlet discuss, among many new revelations, the disturbing fact that the "Christian Embassy" scandal, propelled by a complaint to the Department of Defense from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, was investigated by a Pentagon Inspector General who is in fact a Family member.Over the course of the summer of 2009, Washington's "C Street House" has become notorious as a string of sex scandals have engulfed national GOP political figures who live at or have lived at, or attended Bible study classes at, the secretive former convent turned church-cum cheap-rent high end boarding house: Senator John Ensign, former Congressman Charles "Chip" Pickering, and South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford.
Here is Sharlet's original 2003 Harper's article which was the starting point for his 2008 book.
| 123 |
Killgore Trout Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:09:14pm |
re: #75 iceweasel
BTW, Jim, I have no problem avoiding the use of the word. I save it for special occasions. I think this is only the second time I've used it here about them (as opposed to discussing the term as we are now.)
I'm a little irritated because I've been looking at this flickr stream and it's freaky. Don't know if these have been posted before:
The Single Craziest Sign I Have Seen YetMore Tree of Liberty/Warnings That We're Armed shite
And, since we've been demanding to see Obama's birth certificate, and his penis, and his school transcripts, why not this as well?
Not sure, but I think that last sign might be related to the theory that Obama is a space alien and that closeups of his arms prove it. (I'm not making that up; I've posted about it here before)
Thanks. I hadn't seen those before.
| 124 |
pingemi Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:10:16pm |
re: #120 marjoriemoon
Where is the show users button? I don't see it.
| 125 |
Killgore Trout Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:10:27pm |
Collard greens + sausage + sweet taters = yum
| 126 |
Desert Dog Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:10:29pm |
Cap and Trade is bogged down. The Public Option is being written out of the healthcare bill. The Stimulus bill did not create the jobs it said it would,in fact, it increased the number of unemployed and the economy is still shrinking. Adding a huge taxes on the back of people with this kind of economy is political suicide. Yet, Obama and his team are hell bent on pushing through his agenda.
He has both houses of Congress with virtual filibuster proof majority, yet he cannot get what he wants? Why? Because he is messing with the country on a scale we have not seen since FDR. He is scaring the crap out of people with his plans. There is a sense of uncertainty and fear in this country that has not existed in my lifetime. They can keep it up and face the fire, or perhaps they should slow it down and do it right?
I know Charles and many others on this blog are amazed at the level of insanity at these rallies and the general tone of the Republicans. I can see that, I am not a blind ideologue. But, at the same time, I am motivated and so are many others to come out this next election and make it count.
| 127 |
Danny Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:10:43pm |
| 128 |
What, me worry? Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:11:20pm |
re: #124 pingemi
Where is the show users button? I don't see it.
It's under the comment box at the bottom there.
| 130 |
Locker Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:12:27pm |
re: #120 marjoriemoon
It's pretty groovy. I usually jump from thread to thread and often would like to comment on something I missed but seems dead. Then I looked and saw about a dozen people reading, too, so maybe not as dead as I thought.
Upding for groovy but now every time I see your handle I keep seeing Marcia Brady in a poke a dot mini-dress.
| 131 |
TedStriker Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:12:56pm |
Wow, Jim in Virginia (a long-timer) decided to flounce.
/some people need to lay off the krazee juice..
| 132 |
Kosh's Shadow Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:13:02pm |
re: #13 lostlakehiker
Conservatism will eventually enjoy a comeback. Trouble is it will be after a spell in the wilderness. In the meantime, we can only hope that the Blue Dogs can rein in the worst-thought-through impulses of the Pelosi wing of the Democrats.
A meltdown by the democrats, featuring something such as 20 percent inflation, 20 percent unemployment, and military defeat, would grant the Republicans a quick return to electoral power, but that would merely lead to a short-lived interlude of conservative administration. Better that things run on a somewhat even keel, so that in due course, the ship of state that passes to a reborn and newly rational conservatism is not a wreck-in-the-making.
We need a new William F. Buckley
| 133 |
A Man for all Seasons Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:13:13pm |
| 134 |
pingemi Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:13:18pm |
re: #128 marjoriemoon
Thanks muchly:
Charles we may be disagreeing a lot lately but I've got to say you do have the best coded blog around and you keep improving it.
| 135 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:13:30pm |
re: #130 Locker
Upding for groovy but now every time I see your handle I keep seeing Marcia Brady in a poke a dot mini-dress.
That's a problem?
| 136 |
Killgore Trout Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:13:39pm |
re: #131 talon_262
It's always sad to see the old lizards go.
| 137 |
Salamantis Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:14:13pm |
Question, Charles: can anyone who's reading the thread use the 'show users' button, or is its use restricted to those Lizards who are signed into LGF at the time?
I would substantially prefer the latter.
| 138 |
albusteve Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:14:15pm |
| 139 |
Locker Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:14:36pm |
re: #135 iceweasel
Laugh weasel that made me AND wifey laugh out loud.
| 140 |
Sharmuta Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:14:47pm |
re: #137 Salamantis
Question, Charles: can anyone who's reading the thread use the 'show users' button, or is its use restricted to those Lizards who are signed into LGF at the time?
I would substantially prefer the latter.
You could log out and see.
| 141 |
Locker Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:15:06pm |
re: #137 Salamantis
Question, Charles: can anyone who's reading the thread use the 'show users' button, or is its use restricted to those Lizards who are signed into LGF at the time?
I would substantially prefer the latter.
Good question.
| 142 |
Locker Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:15:19pm |
| 143 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:15:22pm |
re: #131 talon_262
Wow, Jim in Virginia (a long-timer) decided to flounce.
/some people need to lay off the krazee juice..
WTF, he flounced? I missed that. What, he was pissed over the use of the word teabagger?
| 144 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:15:44pm |
re: #137 Salamantis
Question, Charles: can anyone who's reading the thread use the 'show users' button, or is its use restricted to those Lizards who are signed into LGF at the time?
I would substantially prefer the latter.
The latter.
| 145 |
What, me worry? Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:15:56pm |
re: #130 Locker
Upding for groovy but now every time I see your handle I keep seeing Marcia Brady in a poke a dot mini-dress.
Slow down, baby, ya move too fast.
| 147 |
McSpiff Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:16:13pm |
Quick, someone change the locks while lockers out! ;-)
| 148 |
albusteve Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:16:36pm |
re: #143 iceweasel
WTF, he flounced? I missed that. What, he was pissed over the use of the word teabagger?
ahahaha!...
| 149 |
SteveC Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:17:42pm |
re: #119 Sharmuta
Look, dumbass- I'm not the one who can't grasp what Americans United for the Separation of Church and State stands for. You want your ass to not get ridden? Don't talk stupid.
For those who haven't noticed - (all 2 of you!)
I stuck my foot in my mouth; made an idiotic comment, and otherwise f***ed up. No excuses, and I am certainly not the smartest guy in the room. And I probably do need to be chastised every now and again.
But I am not stupid. No one is.
| 150 |
pingemi Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:17:48pm |
re: #143 iceweasel
If that was the case I wouldn't blame him as a person who attended one is Boston I'd be offended by that usage. That is I wouldn't blame him if I knew what flouncing is.
| 151 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:18:18pm |
re: #148 albusteve
ahahaha!...
I'm serious, I was digging up some info I'd seen on The Family and missed the whole thing.
| 152 |
teleskiguy Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:18:22pm |
Good interview. We need more discourse on conservatism like this. Indeed, where's our next William F. Buckley Jr.?
| 153 |
Danny Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:18:23pm |
re: #131 talon_262
Wow, Jim in Virginia (a long-timer) decided to flounce.
/some people need to lay off the krazee juice..
I just re-read Jim's' comment and it doesn't sound like a flounce to me. Maybe I'm not reading it right...
| 155 |
TedStriker Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:19:16pm |
re: #153 Danny
I just re-read Jim's' comment and it doesn't sound like a flounce to me. Maybe I'm not reading it right...
His deleted #103 was apparently the flounce...
| 157 |
Kosh's Shadow Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:19:41pm |
| 158 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:20:24pm |
re: #149 SteveC
For those who haven't noticed - (all 2 of you!)
I stuck my foot in my mouth; made an idiotic comment, and otherwise f***ed up. No excuses, and I am certainly not the smartest guy in the room. And I probably do need to be chastised every now and again.
But I am not stupid. No one is.
Well, some (few) people are, you're just not one of them. IMO.
There is something a little weird about any name that starts "Americans United for the Separation..." kind of like 'Americans Speaking out for Silence" or something. I took you to be making a harmless comment like that, for what it's worth.
| 159 |
Henchman Ghazi-808 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:20:28pm |
re: #115 HoosierHoops
Servers in Datacenters use real world professional tools...If Charles is running on HP blades they are using sightscope
YOu mean a $19.95 app I bought off da intartubes isn't the cat's meow?
That's the truth. I need to start reading up on my QoS and Level 3 stuff anyways...
| 161 |
Locker Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:20:36pm |
You can't see that Show Users button unless you are logged in to LGF. Just in case it was still unanswered.
| 162 |
albusteve Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:20:38pm |
| 163 |
What, me worry? Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:20:58pm |
| 165 |
albusteve Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:22:14pm |
| 167 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:24:04pm |
re: #161 Locker
You can't see that Show Users button unless you are logged in to LGF. Just in case it was still unanswered.
I tend to think of stuff like that.
| 168 |
What, me worry? Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:24:43pm |
re: #165 albusteve
I am a rock
Not exactly right, but I'm a Paul Simon fan too. Didn't he marry Edie Brickell?
| 169 |
Locker Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:25:00pm |
re: #167 Charles
I tend to think of stuff like that.
Laugh I know but the question came up and I was too stupid to just check for myself. Just reporting results.
| 171 |
Linden Arden Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:27:47pm |
re: #145 marjoriemoon
Slow down, baby, ya move too fast.
Reminds me of John Riggins of the Redskins while hammered at a state dinner with Sandra Day O'Conner after the Super Bowl. She was aghast at his drunken behavior when he looked up and said "Loosen up Sandy baby - you're too tight".
| 172 |
A Man for all Seasons Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:28:01pm |
re: #159 BigPapa
YOu mean a $19.95 app I bought off da intartubes isn't the cat's meow?
That's the truth. I need to start reading up on my QoS and Level 3 stuff anyways...
You need to be the Master of your own Domain...
/Seinfield
//Network Admin speak
| 173 |
Pingemi Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:28:14pm |
I guess I should ask directly: What is "flouncing"?
| 174 |
SteveC Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:28:14pm |
re: #164 Sharmuta
Comprehension FAIL.
In your opinion. I've heard that word before, and do not react well to it.
| 176 |
Dark_Falcon Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:28:57pm |
| 178 |
wee fury Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:29:36pm |
Thanks for the new button, Charles. Man, you are good!
| 179 |
Gus Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:29:57pm |
Excellent. Very educational and provides an interesting panorama from the times of Buckley to today.
I posted the transcript in the spin-off links. Note there's an error in the final response from Tanehaus which they attribute to Moyers.
| 180 |
Enkidu90046 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:29:59pm |
re: #50 Killgore Trout
Trader Joe's is the best place to buy corporate fascist frozen fish. I loaded up on Ahi steaks this week, about $4 a pound. Nice.
How topical... The GF and I had corporate fascist frozen fish from Trader Joe's tonight along with harvest grains and roasted yellow peppers and onions. It was delicious.
| 181 |
What, me worry? Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:30:02pm |
re: #170 Sharmuta
Yes- he did.
I always thought it would be a good marriage. Maybe not brilliant, but I think of her as a poet. Not a lot of poets really. People who THINK they're poets.
| 182 |
A Man for all Seasons Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:30:32pm |
re: #173 Pingemi
I guess I should ask directly: What is "flouncing"?
You've only been here 5 years...Flouncing is...
Oh shut the hell up...Nobody is buying it...
| 183 |
Salamantis Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:30:57pm |
I wonder what advocates would think if detractors mocked the 'pubic option'?
Or they could call it 'felching off the sodomized taxpayer'? That word is no more sexually suggestive than teabagging...
///
But seriously folks:
I am quite convinced that the tea parties were from the very beginning and still are organized by some of the most repulsive and disgusting vermin trolling the gutters of American politics.
That being the case, gratuitously sliming those who have attended such gatherings (and no, I'm not among them) with crude and odious sexual insinuendoes would seem to be superfluous and counterproductive, and to besmirch their source far more than their target.
There is far too much legitimate ammunition available against them for their political opponents to feel compelled to resort to such snarky and execrable ad hominems. For me, it's a matter of leading by example; when we call for the public political discourse be raised, the first discourse that we should raise should be our own.
| 184 |
Enkidu90046 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:31:02pm |
re: #52 Danny
My wife swears by Trader Joe's. She even tried to get a job there.
Their Jo-Joes (sp?) cookies are the bomb dot com!
| 185 |
Dark_Falcon Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:31:31pm |
re: #174 SteveC
In your opinion. I've heard that word before, and do not react well to it.
Concur. He understood what you said, Sharm. He just didn't agree with. AU is not a group I'm very fond of. I tend regard them as a leftist organization that seeks to remove anything religious from the public square.
| 186 |
Dark_Falcon Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:32:10pm |
re: #183 Salamantis
I wonder what advocates would think if detractors mocked the 'pubic option'?
Or they could call it 'felching off the sodomized taxpayer'? That word is no more sexually suggestive than teabagging...
///
But seriously folks:
I am quite convinced that the tea parties were from the very beginning and still are organized by some of the most repulsive and disgusting vermin trolling the gutters of American politics.
That being the case, gratuitously sliming those who have attended such gatherings (and no, I'm not among them) with crude and odious sexual insinuendoes would seem to be superfluous and counterproductive, and to besmirch their source far more than their target.
There is far too much legitimate ammunition available against them for their political opponents to feel compelled to resort to such snarky and execrable ad hominems. For me, it's a matter of leading by example; when we call for the public political discourse be raised, the first discourse that we should raise should be our own.
Quite Concur.
| 187 |
McSpiff Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:32:18pm |
re: #183 Salamantis
Id agree with that term if the public option advocates had "anal sex parties" in public.
| 188 |
Danny Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:32:31pm |
re: #184 Enkidu90046
Their Jo-Joes (sp?) cookies are the bomb dot com!
Haven't had those. What kind of cookies are they?
| 189 |
What, me worry? Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:32:36pm |
re: #180 Enkidu90046
How topical... The GF and I had corporate fascist frozen fish from Trader Joe's tonight along with harvest grains and roasted yellow peppers and onions. It was delicious.
What makes the frozen fish fascist?
How much fascist frozen fish can a fascist fry, if a fascist could fry fish.
| 190 |
Sharmuta Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:32:46pm |
re: #185 Dark_Falcon
He made an ignorant comment, and got called out for it. That's what we do here. I didn't call him stupid, I told him not to talk stupid. A distinction apparently lost on both of you.
| 191 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:33:45pm |
re: #162 albusteve
just get on the bus Gus
We should all rewrite the lyrics here, 50 Ways to Leave Your Lizard, to be about flouncing.
"The problem is all inside your head", we said to thee
The answer is easy if you take it logically
We'd like to help you in your struggle to be free
There must be fifty ways to leave your lizard
We said it's really not our habit to intrude
Furthermore, we hope our meaning won't be lost or misconstrued
But we'll repeat ourselves at the risk of being crude
There must be fifty ways to leave your lizard
Fifty ways to leave your lizard
You just fall on your face, Ace
Make a new plan, Stan
Don't need to be a tool, Fool,
Just get yourself free
Don't wait to be schooled, PowerTool
You don't need to discuss much--
Just drop off the key, Lee
And get yourself free
Of course, they never do just slip out the back. They need to leave a dramatic suicide note.
| 192 |
Gus Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:35:12pm |
Tanenhaus on why he chose to write about conservatism:
Well, I think it has been the dominant philosophy, political philosophy in our culture, in America, for some half-century. What particularly drew me first to Chambers and then Buckley is the idea that these were serious intellectuals, who were also men of action. Conservatives have kind of supplied us in their best periods-- the days when NATIONAL REVIEW and COMMENTARY and THE PUBLIC INTEREST were tremendously vital publications, self-examining, developing new vocabularies and idioms, teaching us all how to think about politics and culture in a different way, with a different set of tools. They were contributing so enormously to who we were as Americans. And yet, many liberals were not paying attention. Many liberals today don't know that a great thinker like Garry Wills was a product of the conservative movement. It's astonishing to them to learn it. They just assume, because they agree with him now, he was always a liberal. In fact, he remains a kind of conservative. This is the richness in the philosophy that attracted me, and that I wanted to learn more about, to educate myself.
| 193 |
Salamantis Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:35:17pm |
re: #187 McSpiff
Id agree with that term if the public option advocates had "anal sex parties" in public.
Teabagger: a man that squats on top of a woman's face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex.
You actually think this goes on during tea parties?
| 194 |
Locker Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:36:01pm |
re: #190 Sharmuta
He made an ignorant comment, and got called out for it. That's what we do here. I didn't call him stupid, I told him not to talk stupid. A distinction apparently lost on both of you.
Well it's not lost on me. When I tell my daughter to quit acting stupid it means I KNOW you aren't stupid so stop PRETENDING like you are stupid. That shit pisses me off to no end.
| 195 |
Ojoe Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:36:15pm |
Great video Charles, thanks for posting it.
"We are all part of what should be a harmonious society"
— S. Tanenhaus
| 197 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:36:34pm |
re: #183 Salamantis
///But seriously folks:
That being the case, gratuitously sliming those who have attended such gatherings (and no, I'm not among them) with crude and odious sexual insinuendoes would seem to be superfluous and counterproductive, and to besmirch their source far more than their target..
They named themselves teabaggers, Sal. Sometimes people like to point and laugh at that.
There's no shortage of real critcisms to make of them, but I think getting angry at people for occasionally pointing and laughing and them for this is misplaced. Although it can reasonably be called juvenile.
| 198 |
NelsFree Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:36:52pm |
| 199 |
Locker Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:37:16pm |
re: #196 taxfreekiller
Bill Moyers lied for LBJ.
enough for me.
Yea you've never lied in your life have you tfk? Ever!
| 200 |
Cineaste Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:37:25pm |
That's a thoughtful, intelligent and in depth conversation that is sadly lacking from all other channels aside from PBS. Imagine what would happen if Fox ran this type of analysis... ho ho ho
| 201 |
Sharmuta Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:37:30pm |
re: #189 marjoriemoon
What makes the frozen fish fascist?
How much fascist frozen fish can a fascist fry, if a fascist could fry fish.
Korporit fish iz fascism.
| 205 |
Dancing along the light of day Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:38:15pm |
OT...
Thank you Charles for this site!
Today is my 1st anniversary.
I was running around the room screaming happy screams!
| 206 |
Enkidu90046 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:38:29pm |
re: #168 marjoriemoon
Not exactly right, but I'm a Paul Simon fan too. Didn't he marry Edie Brickell?
I wonder what became of the New Bohemians...
| 207 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:38:32pm |
| 208 |
Locker Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:38:42pm |
re: #204 taxfreekiller
If you wish, flounce yourself now.
You need to put down the crack pipe sweet cheeks. Seriously.
| 209 |
SteveC Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:38:52pm |
re: #190 Sharmuta
He made an ignorant comment, and got called out for it. That's what we do here. I didn't call him stupid, I told him not to talk stupid. A distinction apparently lost on both of you.
And if I need a kick in the fanny, kick away. But you'll notice that I have not down dinged you, nor do I plan to - because I have read your posts enough that I have come to respect you. Ease up just a little.
| 210 |
McSpiff Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:39:13pm |
re: #204 taxfreekiller
O come on tfk, don't get charles to fight your battles now.
| 211 |
albusteve Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:39:34pm |
re: #208 Locker
You need to put down the crack pipe sweet cheeks. Seriously.
who the fuck are you...seriously
| 213 |
jaunte Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:39:39pm |
re: #206 Enkidu90046
They're still going [Link: www.newbohemians.com...]
| 214 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:40:00pm |
Hey, everyone -- Eugene McGovern is here. Straighten up.
| 215 |
Ziggy Standard Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:40:11pm |
re: #197 iceweasel
They named themselves teabaggers, Sal. Sometimes people like to point and laugh at that.
There's no shortage of real criticisms to make of them, but I think getting angry at people for occasionally pointing and laughing and them for this is misplaced. Although it can reasonably be called juvenile.
Some people seem to think it's bad form for us not to save these chumps from their own idiocy. That's something I'm never going to do. If anyone wants to try to make me feel bad about that, they are welcome to have a try!
And on that note, some more 'bondage' for you, iceweaselski - Live and Let Die :)
| 216 |
Pingemi Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:40:27pm |
re: #183 Salamantis
I don't know how many people other than me have attended one but it was interesting in the sense that they're were actually two competing parties organized a local blogger GOP Mom, but promoted by two rival talk radio stations. That was actually amusing in the sense that at each party they took pains not to mention the other radio station.
Most people attended both. When the first ended we marched to the second from the Boston common to the waterfront.
Assuming few people here have attended one. (blogged about it here and here.) I'm willing to answer any questions that I can if you guys want to ask.
| 219 |
Salamantis Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:41:01pm |
re: #197 iceweasel
They named themselves teabaggers, Sal. Sometimes people like to point and laugh at that.
There's no shortage of real critcisms to make of them, but I think getting angry at people for occasionally pointing and laughing and them for this is misplaced. Although it can reasonably be called juvenile.
Blacks have tried to own the n word, gays have tried to own the f word and the q word, and women have tried to own the c word and the b word.
That doesn't mean that it is kewl for the nonblack, nongay, or nonfemale to address them by such terms.
| 220 |
Enkidu90046 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:41:16pm |
re: #188 Danny
Haven't had those. What kind of cookies are they?
Sandwich cookies. During the holiday season, the candy cane flavored ones are particularly good.
| 221 |
Locker Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:41:25pm |
re: #211 albusteve
who the fuck are you...seriously
I'll be happy to inform you, just send 19.95 and a self addressed, stamped envelope to a location that will appear in just a moment... don't go away...
| 223 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:41:44pm |
re: #211 albusteve
who the fuck are you...seriously
I believe he's the guy who got a hat tip on this post.
| 224 |
Ojoe Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:42:11pm |
| 225 |
McSpiff Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:42:13pm |
re: #219 Salamantis
Blacks have tried to own the n word, gays have tried to own the f word and the q word, and women have tried to own the c word and the b word.
That doesn't mean that it is kewl for the nonblack, nongay, or nonfemale to address them by such terms.
The difference being of course, that all those terms were first applied to those groups. Teabaggers actually created the term for themselves. So really, its completely different.
| 226 |
albusteve Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:43:26pm |
| 227 |
Salamantis Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:43:28pm |
And Jews have tried to own the k word as well, but as a nonJew, I wouldn't think that it was acceptable for me to address them by that term.
| 228 |
Enkidu90046 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:43:34pm |
re: #203 Killgore Trout
Only because she cooked it. Had I cooked it, it would have been inedible. Now steak on the other hand... THAT I can cook.
| 229 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:43:36pm |
re: #212 Killgore Trout
Baldist!
/
The House Committee on UnMerkin Activities is going to want to know about this...
| 230 |
Cineaste Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:44:05pm |
I personally love how the April tea parties seemed to misunderstand what the original Tea Party was all about.
In April a bunch of people bought their own tea, dumped it out on the street and screamed about bloated government.
As I recall, the Boston tea party was about taxation without representation and dumping someone else's tea to refuse them the proceeds.
Ironically, the tea baggers aren't upset about not having representation but that they didn't win. boo-hoo.
| 231 |
albusteve Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:44:20pm |
re: #210 McSpiff
O come on tfk, don't get charles to fight your battles now.
why are you so mean spirited?
| 232 |
Enkidu90046 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:44:48pm |
| 233 |
McSpiff Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:44:49pm |
re: #227 Salamantis
And Jews have tried to own the k word as well, but as a nonJew, I wouldn't think that it was acceptable for me to address them by that term.
Same pattern. They created the term. It wasnt an offensive label applied by others. the K word is the opposite of 'teabagger'.
| 234 |
Pingemi Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:45:03pm |
| 237 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:45:29pm |
Most of the leading GOP politicians and pundits are appearing at the Values Voter Summit this weekend, by the way.
The GOP is beholden to the religious right more than ever. They clearly believe this is their only route back to power -- to court fundamentalists who scorn the very concepts on which America was founded.
For me, this was the straw on the camel's back.
| 238 |
Cineaste Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:45:43pm |
re: #227 Salamantis
And Jews have tried to own the k word as well, but as a nonJew, I wouldn't think that it was acceptable for me to address them by that term.
I'm not sure Jews ever tried to "own" the k word. Perhaps the term "heeb" (or "hebe") but the k word has largely been off limits. It has a germanic background that is verboten...
| 239 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:45:51pm |
re: #226 albusteve
not impressed...so what?
So he's demonstrably contributed to the site, and maybe he should be given the benefit of the doubt, rather than confronted with demands that he 'prove' who he is.
| 240 |
theheat Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:46:03pm |
I can't even make it past the first minute of the video, the stupid is so thick. There's that minor "monkey problem" problem. Then, Fundie Huckabilly outscores Romney. WTF?
Seriously, I'd like to wake up one day to good news. If this is conservatives getting back to their roots, count me the hell out. There's no way I'm pitching my tent with this kind of bullshit.
| 241 |
Chekote Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:46:15pm |
As a companion to this thread, New Majority has a symposium on Mr. Tanenhaus's book.
[Link: www.newmajority.com...]
| 242 |
albusteve Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:46:23pm |
re: #221 Locker
I'll be happy to inform you, just send 19.95 and a self addressed, stamped envelope to a location that will appear in just a moment... don't go away...
big shot now eh?...
| 243 |
What, me worry? Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:46:27pm |
re: #193 Salamantis
Um... I thought it was a gay thing.
| 244 |
Dark_Falcon Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:46:37pm |
Two more nasty 9/12 photos:
Another threat of violence
| 245 |
McSpiff Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:46:49pm |
re: #231 albusteve
why are you so mean spirited?
Because I view 'o go flounce yourself' as about a valid of a debate topic as a dramatic "o just go kill yourself!"
| 247 |
Pianobuff Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:47:01pm |
This is a great example of where political discourse is today. Discussing the relative pros and cons of applying a term describing dumping of scrotal tissue down the throats of women to a group of people.
If I didn't know better, I'd swear I was watching Monty Python. Unfortunately, I'm not.
Think about it.
| 248 |
TedStriker Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:47:19pm |
re: #237 Charles
Most of the leading GOP politicians and pundits are appearing at the Values Voter Summit this weekend, by the way.
The GOP is beholden to religious right more than ever. They clearly believe this is their only route back to power -- to court fundamentalists who scorn the very concepts on which America was founded.
For me, this was the straw on the camel's back.
So, any ideas where we go from here, other than keeping on with what we've been doing?
| 249 |
Cineaste Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:47:20pm |
re: #237 Charles
Most of the leading GOP politicians and pundits are appearing at the Values Voter Summit this weekend, by the way.
The GOP is beholden to religious right more than ever. They clearly believe this is their only route back to power -- to court fundamentalists who scorn the very concepts on which America was founded.
For me, this was the straw on the camel's back.
Of course those that are calling for a return to our "biblical foundation" in this country always like to overlook the fact that only 3 of the 10 commandments are actually illegal.
| 250 |
Pingemi Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:47:32pm |
re: #230 Cineaste
That is a good point and I actually made that argument there that although we don't like what the government is doing "we" the people (although not many who attended) voted both for the federal and state government so we in effect did it to ourselves.
As a general rule we as a people don't always get the government we want but we always get the government we deserve.
| 251 |
Mich-again Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:47:35pm |
re: #21 Charles
Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association (ever wonder why so many of these groups have the word "Family" in their names?) gave a speech at the Values Voters summit, and said the idea of church-state separation began with Adolf Hitler.
Because the phrase "separation of Church and State" is not expressly written in the Constitution, these people pretend like it is some modern made-up term. But its not too hard to find the source of the phrase. It was from Thomas Jefferson in 1802.
"Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." --Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802. ME 16:281
| 252 |
Enkidu90046 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:47:40pm |
re: #227 Salamantis
And Jews have tried to own the k word as well, but as a nonJew, I wouldn't think that it was acceptable for me to address them by that term.
My best friend is black and he often refers to my GF as a "dirty nagger" (South Park reference) and me as a "nagger lover".
| 253 |
jaunte Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:47:43pm |
re: #237 Charles
They clearly believe this is their only route back to power
Seems to me like the best way to shrink themselves into a permanent minority.
| 254 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:47:45pm |
re: #236 marjoriemoon
lol that was great!
I should have worked the shrieking harpy in there somewhere.
| 255 |
Killgore Trout Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:47:46pm |
Koskidz posted a Graph tonight: Capitalism vs. Communism
I didn't fact check it but it looks more or less correct. It's a problem. What is that graph going to look like in 2010? 2012? What about an unemployment graph compensating for lagging indicator? What about GDP? It's probably all going to look pretty good. That's a problem for people who opposed
everything
Obama did instead of being informed and opposing the things that were actually wrong. He's going to make mistakes and he's going to do some things right. Are we smart enough to know the difference?
Conservatives rallied en masse against TARP and Stimulus spending. Both of which will probably be viewed as the right thing to do.
I think conservatives would serve themselves well by discarding partisan hysteria and start to focus on a much larger reality of what's really going on.
The Republican party will most likely come back to power at some point. Are we going to get a Family Values/Mike Huckabee party? A Ron Paul/Glenn Beck/Tea Party? Jerry Fallwell/RS McCain/Moonies? Let's hope we get something better.
| 256 |
McSpiff Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:48:03pm |
re: #247 Pianobuff
This is a great example of where political discourse is today. Discussing the relative pros and cons of applying a term describing dumping of scrotal tissue down the throats of women to a group of people.
If I didn't know better, I'd swear I was watching Monty Python. Unfortunately, I'm not.
Think about it.
We can discuss it all we want, at the end of the day they are still going to call themselves that.
| 257 |
albusteve Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:48:18pm |
re: #239 iceweasel
So he's demonstrably contributed to the site, and maybe he should be given the benefit of the doubt, rather than confronted with demands that he 'prove' who he is.
bullshit...there is no reason to be so rude unless you are so full of yourself
| 258 |
Dark_Falcon Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:48:22pm |
| 260 |
TheMatrix31 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:49:18pm |
re: #237 Charles
Most of the leading GOP politicians and pundits are appearing at the Values Voter Summit this weekend, by the way.
The GOP is beholden to religious right more than ever. They clearly believe this is their only route back to power -- to court fundamentalists who scorn the very concepts on which America was founded.
For me, this was the straw on the camel's back.
I skimmed over Mitt Romney's speech, and didn't notice any of the social conservative-style stuff in there.
| 261 |
Enkidu90046 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:49:43pm |
re: #237 Charles
Most of the leading GOP politicians and pundits are appearing at the Values Voter Summit this weekend, by the way.
The GOP is beholden to religious right more than ever. They clearly believe this is their only route back to power -- to court fundamentalists who scorn the very concepts on which America was founded.
For me, this was the straw on the camel's back.
I have always been disgusted with and distrustful of the Religious Right. I grew up around those people. They are very disturbed and have very skewed views of what America should be.
| 262 |
Cato the Elder Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:49:44pm |
re: #2 Charles
You may notice that there's a new button at the bottom of the comment posting form -- "Show Users."
Click it and a panel opens beneath the form, showing the registered users who are currently reading this thread.
Ooh, now dat's cool.
Hi, Ice! Hi, Hoops! You both doin' OK tonight?
Charles, how often does it refresh (i.e. how up-to-the minute is it)?
| 263 |
Chekote Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:50:12pm |
re: #237 Charles
The irony is that if the GOP regains the majority, it will be because of fiscal and defense issues. Yet the Religious Right will claim credit for their victory. As they did with Newt Gingrich even though the Contract with America DID NOT contain ONE WORD about social issues.
| 264 |
Killgore Trout Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:50:14pm |
BTW, Someone mentioned they heard from Realwest today. He's doing ok and hanging in.
| 265 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:50:32pm |
re: #260 TheMatrix31
I skimmed over Mitt Romney's speech, and didn't notice any of the social conservative-style stuff in there.
The fact that Romney even thinks he needs to be at this convention of fanatics speaks volumes.
| 266 |
Cineaste Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:51:15pm |
re: #265 Charles
The fact that Romney even thinks he needs to be at this convention of fanatics speaks volumes.
It's worth noting that Romney and Beck are both firmly grounded in Mormonism.
| 267 |
What, me worry? Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:51:18pm |
re: #227 Salamantis
And Jews have tried to own the k word as well, but as a nonJew, I wouldn't think that it was acceptable for me to address them by that term.
lol since when? And I'm not sure any woman is owning the C word. That's pretty brutal.
| 268 |
Pingemi Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:51:35pm |
re: #263 Chekote
Well as you might recall the left claimed the president victory was a mandate to end the war. I don't think it was, I think it was GOP fatigue.
| 270 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:51:41pm |
re: #243 marjoriemoon
Um... I thought it was a gay thing.
Nope. Gender neutral and neither gay nor straight. Balls are involved, but there is no requirement that two sets be involved.
It's diverse and inclusive!
| 271 |
jaunte Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:52:24pm |
re: #270 iceweasel
The teapartiers didn't look like they were having fun, though.
| 272 |
TheMatrix31 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:52:42pm |
re: #266 Cineaste
It's worth noting that Romney and Beck are both firmly grounded in Mormonism.
Is it? Because I couldn't give a shit less about Romney's religion.
| 273 |
Danny Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:52:49pm |
re: #270 iceweasel
Nope. Gender neutral and neither gay nor straight. Balls are involved, but there is no requirement that two sets be involved.
It's diverse and inclusive!
I guess conservatism really is dead!
| 274 |
TheMatrix31 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:52:57pm |
re: #272 TheMatrix31
And I CERTAINLY couldn't give a shit less about Beck's religion.
| 276 |
onepistoffyid Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:53:17pm |
re: #24 Charles
He's arguing that the First Amendment gives the government the right to establish Christianity as the national religion. Wow.
Charles:
I am a jew and I have absolutely no problem with that...Hinduism is the national religion of India, Judaism the national religion of Israel, Islam the national religion of turkey...the fact is that the founding fathers were all christians and the culture of America is a Christian culture...if I had a problem with that I would move to Israel.
Calling Christianity the national religion of the USA doesn't mean that everyone has to be a christian or that other religons won't be respected.
| 277 |
NelsFree Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:53:33pm |
| 278 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:53:55pm |
re: #259 taxfreekiller
Are you threatening him now? With what? Freakish haiku about Kerry and Gore? Haiku that don't scan?
Don't get me wrong, your attempts at haiku would terrify anyone, but I don't think he needs you to have his back to post. Just sayin.
| 279 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:54:16pm |
| 280 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:54:32pm |
| 281 |
Chekote Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:54:34pm |
re: #265 Charles
But I think the tide is turning. Here in Dallas, we are getting more and more loud about the influence of the religious right. The Chairman of the Dallas County GOP has welcome the Log Cabin Republicans to speak to party events. So we are moving in the right direction.
| 282 |
Cineaste Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:54:48pm |
re: #276 onepistoffyid
Charles:
I am a jew and I have absolutely no problem with that...Hinduism is the national religion of India, Judaism the national religion of Israel, Islam the national religion of turkey...the fact is that the founding fathers were all christians and the culture of America is a Christian culture...if I had a problem with that I would move to Israel.
Calling Christianity the national religion of the USA doesn't mean that everyone has to be a christian or that other religons won't be respected.
What, exactly, is your interpretation of the phrase "the government shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion"?
I have a pretty big problem with a national religion seeing as how it was one of the few things specifically ruled out in the constitution.
| 283 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:54:58pm |
D@mn thread is smoking! I can't keep up.
| 284 |
Gella Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:55:04pm |
| 285 |
Cato the Elder Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:55:18pm |
re: #24 Charles
He's arguing that the First Amendment gives the government the right to establish Christianity as the national religion. Wow.
Umm. "Congress shall make no law..."
How the hell does an establishment right grow out of that?
| 286 |
Pingemi Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:55:25pm |
re: #266 Cineaste
I have no problem with Romney's Mormonism although many on the right do.
I DO have a problem that he was in my opinion an ineffective governor.
| 288 |
Enkidu90046 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:55:31pm |
re: #276 onepistoffyid
Someone needs to take a refresher course on American History and the Constitution.
| 289 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:55:31pm |
re: #276 onepistoffyid
the fact is that the founding fathers were all christians and the culture of America is a Christian culture
Completely false.
| 290 |
Dark_Falcon Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:55:59pm |
re: #271 jaunte
The teapartiers didn't look like they were having fun, though.
Excessive rage tends to keep you from having fun. One more reason to stay level headed.
| 292 |
MandyManners Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:56:15pm |
re: #276 onepistoffyid
Charles:
I am a jew and I have absolutely no problem with that...Hinduism is the national religion of India, Judaism the national religion of Israel, Islam the national religion of turkey...the fact is that the founding fathers were all christians and the culture of America is a Christian culture...if I had a problem with that I would move to Israel.
Calling Christianity the national religion of the USA doesn't mean that everyone has to be a christian or that other religons won't be respected.
Ever heard of Deism?
| 293 |
Sharmuta Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:56:15pm |
re: #276 onepistoffyid
I'm a Christian and I have a HUGE problem with that.
First, because it violates the Constitution, but second it violates a dearly held principle of our Founders- the right of our own conscience and that the government has no right to intrude on that. It is not the government's role to establish any such thing in this country- EVER.
| 294 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:56:17pm |
re: #264 Killgore Trout
BTW, Someone mentioned they heard from Realwest today. He's doing ok and hanging in.
I haven't heard from him at all. What did he say?
| 295 |
theheat Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:56:21pm |
re: #276 onepistoffyid
the fact is that the founding fathers were all christians and the culture of America is a Christian culture
Hello? No, they absolutely weren't all Christians.
But the religious fundamentalists are already changing schools and politics to make this a Christian nation.
| 296 |
A Man for all Seasons Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:56:27pm |
re: #283 ggt
D@mn thread is smoking! I can't keep up.
New balance running shoes...You'd be surprised...:)
| 297 |
Cato the Elder Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:56:30pm |
re: #40 Charles
Tony Perkins is closely associated with Louisiana exorcist Bobby Jindal.
Tony Perkins also likes to murder young ladies in the shower.
Oh, wait, that was a movie...
| 298 |
Chekote Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:56:57pm |
re: #268 Pingemi
That's the problem with American politics. One side usually wins because the other screwed up. Unfortunately, the winning side thinks they have a mandate and proceeds to overreach until they get kicked out of office. You know the rest of story.
| 300 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:57:11pm |
re: #215 Jimmah
Some people seem to think it's bad form for us not to save these chumps from their own idiocy. That's something I'm never going to do. If anyone wants to try to make me feel bad about that, they are welcome to have a try!
And on that note, some more 'bondage' for you, iceweaselski - Live and Let Die :)
[Video]
Comrade Jimmah! Almost missed you. :)
Some more bondage for you too...with another UnTrue Scot:
| 301 |
Ziggy Standard Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:57:26pm |
re: #276 onepistoffyid
Charles:
I am a jew and I have absolutely no problem with that...Hinduism is the national religion of India, Judaism the national religion of Israel, Islam the national religion of turkey...the fact is that the founding fathers were all christians and the culture of America is a Christian culture...if I had a problem with that I would move to Israel.
Calling Christianity the national religion of the USA doesn't mean that everyone has to be a christian or that other religons won't be respected.
What a load of garbage. Radically un- American garbage at that; America does not a have a religion. Watch, listen, and learn, courtesy of your President:
| 303 |
Salamantis Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:57:44pm |
re: #41 iceweasel
I'm all for not using inaccurate labels, but c'mon now. They're seriously asking to be mocked. I'm just not strong enough to hold out.
Your link here,
[Link: corner.nationalreview.com...]
actually shows precisely the opposite of what you are maintaining; it actually states that the term was derisively coined by CNN anchor Anderson Cooper, and only subsequently were attempts made to 'own' it - just like the other derogatory terms I mentioned. And the sign in your other link is undated.
Here is the entire post you quotemined (a creationist tactic I had previously assumed was beneath you):
Readers have been writing me today about words: two in particular. One is “teabaggers.” This is a derogatory reference to protesters at “tea parties”: protesters against massive government spending, increasing government encroachment on the private sector, and so on. I discuss this word and its users in Impromptus today.
It began with Anderson Cooper, the much-admired CNN anchorman. He is not a left-wing pundit — or a pundit of any kind — as far as I know. He’s supposed to be a “mainstreamer,” like his network, I understand. He smirked or sneered that the protesters were “tea-bagging.” That is an allusion to an exotic sexual practice. David Gergen, conversing with him, smilingly went along with him. (Maybe he didn’t know what the word meant.)
Soon, almost immediately, the word caught on — entering the lexicon of the Left. On Keith Olbermann’s show, Janeane Garofalo said the following about tea-party protests: “This is racism straight up, nothing but a bunch of tea-bagging rednecks.” The other day, a Democratic congresswoman, Carol Shea-Porter of New Hampshire, mocked anti-ObamaCare protesters as “teabaggers.”
The word has gone mainstream, really. I have seen it in conservative columns — columns critical of the protesters — which is really deflating. How is it that an obscene putdown is instantly and everywhere acceptable? Not very long ago, Al D’Amato was practically run out of politics for saying “putzhead.”
It could be that conservatives will “own the insult” and use “teabagger” as a badge of honor. It could become some proud conservative N-word. President Reagan said, “I’m a contra, too.” Well, I’m a teabagger too — and the Anderson Cooper types can [go jump in a lake]. Still, I find the word kind of sickening, and its rapid spread and acceptance even more sickening.
| 304 |
Henchman Ghazi-808 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:57:59pm |
| 305 |
Dark_Falcon Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:58:02pm |
re: #276 onepistoffyid
There's a couple little things called the 1st and 14th Amendments. I suggest you read them.
| 306 |
What, me worry? Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:58:19pm |
re: #276 onepistoffyid
Charles:
I am a jew and I have absolutely no problem with that...Hinduism is the national religion of India, Judaism the national religion of Israel, Islam the national religion of turkey...the fact is that the founding fathers were all christians and the culture of America is a Christian culture...if I had a problem with that I would move to Israel.
Calling Christianity the national religion of the USA doesn't mean that everyone has to be a christian or that other religons won't be respected.
Really? Why on earth would you say that? You think it's appropriate, much less moral, for Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, atheists to be forced to say Christian prayer?
| 307 |
onepistoffyid Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:58:23pm |
re: #282 Cineaste
What, exactly, is your interpretation of the phrase "the government shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion"?
I have a pretty big problem with a national religion seeing as how it was one of the few things specifically ruled out in the constitution.
I am not a constitutional scholar, I just know that the post office shuts down on Christmas and not Ramadan or yom kippur...therefore as far as I am concerned, Christianity is the national religon for the USA based upon its heritage, history and culture; again this is not saying that everyone has to be a christian. I as a jew am very comfortable with the Christian nature and values in the USA (as opposed to say saudi arabia or yemen).
| 308 |
Cineaste Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:58:33pm |
re: #303 Salamantis
But when you latch on to a cause and use as your rallying point something you don't understand you're bound to be mocked for it.
| 309 |
Sharmuta Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:58:47pm |
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?
-James Madison
| 310 |
McSpiff Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:58:51pm |
re: #303 Salamantis
My memory was incorrect. Fair enough then, I'll admit I was wrong. I'll start using the term "the T word."
| 311 |
Pingemi Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:58:54pm |
re: #298 Chekote
That's true but in fairness I would expect any party that wins to push their agenda. I would think that is the point of winning.
Although frankly I think many in congress think the point of winning is to feather their nest.
If I wasn't restrained by the opinion that people have the right to be wrong I'd be for term limits.
| 312 |
Killgore Trout Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:59:25pm |
re: #294 ggt
I haven't heard from him at all. What did he say?
I don't have any more info than that. I can't remember who it was that posted that they heard from him.
| 313 |
Sharmuta Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:59:26pm |
The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.
-James Madison
| 314 |
jaunte Sat, Sep 19, 2009 7:59:57pm |
Confusion of custom with worship; custom is influenced by religion, but it isn't religion.
| 315 |
Cineaste Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:00:01pm |
re: #307 onepistoffyid
I believe the historical origin of shutting on Christmas had to do with the fact that most of the employees of the post office would miss work that day and its functioning would be inneffectual. It was a practical response, not a codified celebration of Christianity.
| 317 |
Dark_Falcon Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:00:22pm |
re: #307 onepistoffyid
While some of our holidays are Christian holidays, most are not. And this nation has no national religion. Read the Constitution.
| 318 |
Gella Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:00:33pm |
re: #306 marjoriemoon
Really? Why on earth would you say that? You think it's appropriate, much less moral, for Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, atheists to be forced to say Christian prayer?
then tell me, why do we need to have a national religion, if America is multy- religious country?
| 320 |
Sharmuta Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:00:46pm |
Waiving the rights of conscience, not included in the surrender implied by the social state, & more or less invaded by all Religious establishments, the simple question to be decided, is whether a support of the best & purest religion, the Christian religion itself ought not, so far at least as pecuniary means are involved, to be provided for by the Government, rather than be left to the voluntary provisions of those who profess it.
-James Madison
| 321 |
Mich-again Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:00:51pm |
re: #269 Sharmuta
Thomas Jefferson = hitler!!1!11
Jefferson really didn't think very highly of Christianity. He pretty much mocked it. That is not a well-known fact among the Religious Right. Some will even tell you that he was himself a Christian which is laughable.
I can never join Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did.-Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823
It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.-Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825
| 322 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:00:54pm |
re: #240 theheat
If this is conservatives getting back to their roots, count me the hell out. There's no way I'm pitching my tent with this kind of bullshit.
What these folks are talking about are not the roots of conservatism, but the roots of poison that have been slowly killing conservatism within the GOP.
The only thing "conservative" about most of these folks is their style of clothing.
| 324 |
Pingemi Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:01:09pm |
re: #303 Salamantis
As one who attended the Boston Tea party I would back up my offense of that description, personally I'm not looking to own it, don't want to own it.
BTW my offer to answer questions concerning the tea party I attended is good for about 30 min more. I have an early mass tomorrow and it is 11 p.m. in the Bay State.
| 325 |
Chekote Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:01:25pm |
re: #313 Sharmuta
Everytime I mention separation of church and state, the TheoCons tell me that it means that government can't get influence the church. However, religion can influence governance. A one way wall, so to speak.
| 326 |
Cato the Elder Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:01:37pm |
re: #207 Charles
I could never join a political party named after a toupee.
Not so much:
"...whiggamore is a Scots word for a cattle or horse drover..."
| 327 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:02:00pm |
re: #262 Cato the Elder
Ooh, now dat's cool.
Hi, Ice! Hi, Hoops! You both doin' OK tonight?
Charles, how often does it refresh (i.e. how up-to-the minute is it)?
hey Cato! *waves frantically*
How are you, my favourite cranky Roman?
| 328 |
Enkidu90046 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:02:12pm |
re: #306 marjoriemoon
Really? Why on earth would you say that? You think it's appropriate, much less moral, for Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, atheists to be forced to say Christian prayer?
I'll go further than that... I happen to believe that an atheist having to use legal tender making reference to God or having a pledge of allegiance recited in schools that includes "under God" violates the establishment clause. Unfortunately, the courts do not agree with me.
| 329 |
brookly red Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:02:26pm |
re: #317 Dark_Falcon
While some of our holidays are Christian holidays, most are not. And this nation has no national religion. Read the Constitution.
/shucks, we don't even have a national language.
| 330 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:03:14pm |
The religious right talking point that America is a "Christian nation" has gained a lot of traction, even among people who really should know better. The founding fathers would be appalled to see this craziness so widespread.
| 331 |
What, me worry? Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:03:16pm |
re: #307 onepistoffyid
I am not a constitutional scholar, I just know that the post office shuts down on Christmas and not Ramadan or yom kippur...therefore as far as I am concerned, Christianity is the national religon for the USA based upon its heritage, history and culture; again this is not saying that everyone has to be a christian. I as a jew am very comfortable with the Christian nature and values in the USA (as opposed to say saudi arabia or yemen).
It's one thing to be comfortable, it's quite another for it to be law of the land. We are not governed by any one religion, but embrace (or at least strive to embrace, or should) all religions. That was one of the largest points the Founding Fathers made by specifically leaving out religion in our founding documents.
They were all spiritual men, but not all religious men.
| 332 |
Sharmuta Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:03:17pm |
Wow- a flouncer doesn't recall Charles discussing theocracy in the last 8 years?
What were all those posts about the taliban and saudi arabia?!
| 333 |
albusteve Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:03:29pm |
re: #329 brookly red
/shucks, we don't even have a national language.
no, but we have the NFL and that says alot
| 334 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:03:36pm |
re: #317 Dark_Falcon
While some of our holidays are Christian holidays, most are not. And this nation has no national religion. Read the Constitution.
Some would argue that some are actually pagan holidays --but that is a whole 'nother argument.
:)
| 335 |
What, me worry? Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:03:38pm |
re: #318 Gella
then tell me, why do we need to have a national religion, if America is multy- religious country?
We don't!
| 336 |
TheMatrix31 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:03:51pm |
re: #328 Enkidu90046
I'll go further than that... I happen to believe that an atheist having to use legal tender making reference to God or having a pledge of allegiance recited in schools that includes "under God" violates the establishment clause. Unfortunately, the courts do not agree with me.
I'll be willing to take their money then, if they don't want to use it.
/then again, I'm not the IRS.
| 337 |
Henchman Ghazi-808 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:03:56pm |
re: #326 Cato the Elder
Not so much:
"...whiggamore is a Scots word for a cattle or horse drover..."
You'll know when the Whig party has relevance: I'm sure the same motivations that caused the Teabagger smear will create a term for the Whigs... hm... rhymes with the most horrible N-word...
That is the state of things.
| 338 |
theheat Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:04:25pm |
re: #325 Chekote
Hell, Jindal's been hopping on the government helicopter to do his political networking at churches on Sundays.
| 339 |
Cineaste Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:04:45pm |
re: #272 TheMatrix31
The case of the former head of the Harvard Business School is one that makes me wary of Mormons in positions of power. He had a great job, very powerful & successful but when the head of his church called and told him he needed to move to Idaho to lead BYU Idaho, he quit and went running on short notice. His resignation cited his need to obey the church leader as part of his mandate of being a good Mormon.
I'm wary of any religion that makes business decisions for you...
| 340 |
Sharmuta Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:05:02pm |
Oh- and Madison (Father of the Constitution) vehemently opposed the creation of the Congressional prayers, chapel- all of that.
| 341 |
Gella Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:05:07pm |
re: #335 marjoriemoon
We don't!
but we still do, please explain
as i am a Jew and some times i wish i can have few days off for my holidays with out taking PTO at work
| 342 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:05:13pm |
re: #321 Mich-again
he wrote his own version of the bible.
D@mn, another book on the list to re-read. I'll never get thru the pile.
| 343 |
Enkidu90046 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:05:31pm |
re: #328 Enkidu90046
I'll go further than that... I happen to believe that an atheist having to use legal tender making reference to God or having a pledge of allegiance recited in schools that includes "under God" violates the establishment clause. Unfortunately, the courts do not agree with me.
I'll go even further... I have a problem with religious organizations getting tax exempt status on Constitutional grounds.
| 344 |
TheMatrix31 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:05:47pm |
re: #339 Cineaste
Has Romney done that anywhere? Serious question.
| 346 |
fizzlogic Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:06:17pm |
re: #301 Jimmah
Great video. Especially the ending--my favorite Beatles' song.
| 348 |
Sharmuta Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:07:03pm |
An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against...Every new and successful example therefore of a PERFECT SEPARATION between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance...religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government.
-James Madison
| 349 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:07:04pm |
re: #303 Salamantis
Sal, this is false. It wasn't coined by Cooper. It was in use for years. Check urban dictionary. And I can guarantee you that for at least three weeks before cooper or maddow did any segments on it, the entire left side of the blogopshere was hysterical with laughter about conservatives calling themselves 'teabaggers'. That's just fact.
It also points up a big problem with the right and the internet. We read them; they don't read anyone outside their echochamber. If they did, they'd have dropped that term long before it hit the MSM.
| 350 |
Henchman Ghazi-808 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:07:04pm |
Hey Obama's pulling a Carter! Let's talk about that and get off this minor distraction of GOPlosion...
| 351 |
NelsFree Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:07:07pm |
re: #324 Pingemi
BTW my offer to answer questions concerning the tea party I attended is good for about 30 min more. I have an early mass tomorrow and it is 11 p.m. in the Bay State.
If you shift the centroid of the mass, you could stay for one more period of oscillation.
/Removing Engineer's hat
| 352 |
zarsky99 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:07:19pm |
Anyone/Charles,
I was hoping you would enlighten me as to a center right family values organization that you do not believe is fanatical? I do not intend this to be bait. I have been seriously pondering if you think there is any national center-right family values organization that you would not consider racist, homophobic, fanatically religious, etc?
I do not consider myself a fanatic...however I do believe our country has veered away from some common sense family values. There are those of us on the center-right whom do want to encourage family cohesion and not be considered a racist, homophobic, fanatically religious individual as a direct result.
Nothing in this post should be meant to excuse any particular individual's quilt when it comes to these groups and their particular views. I pretty much know nothing about most "family" values organizations you have been mentioning lately...which leads me to believe they probably have little or no power to influence our leaders.
| 353 |
Dark_Falcon Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:08:02pm |
re: #323 taxfreekiller
who ever tald to realwester, tell him to hang in,,,
He replied to my email. Nothing more than thanking me, but he did reply. I hope he can return soon.
| 354 |
brookly red Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:08:50pm |
re: #339 Cineaste
I'm wary of any religion that makes business decisions for you...
Good point. I feel that way about government too.
| 355 |
transient Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:08:53pm |
re: #339 Cineaste
I'm wary of any religion that makes business decisions for you...
The religion can espouse any position it wants. I would be wary of the individual candidate/official that allowed his/her religious institution(s) to make business (or other) decisions for him/her.
| 356 |
Cineaste Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:08:58pm |
re: #352 zarsky99
I have been seriously pondering if you think there is any national center-right family values organization that you would not consider racist, homophobic, fanatically religious, etc?
Well, you can start by looking at any that are inclusive of homosexuals and non-christians for a start.
| 357 |
What, me worry? Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:09:27pm |
re: #328 Enkidu90046
I'll go further than that... I happen to believe that an atheist having to use legal tender making reference to God or having a pledge of allegiance recited in schools that includes "under God" violates the establishment clause. Unfortunately, the courts do not agree with me.
Well I don't agree with that. It doesn't really impact you in any way, the fact that God is on money or is mentioned, say in the national anthem. I mean you don't have to sing it or sing that part. But if Christianity (or any religion) was declared the national religion, how long would it be before prayer in school was common place, say prayer to Jesus. Makes a difference to a person who is of different faith or no faith to say those words.
| 358 |
Ziggy Standard Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:09:34pm |
re: #349 iceweasel
Sal, this is false. It wasn't coined by Cooper. It was in use for years. Check urban dictionary. And I can guarantee you that for at least three weeks before cooper or maddow did any segments on it, the entire left side of the blogopshere was hysterical with laughter about conservatives calling themselves 'teabaggers'. That's just fact.
It also points up a big problem with the right and the internet. We read them; they don't read anyone outside their echochamber. If they did, they'd have dropped that term long before it hit the MSM.
Wikipedia supports this:
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
Use as a political term
During the 2009 Tea Party protests against the tax policies of the United States Government,the use of the phrase "tea bag" was used by Fox News Reporter Griff Jenkins and reteaparty.org. Salon.com, however, pointed out that "teabagging" has long had the meaning above.[8][9][10][11][12]
The term "tea bagging" was quickly co-opted by those critical of the movement.
| 359 |
jaunte Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:09:37pm |
Family values are good inside your own family. Outside of it, Family Values organizations are just telling other people how to run their families.
| 360 |
Pingemi Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:09:51pm |
re: #317 Dark_Falcon
It is safe to say that we have no official religion but it would be accurate to say the country was formed under Christian values and were the primary cultural influence on the land for centuries.
Just last month I finished Hart's American History as told by contemporaries Vol 1. You should read the contemporary documents in it. Compared to the people in this book the "Religious Right" of today are Stonewall rioters.
| 361 |
Enkidu90046 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:10:02pm |
re: #339 Cineaste
You ever see the South Park episode poking fun at Mormonism? It was brilliant!
| 362 |
Dark_Falcon Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:10:11pm |
re: #352 zarsky99
You would be wrong on that last. Such Social Conservative organizations control a great many votes within the GOP base, which gives them great power within the party.
| 363 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:10:19pm |
re: #357 marjoriemoon
Well I don't agree with that. It doesn't really impact you in any way, the fact that God is on money or is mentioned, say in the national anthem. I mean you don't have to sing it or sing that part. But if Christianity (or any religion) was declared the national religion, how long would it be before prayer in school was common place, say prayer to Jesus. Makes a difference to a person who is of different faith or no faith to say those words.
"Under G-d" doesn't bother me. "Jesus" in those same instances would bother me quite a bit.
| 364 |
A Man for all Seasons Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:10:51pm |
re: #340 Sharmuta
Oh- and Madison (Father of the Constitution) vehemently opposed the creation of the Congressional prayers, chapel- all of that.
I'll bet those Congressional prayer breakfasts rock..All you can eat..unlimited Maine syrup on like 30 eggs...Where is my invite? damn it!
| 365 |
zarsky99 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:11:00pm |
re: #359 jaunte
i most definitely agree with this ... but attempting to influence others without force should be perfectly fine right? Isn't that what our freedom of speech and religion is all about?
| 366 |
Cineaste Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:11:22pm |
re: #355 transient
The religion can espouse any position it wants. I would be wary of the individual candidate/official that allowed his/her religious institution(s) to make business (or other) decisions for him/her.
True. But some religions demand an adherence to the rules of their leadership to be considered good members of the faith while others do not.
From wikipedia - about the leader of the mormon church:
"As president of the church, Monson is considered by adherents to be a prophet, seer, and revelator of God's will on earth."
That's problematic for me. Men are men, when we start making them gods we start running into trouble.
| 367 |
Dancing along the light of day Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:11:22pm |
re: #294 ggt
He's doing well, new meds are making him sleepy.
| 368 |
Ojoe Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:11:33pm |
re: #276 onepistoffyid
Kemal Attaturk specifically set up modern Turkey NOT to be an islamic state and in fact got rid of the Caliph.
| 369 |
Mich-again Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:11:33pm |
re: #330 Charles
The religious right talking point that America is a "Christian nation" has really gained a lot of traction, even among people who really should know better. The founding fathers would be appalled to see this craziness so widespread.
They wouldn't be too impressed with the paper money thingie either. Hey we said you could "coin" money, not print it!!
| 370 |
TheMatrix31 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:12:06pm |
See you guys, I'm goin' out to enjoy my Saturday night.
Take it easy!
| 371 |
Salamantis Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:12:06pm |
re: #349 iceweasel
Sal, this is false. It wasn't coined by Cooper. It was in use for years. Check urban dictionary. And I can guarantee you that for at least three weeks before cooper or maddow did any segments on it, the entire left side of the blogopshere was hysterical with laughter about conservatives calling themselves 'teabaggers'. That's just fact.
It also points up a big problem with the right and the internet. We read them; they don't read anyone outside their echochamber. If they did, they'd have dropped that term long before it hit the MSM.
I checked urban dictionary. I previously posted their sexual definition of teabagger on this thread:
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
That use of the term to refer to a sexual practice was existent before tea parties, but I have seen no evidence whatsoever that its application to the attendees of tea parties was begun by those attendees themselves; in fact, the article you quotemined to support such a position actually stated quite the opposite.
| 372 |
zarsky99 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:12:21pm |
re: #362 Dark_Falcon
Aren't there a great many communist votes and radical leftist votes in the democratic party as well? I guess my point in general is all political groups have a sub culture fringe that is radical.
| 373 |
Pianobuff Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:12:25pm |
Hey lizards. Gotta run. Everyone be good.
I have a feeling next week's going to be a tense one, so everybody that takes meds, stay on schedule, those of you that pray or meditate assume the position and those of you that exercise, run an extra lap.
| 374 |
Cato the Elder Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:13:30pm |
re: #321 Mich-again
It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825
The book has its historical, biblical and exegetical place, and meant something very specific when it was written.
It is also in a thoroughly familiar genre (oddly enough known as "apocalyptic"), which John of Patmos did not invent. Daniel is the best-known Old-Testament example, but there are hundreds of non-canonical apocalypses. That's why its full title is "The Apocalyse of Saint John", to distinguish it from all the rest. "Revelation" (no "s") is simply Latin for Greek apokalypsis.
I have always felt it to be the happy hunting ground of anyone with a conspiratorial cast of mind and an axe to grind. Give me a name, place and date from today's news, and I'll write you a new interpretation of Revelation in five minutes flat.
| 375 |
Enkidu90046 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:13:54pm |
re: #357 marjoriemoon
Well I don't agree with that. It doesn't really impact you in any way, the fact that God is on money or is mentioned, say in the national anthem. I mean you don't have to sing it or sing that part. But if Christianity (or any religion) was declared the national religion, how long would it be before prayer in school was common place, say prayer to Jesus. Makes a difference to a person who is of different faith or no faith to say those words.
But having such things printed on our money and recited in schools IS the establishment of a religion. At the very least, it is the establishment of a monotheistic religion over those with multiple gods. It also could be argued that it is a non-Jewish God since religious Jews do not write out the name of God, instead writing it as G-d. The bottom line is that the Government has no business getting into religion at all. BTW, the pledge of allegiance originally didn't include the words "under God". That was added in the 1950s during the McCarthy era when we were fighting "Godless atheism". I think it was also added to our legal tender at the same time, although I am less certain about that.
| 376 |
What, me worry? Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:13:55pm |
re: #341 Gella
but we still do, please explain
as i am a Jew and some times i wish i can have few days off for my holidays with out taking PTO at work
The difference is, it's in not in law.
Majority rules, yes. Christian holidays are celebrated nationally, this is true. But like in Israel or in the Arab states, their LAWS are based on religious edict. Now in Israel, you aren't forced to comply, however, since Jews do not open their stores on Saturday, the Sabbath (as you're well aware) they shop at the Arab shops.
At any rate, it's part of being a minority, the PTO days. Or put under the category of life ain't always fair.
| 377 |
Ojoe Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:14:18pm |
re: #276 onepistoffyid
Calling Christianity the national religion of the USA doesn't mean that everyone has to be a christian or that other religons won't be respected.
Egads, it would be a step toward theocracy.
Under which I would last about 2 weeks, taken away for mouthing off.
| 378 |
jaunte Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:14:20pm |
re: #365 zarsky99
attempting to influence others without force
That's the tricky part. Enlisting (lobbying) the government successfully to enforce your values means they will use force to do so.
| 379 |
J.S. Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:14:58pm |
I heard that CNN will have a new feature beginning on Monday -- about the "angry electorate" in America...(could be interesting...)
| 380 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:15:21pm |
re: #352 zarsky99
I do not consider myself a fanatic...however I do believe our country has veered away from some common sense family values. There are those of us on the center-right whom do want to encourage family cohesion and not be considered a racist, homophobic, fanatically religious individual as a direct result.
Then run your own family, and don't tell other people how to run theirs. Isn't that the kind of privacy value and personal responsibility appeal that conservatism is supposed to be about?
| 381 |
brookly red Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:15:29pm |
re: #370 TheMatrix31
See you guys, I'm goin' out to enjoy my Saturday night.
Take it easy!
yeah, it is time to go out & play...
but I was enjoying the thread.
| 382 |
Pingemi Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:15:37pm |
re: #325 Chekote
That's because religious freedom is a specific right guaranteed constitutionally.
A persons values and opinions are are formed by their belief system to ask them to abandon their belief system if elected would be to ask people to vote against their own opinions.
Or lets put it another way. I'm Catholic. If I ran for office and you choose to vote against me because I'm catholic that would be a religious test.
However part of my Catholic belief system is opposition to abortion, so if you supported abortion and voted against me on that basis that would not be bigoted or a religious test, you are voting based on the issue.
| 383 |
Enkidu90046 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:16:16pm |
re: #363 ggt
"Under G-d" doesn't bother me. "Jesus" in those same instances would bother me quite a bit.
What if you were a part of the Hindu religion, which has multiple Gods? Would it bother you to recite a pledge of allegiance or use legal tender that essentially states that we are a nation of monotheists? It is dangerous business when the government intrudes into religion at all, and in my view, it is unconstitutional.
| 384 |
Mich-again Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:16:18pm |
If you listen to the guy who was the inspiration for Christianity, Christians should be known for their works, not their words.
| 385 |
zarsky99 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:16:32pm |
re: #378 jaunte
and i would never suggest anything of the sort...but running ads on TV promoting ones particular family values should not "scare" anyone...at least in my opinion.
good night everyone...not all values voters are scary radical christian fundamentalists...try to remember that
| 387 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:17:41pm |
The Jefferson Bible is a pretty amazing document, and more than anything else it reveals how Jefferson really felt about institutionalized religion. He took a King James (I think) Bible, and literally cut out (with a razor) all the parts that contained supernatural stories ... leaving only the philosophical arguments and teachings of Jesus. Jefferson was a man totally committed to rationalism and realism, and he had no patience with fairy tales.
| 388 |
swamprat Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:17:43pm |
re: #356 Cineaste
Well, you can start by looking at any that are inclusive of homosexuals and non-christians for a start.
The Unitarians.
| 389 |
Sharmuta Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:17:44pm |
re: #378 jaunte
That's the tricky part. Enlisting (lobbying) the government successfully to enforce your values means they will use force to do so.
I was glad to hear the term "authoritarian" in the interview.
Values, imo, belong outside the scope of government and should be properly promoted by social organizations such as religious institutions or charities. It's not the role of government to make the populace what they wish they ruled over.
| 390 |
Cineaste Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:17:52pm |
re: #363 ggt
"Under G-d" doesn't bother me. "Jesus" in those same instances would bother me quite a bit.
It's also worth noting that that phrase was only added in the 50's. It was not part of the original pledge. Frankly, if you say the pledge without it it makes more rythmic sense.
| 391 |
jaunte Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:17:55pm |
re: #385 zarsky99
not all values voters are scary radical christian fundamentalists
I don't think that claim was made.
| 392 |
Cato the Elder Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:17:55pm |
re: #337 BigPapa
You'll know when the Whig party has relevance: I'm sure the same motivations that caused the Teabagger smear will create a term for the Whigs... hm... rhymes with the most horrible N-word...
That is the state of things.
The teabaggers did it too themselves. Even without the sexual innuendo, who's going to take a Tea Party seriously?
[sticks little finger out, sips] "Muffy and I are going to proceed with our plans to attend a little de-mon-stra-tion this weekend. The Scarsdale Tea Pahty. Do come."
| 393 |
brookly red Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:18:05pm |
re: #379 J.S.
I heard that CNN will have a new feature beginning on Monday -- about the "angry electorate" in America...(could be interesting...)
somehow I suspect it will insult me more that usual...
| 394 |
Danny Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:18:43pm |
re: #352 zarsky99
Anyone/Charles,
I was hoping you would enlighten me as to a center right family values organization that you do not believe is fanatical?
Personally, I want the special interest organizations that I support to be fanatical about their cause. However, which orgs one chooses to support is a personal decision. The organizations I support may be anathema to you.
| 395 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:18:46pm |
re: #371 Salamantis
That use of the term to refer to a sexual practice was existent before tea parties, but I have seen no evidence whatsoever that its application to the attendees of tea parties was begun by those attendees themselves; in fact, the article you quotemined to support such a position actually stated quite the opposite.
Sal, I linked a photo of a protester proudly carrying such a sign. It was everywhere. Speaking of quotemining and cherrypicking, I wonder why you mysteriously focus on one link I left there, and yet not that one?
Stop accusing me of quotemining or acting like a creationist. I linked the entire, hilariously bad, Jay nordlinger article. It's an opinion piece, Sal. Did you notice that JN has no back up links to support his assertions? Did you wonder why-- or did you just endorse it as truth because you want it to be true?
He is wrong, and so are you.
| 396 |
Cato the Elder Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:19:15pm |
re: #342 ggt
he wrote his own version of the bible.
D@mn, another book on the list to re-read. I'll never get thru the pile.
Actually, he went through the whole thing, clipped out all of what he felt to be nonsense, and rearranged the rest. The Jefferson Bible.
Teach that to your home-schoolers, teabaggers!
| 397 |
zarsky99 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:19:49pm |
re: #389 Sharmuta
totally agree...but some element of values will invariably end up in laws. what if your values suggested the legal age of consent should be 12 years old?
| 398 |
transient Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:19:51pm |
re: #366 Cineaste
True. But some religions demand an adherence to the rules of their leadership to be considered good members of the faith while others do not.
From wikipedia - about the leader of the mormon church:
"As president of the church, Monson is considered by adherents to be a prophet, seer, and revelator of God's will on earth."
That's problematic for me. Men are men, when we start making them gods we start running into trouble.
Personally, I agree with you. I have problems with highly organized, hierarchical religion. But IMO what you said is a little too close to "Mormonism is bad because it makes these demands." (Yes, I know, I'm taking a few liberties.) Mormons are free to believe in a hierarchical church, as are Catholics. Ultraorthodox Jews also have frighteningly (to me) hierarchical structure. It's a free country.
A member of the church presumably has free will. If he wants to serve the people, the people must come first. If a prospective candidate cannot put the people before his church, he should not run for office.
| 399 |
Cineaste Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:19:51pm |
re: #392 Cato the Elder
The teabaggers did it too themselves. Even without the sexual innuendo, who's going to take a Tea Party seriously?
[sticks little finger out, sips] "Muffy and I are going to proceed with our plans to attend a little de-mon-stra-tion this weekend. The Scarsdale Tea Pahty. Do come."
"NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!"
"Did you vote?"
"Yes!"
"oh..."
"what?"
"nevermind..."
| 400 |
wee fury Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:19:59pm |
re: #375 Enkidu90046
Under President Eisenhower. Congress approved it in 1957. Reasoning (at that time) to counter the communist scare.
| 401 |
What, me worry? Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:20:14pm |
re: #363 ggt
"Under G-d" doesn't bother me. "Jesus" in those same instances would bother me quite a bit.
Exactly. All the G-d references, btw, came later. Most in this century, I believe.
Let's look at the Declaration of Independence.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Structured in such a way to encompass all. Brilliant.
| 402 |
Cineaste Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:20:52pm |
re: #398 transient
Personally, I agree with you. I have problems with highly organized, hierarchical religion. But IMO what you said is a little too close to "Mormonism is bad because it makes these demands." (Yes, I know, I'm taking a few liberties.) Mormons are free to believe in a hierarchical church, as are Catholics. Ultraorthodox Jews also have frighteningly (to me) hierarchical structure. It's a free country.
A member of the church presumably has free will. If he wants to serve the people, the people must come first. If a prospective candidate cannot put the people before his church, he should not run for office.
I agree with everything you say. Well put.
| 403 |
Cato the Elder Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:20:53pm |
re: #350 BigPapa
Hey Obama's pulling a Carter! Let's talk about that and get off this minor distraction of GOPlosion...
Oh noes! He's selling out Israel!
| 404 |
Pingemi Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:21:07pm |
re: #182 HoosierHoops
I actually haven't done a ton of commenting over the last 8 years I generally didn't tend to read a lot of comment threads till recently and I've never been one for slang.
| 405 |
Dark_Falcon Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:21:07pm |
re: #360 Pingemi
It is safe to say that we have no official religion but it would be accurate to say the country was formed under Christian values and were the primary cultural influence on the land for centuries.
Just last month I finished Hart's American History as told by contemporaries Vol 1. You should read the contemporary documents in it. Compared to the people in this book the "Religious Right" of today are Stonewall rioters.
That is an accurate statement. Almost all the founders respected Christianity, even if they did not agree with it. However, they sought to safeguard the pursuit of religious truth by keeping religion away from government. It's OK to bring a religious sense of morality to the task of governing, but it is not OK to try forcing people to live by that sense of morality, beyond those rules needed to preserve social order such as outlawing murder and theft.
| 406 |
Gus Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:21:09pm |
Sometimes people assume that holidays were handed down from the year 1. Christmas didn't become a national holiday in the United States until 1870.
...In America, interest in Christmas was revived in the 1820s by several short stories by Washington Irving which appear in his The Sketch Book of Geoffrey Crayon and "Old Christmas", and by Clement Clarke Moore's 1822 poem A Visit From St. Nicholas (popularly known by its first line: Twas the Night Before Christmas).[33] Irving's stories depicted harmonious warm-hearted holiday traditions he claimed to have observed in England. Although some argue that Irving invented the traditions he describes, they were widely imitated by his American readers. The poem A Visit from Saint Nicholas popularized the tradition of exchanging gifts and seasonal Christmas shopping began to assume economic importance.[34] In reaction, this also started the cultural conflict of the holiday's spiritualism and its commercialism that some see as corrupting the holiday. In her 1850 book "The First Christmas in New England", Harriet Beecher Stowe includes a character who complains that the true meaning of Christmas was lost in a shopping spree.[35] Christmas was declared a United States Federal holiday in 1870, signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
| 407 |
Ojoe Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:21:24pm |
Coffee party, with cream, and bear claws.
Irish coffee if you wish.
Jelly donuts.
Mmmm!
Eat all you want.
Scrambled eggs too.
Love your neighbor, tomorrow is Sunday, if that helps you.
| 408 |
Killgore Trout Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:21:59pm |
re: #332 Sharmuta
Wow- a flouncer doesn't recall Charles discussing theocracy in the last 8 years?
Lol. Thanks for the laugh.
| 409 |
Sharmuta Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:22:24pm |
re: #397 zarsky99
totally agree...but some element of values will invariably end up in laws. what if your values suggested the legal age of consent should be 12 years old?
Our laws reflect our values as a society, not the other way around.
| 410 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:22:28pm |
re: #397 zarsky99
totally agree...but some element of values will invariably end up in laws. what if your values suggested the legal age of consent should be 12 years old?
What if your "values" also include giving speeches to white supremacist groups?
In 2001, Perkins addressed the Council of Conservative Citizens (successor organization to the anti-integration White Citizens Council), a known white nationalist organization.
| 411 |
zarsky99 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:23:08pm |
re: #410 Charles
did you just suggest that those were my values?
| 412 |
NelsFree Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:23:46pm |
re: #383 Enkidu90046
What if you were a part of the Hindu religion, which has multiple Gods? Would it bother you to recite a pledge of allegiance or use legal tender that essentially states that we are a nation of monotheists? It is dangerous business when the government intrudes into religion at all, and in my view, it is unconstitutional.
The Muslim Pledge of Allegiance
[Link: www.biae.net...]
As an American Muslim,
I pledge allegiance to ALLAH and His Prophet,
I respect and love my family and my community,
and I dedicate my life to serving the cause of truth and justice.
As an American citizen, with rights and responsibilities,
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
And to the republic for which it stands,
one nation,
Under God,
indivisible,
with liberty and justice for all.
| 413 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:23:50pm |
re: #411 zarsky99
did you just suggest that those were my values?
Reading comprehension. It's a good thing.
| 414 |
Ziggy Standard Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:23:52pm |
re: #371 Salamantis
That use of the term to refer to a sexual practice was existent before tea parties, but I have seen no evidence whatsoever that its application to the attendees of tea parties was begun by those attendees themselves;
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]
Use as a political term
During the 2009 Tea Party protests against the tax policies of the United States Government,the use of the phrase "tea bag" was used by Fox News Reporter Griff Jenkins and reteaparty.org. Salon.com, however, pointed out that "teabagging" has long had the meaning above.[8][9][10][11][12]
The term "tea bagging" was quickly co-opted by those critical of the movement.
Also if this was all about the right taking ownership of a slur, they would be aware of the slur wouldn't they? But this does not generally seem to be the case with those on the right who were promoting that term:
[Link: www.salon.com...]
"There have been other examples, as well. In a clip picked up by Maddow and "The Daily Show," Fox News reporter Griff Jenkins said demonstrators were going to "teabag the White House," and quoted one Web site that was organizing protests as saying, Teabag the fools in D.C." The site, ReTeaParty.com, didn't seem to get the joke,
| 415 |
wee fury Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:24:01pm |
re: #400 wee fury
As an example of the time period -- this is what was being shown in schools. A frightening time.
| 416 |
Cato the Elder Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:24:08pm |
| 417 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:24:09pm |
re: #399 Cineaste
"NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION!"
"Did you vote?"
"Yes!"
"oh..."
"what?"
"nevermind..."
Exactly. Even the tea party meme was hilarious, epic badness from the beginning. Sad, really.
| 418 |
Mich-again Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:24:21pm |
re: #392 Cato the Elder
The teabaggers did it too themselves. Even without the sexual innuendo, who's going to take a Tea Party seriously?
My basic problem with them using the "Tea Party" moniker is that the original Tea Party in Boston in 1773 was a protest about Taxation without Representation. These Tea Parties are the result of lost elections. Its stupid to call them Tea Parties. More like pity parties.
| 419 |
zarsky99 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:24:30pm |
re: #409 Sharmuta
agreed...and I should be free to influence our society's values...again...i am not condoning this posts specific group or any group charles has been posting on.
| 420 |
swamprat Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:24:37pm |
re: #404 Pingemi
I actually haven't done a ton of commenting over the last 8 years I generally didn't tend to read a lot of comment threads till recently and I've never been one for slang.
Unless one of your personas got banned and you are now reduced to using a sock.
| 421 |
Salamantis Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:24:48pm |
re: #358 Jimmah
I went to your Wikipedia link, but apparently unlike you, I explored the links that it linked to. And I found that the use of the term by reteaparty.org had nothing to do with any nonordinary sexual practice, but instead had to do with a call for sympathizers to mail their congresspeople tea bags - most probably what the Fox reporter was referencing as well:
[Link: www.reteaparty.com...]
April 1, 2009 %P% Tea Bag the Fools in D.C.
Our founders have stopped rolling over in their graves. After months of tossing and turning, we have finally taken back the banner of hope that has been hijacked by the “do-good” saviors.
Statist sympathizers call us cynics; those who complain without answers of our own. They call us “selfish”, implying that funding failure is altruistic. While America was founded on those who do, they ask us to submit to those who can’t.
ENOUGH!
On December 16, 1773, the original Patriots put their lives on the line. With an envelope, a stamp, and a bag of tea, millions of Americans can send a peaceful message; our lives have value.
On April 1st, our establishment will know that our freedom to succeed can no longer be sacrificed at the risk of our future.
With sincerity and respect, we ask that you join us on April 1st, 2009, in sending the Oval Office a Tea Bag, in honor of the party in Boston on December 16, 1773, and in anticipation of its nationwide symbolic re-enactment in the summer of 2009.
If you have had enough, please submit your pledge to send Washington a Tea Bag on April 1st by using the pledge form in the right sidebar.
Sal: In other words, the sexual meaning was subsequently applied by their detactors so they could have the juvenile fun of ridiculing them with a sexual inside joke which they themselves did not understand.
Those who think that tea party attenders meant to describe themselves with a crude sexual term please raise your hand.
| 422 |
Dancing along the light of day Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:25:36pm |
re: #388 swamprat
Swamprat, I sent your link to Realwest. My nic is blue, if you'd like to see his thank you email!
| 423 |
Enkidu90046 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:26:17pm |
re: #401 marjoriemoon
The Declaration of Independence is a brilliant piece of work... but it is not the Constitution. Putting references to God on our money or in school pledges of allegiance recited in public schools is a violation of the Establishment Clause. It establishes monotheistic religions over non monotheistic religions (or for that matter atheism). It can be argued that, because Jews do not write the world "God" (instead writing "G-d") it also excludes Judaism. You see the sort of problems that get created when government gets into the business of religion, even something as "innocuous" as putting "under God" on our currency or including it in pledges in public school?
| 424 |
J.S. Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:26:21pm |
re: #410 Charles
I keep thinking of the actor, Tony Perkins, who played the role of the psycho in Hitchcock's movie...
| 425 |
Pingemi Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:26:35pm |
re: #398 transient
The problem with that argument is twofold:
First of all it is a defacto ban on people who actually follow their religion
Second of all it's a false argument. A person believes something is right and good then naturally he will think that advancing it serves the people.
Rather a pol who professes a faith and then drops it when inconvenient is no different than any pol who plays politics with their positions.
Give me someone who actually believes something and is unafraid to say it any day. After all we have the right to vote for or against them. In the internet age there is absolutely no excuse for being uninformed.
| 426 |
Cineaste Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:26:39pm |
re: #421 Salamantis
"With sincerity and respect, we ask that you join us on April 1st, 2009, in sending the Oval Office a Tea Bag, in honor of the party in Boston on December 16, 1773, and in anticipation of its nationwide symbolic re-enactment in the summer of 2009."
So are they saying the President wasn't elected by a plurality of the people? I mean the original Tea Party was about not having representation. I wish people would read their history. What kind of a reenactment is it when you don't even understand the original event.
| 427 |
jaunte Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:26:54pm |
re: #415 wee fury
As an example of the time period -- this is what was being shown in schools. A frightening time.
I remember that, and thinking at the time "there's no way this school desk is going to protect me from an atomic bomb."
| 428 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:27:08pm |
re: #383 Enkidu90046
What if you were a part of the Hindu religion, which has multiple Gods? Would it bother you to recite a pledge of allegiance or use legal tender that essentially states that we are a nation of monotheists? It is dangerous business when the government intrudes into religion at all, and in my view, it is unconstitutional.
hmmm, every Hindu (cleric type) I've ever asked has told me there is One G-d. There seems to be something lost in translation with this issue. There is the One G-d and lesser gods something akin to Catholic Saints. I don't understand it.
Truth be told, I'm really tired of the discussion of G-d on legal tender or in the Pledge. The point, IMHO, of all this is that our rights come from a non-human entity and therefore, cannot be taken away or infringed upon by a human entity. Whether a person thinks that non-human entity is a Christian God, Allah. Budda, The Great Spirit, or a blade of grass really doesn't matter -philosophically. "G-d" to me is an all encompassing term. Because, some individuals see that term as representing something very specific and defined by only one sect of one religious, does not mean that we need to change OUR money our history to suit them.
Like it or not the Judeo-Christian values are a big part of our history. The parts that have been specifically used (i.e. the 10 Commandments) are generic enough to apply to anyone who isn't totally immersed in their particular flavor of whackism.
| 429 |
MandyManners Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:27:36pm |
| 430 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:27:41pm |
re: #414 Jimmah
Exactly, Jimmah.
And Sal-- given that you also thought the word had to apply to a sex act between a man and a woman, I think it's fair to say that you genuinely don't know what you're talking about in this instance, from first to last.
1. It refers to a sex act, and did for years
2. The tea partiers NAMED themselves and their protests after it, unwittingly.
3. People laughed at them.
That's it. It's silly to be arguing over this anyway.
| 431 |
Dark_Falcon Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:27:54pm |
re: #418 Mich-again
My basic problem with them using the "Tea Party" moniker is that the original Tea Party in Boston in 1773 was a protest about Taxation without Representation. These Tea Parties are the result of lost elections. Its stupid to call them Tea Parties. More like pity parties.
Must concur. Calling them a tax revolt would have been OK, as would calling them buyers remorse. Calling them Butthurt Parties would be better still.
| 432 |
A Man for all Seasons Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:28:03pm |
re: #404 Pingemi
I actually haven't done a ton of commenting over the last 8 years I generally didn't tend to read a lot of comment threads till recently and I've never been one for slang.
Your fine..I was just teasing you..
| 433 |
BryanS Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:28:27pm |
re: #423 Enkidu90046
The Declaration of Independence is a brilliant piece of work... but it is not the Constitution. Putting references to God on our money or in school pledges of allegiance recited in public schools is a violation of the Establishment Clause. It establishes monotheistic religions over non monotheistic religions (or for that matter atheism). It can be argued that, because Jews do not write the world "God" (instead writing "G-d") it also excludes Judaism. You see the sort of problems that get created when government gets into the business of religion, even something as "innocuous" as putting "under God" on our currency or including it in pledges in public school?
True. Try telling that to the folks over at Hot Air. Referring to the Declaration of Independence is a common theme among people who want symbols of religion sanctioned by the government.
| 434 |
Cineaste Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:28:33pm |
re: #428 ggt
Like it or not the Judeo-Christian values are a big part of our history. The parts that have been specifically used (i.e. the 10 Commandments) are generic enough to apply to anyone who isn't totally immersed in their particular flavor of whackism.
Fair enough, but that has nothing to do with encoding one set of values into law. Again, read the constitution - it ain't allowed.
| 435 |
Cato the Elder Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:29:04pm |
Jehovah's Witnesses won't pledge to a flag, rag, or anything else that's not Jehovah God.
They were viciously persecuted under Hitler for it ("Zeugen Jehovahs") and have been here, too.
| 436 |
transient Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:29:50pm |
re: #425 Pingemi
The problem with that argument is twofold:
First of all it is a defacto ban on people who actually follow their religion
Second of all it's a false argument. A person believes something is right and good then naturally he will think that advancing it serves the people.
Rather a pol who professes a faith and then drops it when inconvenient is no different than any pol who plays politics with their positions.
Give me someone who actually believes something and is unafraid to say it any day. After all we have the right to vote for or against them. In the internet age there is absolutely no excuse for being uninformed.
The specific discussion was about whether it is tolerable for an official to literally take orders from a senior member of his church, not about whether he should be permitted to follow his conscience.
| 437 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:30:00pm |
re: #421 Salamantis
Sal, they were too out of it to know the sexual reference, too media-stupid to think to google it before coining a neologism to refer to themselves, too internet unsavvy to read OTHER BLOGS and see how many people were laughing at them, and then too butthurt to back down when the laughter made it all the way to the MSM.
There is no point here in defending them. None.
| 438 |
Slumbering Behemoth Stinks Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:30:16pm |
re: #343 Enkidu90046
I'll go even further... I have a problem with religious organizations getting tax exempt status on Constitutional grounds.
I'm cool with churches, synagogues, or whatever, that subsist on the donations of their parishioners being tax exempt.
I am not cool with commercial businesses cloaked in religion, who own entire television and radio networks, making millions if not billions every year tax free.
| 439 |
Mich-again Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:30:25pm |
re: #423 Enkidu90046
Thats small potatoes. The real violation in my mind is how Religious institutions claim tax free status for their TV studios, golf courses, private land, airplanes, tour buses, etc.. I don't have a problem with the House of Worship itself having the tax-free status, but as for all the ancillary facilities and far-flung operations, the tax-free status should be revoked. And that goes for all religious institutions.
You always get more of whatever you subsidize.
| 440 |
sod Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:30:28pm |
re: #112 Charles
The new 'Show Users' button is very interesting.
Next I'll figure out how to code it to show who's about to melt down. Maybe shades of red.
/
Some stats might be nice. Number of users, most users ever etc.
| 441 |
Dark_Falcon Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:31:10pm |
re: #421 Salamantis
Perhaps it was a case of parallel discovery. Both sides started using the same term to mean different things. It's worth noting that until the April Tea Parties I did not know what "teabagging" meant, either. Most likely, some of the protesters know its meaning and use it anyway to shrug off the left's insults. The rest of them don't know what it means.
| 442 |
Jack Burton Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:31:33pm |
re: #438 Slumbering Behemoth
I'm cool with churches, synagogues, or whatever, that subsist on the donations of their parishioners being tax exempt.
I am not cool with commercial businesses cloaked in religion, who own entire television and radio networks, making millions if not billions every year tax free.
Amen to that.
| 443 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:31:40pm |
re: #431 Dark_Falcon
Must concur. Calling them a tax revolt would have been OK, as would calling them buyers remorse. Calling them Butthurt Parties would be better still.
HA!
{DF}
| 444 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:31:41pm |
re: #405 Dark_Falcon
That is an accurate statement. Almost all the founders respected Christianity, even if they did not agree with it. However, they sought to safeguard the pursuit of religious truth by keeping religion away from government. It's OK to bring a religious sense of morality to the task of governing, but it is not OK to try forcing people to live by that sense of morality, beyond those rules needed to preserve social order such as outlawing murder and theft.
I'm concerned that the what many of us (well me, anyway) consider common-sense values are being highjacked(or perceived as and reported as by the MSM) by the RRight and other whackos as their exclusive values. It's as if anyone who thinks that it is flat out wrong to conceive a child one can't care for is a religious whacko.
How do we counteract this?
| 445 |
theheat Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:31:41pm |
Per CNN, pure pandering by Huckabee:
"In fact, the only thing inexpensive about Massachusetts' health care bill is that there, you can get a $50 abortion," Huckabee said, drawing instant pushback from the Romney camp.
Too bad Palin already coined death panels, or he may have found a way to work that into the conversation.
And their breakout sessions are even more revealing:
Conference breakout panels Saturday afternoon are scheduled to include Global Warming Hysteria: The New Face of the "Pro-Death Agenda"; Obamacare: Rationing Your Life Away; Activism and Conservatism: Fit to a (Tea) Party; and Thugocracy: Fighting the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy. The summit's straw poll results -- an early look at the state of the 2012 race -- are scheduled for release mid-afternoon.
Yes, these family values folks are really rational, aren't they? Anyone still question whether they have any influence on the GOP, given the list of attendees that are condoning and participating in this utter horseshit?
| 446 |
Sharmuta Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:31:42pm |
re: #419 zarsky99
agreed...and I should be free to influence our society's values...again...i am not condoning this posts specific group or any group charles has been posting on.
Yes- you're free to influence our values, but there is a proper role and scope to this. Others are free to dismiss your values so long as they're still within the scope of the law, and if you don't like it- it's too bad. That's freedom.
Where people draw the line is when come people pushing their values look to the government to push these values for them.
| 447 |
NJDhockeyfan Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:32:17pm |
I just finished reading this thread. Whew!
I don't normally do that but I couldn't stop.
Evening lizards!
| 449 |
BryanS Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:32:27pm |
re: #426 Cineaste
"With sincerity and respect, we ask that you join us on April 1st, 2009, in sending the Oval Office a Tea Bag, in honor of the party in Boston on December 16, 1773, and in anticipation of its nationwide symbolic re-enactment in the summer of 2009."
So are they saying the President wasn't elected by a plurality of the people? I mean the original Tea Party was about not having representation. I wish people would read their history. What kind of a reenactment is it when you don't even understand the original event.
You misread the purpose of using the phrase. People on the right who are angry talk about revolution as a rhetorical flourish. Many take the idea as just that--rhetoric. But there are some hard core activists who literally think a revolution is necessary.
| 450 |
swamprat Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:33:49pm |
re: #422 Floral Giraffe
Swamprat, I sent your link to Realwest. My nic is blue, if you'd like to see his thank you email!
Thank you so much, but...I hate email! I am a luddite in this regard. The warmth I get from knowing is enough...That and the fact I accidently logged out trying to use the email link...
The info was from a link "Locker" posted.
Thank you.
| 451 |
Dark_Falcon Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:33:59pm |
re: #437 iceweasel
Ice, Sal's not butthurt. He thinks he's right and he's presenting evidence to support his position. Don't make the mistake of thinking he's like some the people who have gone after you recently. He genuinely thinks you made an error. I know how Sal argues well enough to know that his objective is to prove his point, not go after you.
| 452 |
Enkidu90046 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:34:01pm |
re: #428 ggt
You would be hard pressed to find any culture on Earth, whether religious or not, whether influenced by Judeo-Christian beliefs or not, that doesn't believe that it is wrong to lie, steal, murder, treat your family badly, commit adultery, etc.
Seriously, the values in the ten commandments are HUMAN values and predate and are independent of Judaism and Christianity. They are pretty much universal values.
| 453 |
What, me worry? Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:34:04pm |
re: #423 Enkidu90046
The Declaration of Independence is a brilliant piece of work... but it is not the Constitution. Putting references to God on our money or in school pledges of allegiance recited in public schools is a violation of the Establishment Clause. It establishes monotheistic religions over non monotheistic religions (or for that matter atheism). It can be argued that, because Jews do not write the world "God" (instead writing "G-d") it also excludes Judaism. You see the sort of problems that get created when government gets into the business of religion, even something as "innocuous" as putting "under God" on our currency or including it in pledges in public school?
I understand and I think you're right, really. I mean if we had to vote on the issue today, I would vote for the reference to be off the money, but then again, I wouldn't sign a petition for it. IOW, it's not an issue to me. I think it's small beans.
Orthodox Jews are free to live their lives in this country which is great. They know there are limitations or restrictions living in a country that isn't run under Jewish law. Well we all do don't we? How many 100s, 1000s of years did we live, currently live, in the diaspora? God tells us to make allegiance to the countries of our birth, never forgetting Jerusalem, yes? To be the light among nations.
| 454 |
Pingemi Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:34:09pm |
re: #405 Dark_Falcon
That's true but until 1960 the Lord's prayer was said in public schools and it didn't cause the country to self destruct.
You can make the constitutional argument that it shouldn't have been and the supreme court would agree but it can't be denied that this combined with the changing of the draft rules concerning college deferments during the Vietnam war and the Roe v Wade decision created a cultural divide in the country that we are still debating today.
One can argue that it was worth it but one can't deny it exists.
| 455 |
Cato the Elder Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:34:13pm |
If I snigger at teabaggers, does that make me a partisan, or a racist, or both?
Or neither?
| 456 |
Charles Johnson Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:34:29pm |
| 457 |
NelsFree Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:34:34pm |
Thank you all for a yet another very interesting evening. I must retire, without my Three Affectations. I will say (type) that I support TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS. Two in the House, two in the Senate, then go home and re-learn how to earn a living. G'nite.
| 458 |
Ziggy Standard Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:34:36pm |
re: #421 Salamantis
Sal: In other words, the sexual meaning was subsequently applied by their detactors so they could have the juvenile fun of ridiculing them with a sexual inside joke which they themselves did not understand.
Those who think that tea party attenders meant to describe themselves with a crude sexual term please raise your hand.
D'uh! Obviously they did not intend a sexual meaning to it - the point is they stupidly chose terms that already had that connotation. And now you want me to feel sad about the poor little wingnuts being all butthurt over the red faces that they have caused themselves? FAIL
And yes, I did notice that your objection has changed from who used these terms first to who applied a sexual meaning to it first. More FAIL, Sal. Should have learned more about this before you jumped in.
| 459 |
Cineaste Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:34:56pm |
re: #449 BryanS
You misread the purpose of using the phrase. People on the right who are angry talk about revolution as a rhetorical flourish. Many take the idea as just that--rhetoric. But there are some hard core activists who literally think a revolution is necessary.
Either way they need to find a better historical analogy. The original Tea Party had nothing to do with the issues these guys are upset about.
I love all the people at 9/12 who were furious over all the increased taxes... even though there have been no increases in taxes. If people can't be bothered to educate themselves then they shouldn't be upset when they get mocked.
| 460 |
Desert Dog Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:36:01pm |
re: #455 Cato the Elder
If I snigger at teabaggers, does that make me a partisan, or a racist, or both?
Or neither?
Beavis or Butthead?
| 461 |
BryanS Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:36:17pm |
re: #439 Mich-again
Thats small potatoes. The real violation in my mind is how Religious institutions claim tax free status for their TV studios, golf courses, private land, airplanes, tour buses, etc.. I don't have a problem with the House of Worship itself having the tax-free status, but as for all the ancillary facilities and far-flung operations, the tax-free status should be revoked. And that goes for all religious institutions.
You always get more of whatever you subsidize.
As tax laden as we have become, and as high as tax rates have gone since the founding of the country, giving churches tax exemption IS subsidy.
| 462 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:36:19pm |
re: #434 Cineaste
Fair enough, but that has nothing to do with encoding one set of values into law. Again, read the constitution - it ain't allowed.
I thought the Constitution, along with the other founding documents, were values encoded into law--generic enough to encompass ALL peoples.
| 463 |
Cineaste Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:36:51pm |
re: #449 BryanS
You misread the purpose of using the phrase. People on the right who are angry talk about revolution as a rhetorical flourish. Many take the idea as just that--rhetoric. But there are some hard core activists who literally think a revolution is necessary.
I suppose my point is. They are supporting a revolution when in fact they should be simply trying to win the debate. They are sore losers and need to grow up. Come up with a better idea and I will be on your side. Mail tea bags to congress people and stomp your feet and I will mock and deride you because you are devoid of genuine ideas.
| 464 |
Sharmuta Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:37:09pm |
re: #455 Cato the Elder
If I snigger at teabaggers, does that make me a partisan, or a racist, or both?
Or neither?
It means you hate sexy parties. ;p
| 465 |
Cato the Elder Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:37:56pm |
| 466 |
transient Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:38:03pm |
re: #455 Cato the Elder
If I snigger at teabaggers, does that make me a partisan, or a racist, or both?
Or neither?
You Sir, are a baggist.
If you were female, you would be a baguette.
| 467 |
Cineaste Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:38:21pm |
re: #462 ggt
I thought the Constitution, along with the other founding documents, were values encoded into law--generic enough to encompass ALL peoples.
one set of religious values. My bad... you had mentioned "Judeo-Christian values" and I snipped it to just "values" which is not accurate.
| 468 |
jaunte Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:38:22pm |
re: #464 Sharmuta
The usage has not yet gone international:
[Link: www.google.com...]
| 469 |
Achilles Tang Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:38:32pm |
re: #457 NelsFree
Thank you all for a yet another very interesting evening. I must retire, without my Three Affectations. I will say (type) that I support TERM LIMITS FOR CONGRESS. Two in the House, two in the Senate, then go home and re-learn how to earn a living. G'nite.
Do they get to take their health care plans with them?
| 470 |
Jack Burton Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:38:41pm |
re: #464 Sharmuta
It means you hate sexy parties. ;p
They are "A mockery of everything that is good, decent, and wholesome..."
/
| 471 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:39:19pm |
re: #452 Enkidu90046
You would be hard pressed to find any culture on Earth, whether religious or not, whether influenced by Judeo-Christian beliefs or not, that doesn't believe that it is wrong to lie, steal, murder, treat your family badly, commit adultery, etc.
Seriously, the values in the ten commandments are HUMAN values and predate and are independent of Judaism and Christianity. They are pretty much universal values.
Thank you, that was my point. Does it really matter if, in our history, those values were written as the 10 commandments? That is our history. Why spend time arguing about it?
| 472 |
Desert Dog Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:39:39pm |
re: #459 Cineaste
Either way they need to find a better historical analogy. The original Tea Party had nothing to do with the issues these guys are upset about.
I love all the people at 9/12 who were furious over all the increased taxes... even though there have been no increases in taxes. If people can't be bothered to educate themselves then they shouldn't be upset when they get mocked.
It was actually taxation without representation that motivated the original "teabaggers". Not the higher taxes per se. It was a feeling that the government in London was doing as it pleased without consulting or hearing the grievances of the colonists.
| 473 |
Mich-again Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:39:45pm |
re: #463 Cineaste
They are supporting a revolution when in fact they should be simply trying to win the debate.
Every two years in November, every single Representative in the House has to be re-elected to keep their job. Instead of putting on stupid costumes and waving flags and whining, maybe they could work on trying to win elections.
| 474 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:39:47pm |
re: #451 Dark_Falcon
Ice, Sal's not butthurt. He thinks he's right and he's presenting evidence to support his position. Don't make the mistake of thinking he's like some the people who have gone after you recently. He genuinely thinks you made an error. I know how Sal argues well enough to know that his objective is to prove his point, not go after you.
Oh, i'm not calling HIM butthurt-- just some of the actual tea partiers who complained (I had Jay Nordlinger in mind, esp).
I'm a big fan of Sal's and I'm sure he knows that. I think I've downdinged him a couple of times in AGW threads, but I'm probably his most ardent updinger on women's issues, pro-choice issues, and a big fan of his poetry. I've also updinged him loads, including in this thread (i think), when i didn't agree with him but just thought he'd made a good point or argued really well.
| 475 |
Dark_Falcon Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:40:10pm |
re: #444 ggt
I'm concerned that the what many of us (well me, anyway) consider common-sense values are being highjacked(or perceived as and reported as by the MSM) by the RRight and other whackos as their exclusive values. It's as if anyone who thinks that it is flat out wrong to conceive a child one can't care for is a religious whacko.
How do we counteract this?
First, we need to expel a handful of crazies. To do this, I would target a handful of groups on the fringe of the Religious Right and work make them be seen as crazy and out of the conservative mainstream. Demonize one to warn ten.
Second would be to present our ideas to the public as responsible options. Point out how our policies are designed to be pro-growth and supportive of normal people, while the other side is pursuing policies of redistribution and catering to fringe groups.
| 476 |
Salamantis Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:40:42pm |
re: #430 iceweasel
Exactly, Jimmah.
And Sal-- given that you also thought the word had to apply to a sex act between a man and a woman, I think it's fair to say that you genuinely don't know what you're talking about in this instance, from first to last.
1. It refers to a sex act, and did for years
2. The tea partiers NAMED themselves and their protests after it, unwittingly.
3. People laughed at them.That's it. It's silly to be arguing over this anyway.
I was quoting the Urban Dictionary. Although I have never teabagged other males (and can't remember doing it with females), I am perfectly aware that male genitals can be dropped into the mouths of people of either sex.
But the kinds of socons who are attracted to such things would be blissfully oblivious of that meaning.
I don't think that it is overly be a mature to ridicule some folks for being initially unaware that a particular term also was the name for a specific and somewhat exotic sexual practice.
And btw: your other link that went to that sign? I addressed it before by mentioning that it was undated. There was another sign beside it, referring to ACORN. Both of these were freeper signs, but there is nothing to indicate that they were from early April, rather than recently.
| 477 |
Sharmuta Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:40:45pm |
re: #473 Mich-again
Every two years in November, every single Representative in the House has to be re-elected to keep their job. Instead of putting on stupid costumes and waving flags and whining, maybe they could work on trying to win elections.
Or formulating some ideas, even.
| 478 |
Cineaste Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:40:47pm |
re: #472 Desert Dog
It was actually taxation without representation that motivated the original "teabaggers". Not the higher taxes per se. It was a feeling that the government in London was doing as it pleased without consulting or hearing the grievances of the colonists.
if you look earlier in the thread I made that point. I was making a separate point about the 9/12 protestors & raising taxes. Sorry for the confusion.
| 479 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:40:52pm |
re: #470 ArchangelMichael
They are "A mockery of everything that is good, decent, and wholesome..."
/
I still love you for introducing us to that. :)
| 480 |
Pingemi Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:41:23pm |
re: #436 transient
That being the case it has to come down to what they believe.
If a person truly believes their religion then they have to follow it. If a person feels that following it would be a violation of their oath then they should resign and stand for re-election so the people can decide with that thrown in.
If a person doesn't actually believe their religion then they should leave it.
I would argue that there is only one reason to belong to a religion:
Because you believe it is true.
If I didn't think my Catholicism was true I wouldn't attend mass. If I wanted to join a social club I could join the elks.
For example THE central tenet of Christianity is that Jesus is the son of God. If you don't believe that you really shouldn't proclaim yourself a Christian. If you are unsure and trying to make up your mind that's one thing but if you absolutely are convinced otherwise you shouldn't bother.
To wit:
| 481 |
Ziggy Standard Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:41:52pm |
re: #300 iceweasel
Comrade Jimmah! Almost missed you. :)
Some more bondage for you too...with another UnTrue Scot:
Ah yes Sheena Easton, who will always be remembered for having catapulted a struggling musician called "Prince" into the limelight :)
Just for you, here's Glasgow rock legends "Teenage Fanclub" giving some little known rappers from New Yotk a leg up the ladder to fame:
| 482 |
Liberal Classic Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:42:00pm |
re: #454 Pingemi
That's true but until 1960 the Lord's prayer was said in public schools and it didn't cause the country to self destruct.
You can make the constitutional argument that it shouldn't have been and the supreme court would agree but it can't be denied that this combined with the changing of the draft rules concerning college deferments during the Vietnam war and the Roe v Wade decision created a cultural divide in the country that we are still debating today.
In general terms, I caution against romanticizing the first half of the 20th c. and question the notion that the Roe decision created a cultural divide where none previously existed.
| 483 |
Pingemi Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:42:01pm |
re: #455 Cato the Elder
Well as I've attended a tea party if you refer to me as a teabagger I would take offense.
| 484 |
albusteve Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:42:21pm |
re: #477 Sharmuta
Or formulating some ideas, even.
noise making is more fun...and takes far less intellect...BANG! BOOM!
| 485 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:42:32pm |
re: #475 Dark_Falcon
First, we need to expel a handful of crazies. To do this, I would target a handful of groups on the fringe of the Religious Right and work make them be seen as crazy and out of the conservative mainstream. Demonize one to warn ten.
Second would be to present our ideas to the public as responsible options. Point out how our policies are designed to be pro-growth and supportive of normal people, while the other side is pursuing policies of redistribution and catering to fringe groups.
I don't know. This is the part I'm not good at.
| 486 |
Cineaste Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:42:35pm |
re: #483 Pingemi
Well as I've attended a tea party if you refer to me as a teabagger I would take offense.
tea partier?
| 487 |
Enkidu90046 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:43:08pm |
re: #453 marjoriemoon
We should ALL be free to live our lives in this country as we please regardless of our religious beliefs or lack thereof (so long as they do no harm to others) without a Government promoting religion. As for me, I am a bacon-eating shellfish-loving atheist Jew. I would be just as uncomfortable with "Under G-d" being printed on my money. And there is also the issue of religious creep. It starts as small things like putting it on legal tender and it grows into something much much more, which I think we are seeing with the Religious Right's attempts to rewrite the Constitution and the founding principles of this greatest nation on earth.
| 488 |
Achilles Tang Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:43:09pm |
re: #471 ggt
Thank you, that was my point. Does it really matter if, in our history, those values were written as the 10 commandments? That is our history. Why spend time arguing about it?
No argument, except with those who wish to make them law. I do believe there are several versions of the commandments and perhaps more than 10, but most are actually not illegal issues today.
Some people would like to change that.
| 489 |
Dark_Falcon Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:43:26pm |
re: #454 Pingemi
That's true but until 1960 the Lord's prayer was said in public schools and it didn't cause the country to self destruct.
You can make the constitutional argument that it shouldn't have been and the supreme court would agree but it can't be denied that this combined with the changing of the draft rules concerning college deferments during the Vietnam war and the Roe v Wade decision created a cultural divide in the country that we are still debating today.
One can argue that it was worth it but one can't deny it exists.
That I agree with. It is true that the courts were on solid group with most of those rulings, but those rulings plus the rise of the New Left caused Religious Conservatives to feel themselves under attack, with some justification. When they started to push back in earnest, The Culture Wars began.
| 490 |
Pingemi Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:43:42pm |
re: #482 Liberal Classic
It's not a question of romancing it. For good or ill there was a general set of accepted cultural values. After that point there was not, that is the cause of the division.
Now one can argue that it was worth it but I think it can't be credibly argued that it didn't exist.
| 491 |
Pingemi Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:44:14pm |
re: #486 Cineaste
That sound fine but you can call me Peter.
| 492 |
Cineaste Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:44:58pm |
re: #491 Pingemi
That sound fine but you can call me Peter.
And Peter, are you upset about not having representation?
| 493 |
Pingemi Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:45:13pm |
re: #488 Naso Tang
Then it's up to the people to either agree or disagree with that position.
We always get the government we deserve and the people have the right to be wrong.
| 494 |
Dancing along the light of day Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:45:21pm |
sod
Karma: 7
Registered since: Jan 28, 2006 at 3:55 pm
(Logged in)
No. of comments posted: 8
No. of links posted: 0
Now, THERE's an interesting nic!
Hi sod!
| 495 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:45:28pm |
re: #476 Salamantis
I was quoting the Urban Dictionary. Although I have never teabagged other males (and can't remember doing it with females), I am perfectly aware that male genitals can be dropped into the mouths of people of either sex.
But the kinds of socons who are attracted to such things would be blissfully oblivious of that meaning.
I don't think that it is overly be a mature to ridicule some folks for being initially unaware that a particular term also was the name for a specific and somewhat exotic sexual practice.
And btw: your other link that went to that sign? I addressed it before by mentioning that it was undated. There was another sign beside it, referring to ACORN. Both of these were freeper signs, but there is nothing to indicate that they were from early April, rather than recently.
I stated very early on in this thread that I thought the charge of being juvenile was valid.
As for the rest-- do your own research! The signs had FR's URL. Check some freak republic threads from april, or just use your own google-fu. It was out there and the teapartiers named themselves that. I saw it in real time. Just because you did not, and you're now digging in very stubbornly and arguing from your ignorance, does not shift the burden of proof to me.
Besides, I'm less inclined to help out someone who's accused me of quotemining and arguing like a creationist, and has yet to retract that. Do your own research.
| 496 |
Desert Dog Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:46:13pm |
George Carlin's take on the 10 Commandments:
| 497 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:46:27pm |
re: #488 Naso Tang
No argument, except with those who wish to make them law. I do believe there are several versions of the commandments and perhaps more than 10, but most are actually not illegal issues today.
Some people would like to change that.
I think there are hundreds (ask the Jewish Lizards).
I just don't think we should scrub our history and re-write our values to ward against as possible future success by a fringe group.
| 498 |
BryanS Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:47:21pm |
re: #459 Cineaste
Either way they need to find a better historical analogy. The original Tea Party had nothing to do with the issues these guys are upset about.
I love all the people at 9/12 who were furious over all the increased taxes... even though there have been no increases in taxes. If people can't be bothered to educate themselves then they shouldn't be upset when they get mocked.
It's hard to argue with what works--and their use of the original Boston tea party has worked as an effective rally cry for partisans on the right. Who's angry over being mocked? I do have to admit to letting out a good guffaw when I heard them talk about teabagging :)
Agreed the reason for the original tea party was a different cause than the reason for the current protests. The reason for choosing that rally cry was to inspire the idea for revolutionary change. Ridiculing something that one doesn't understand puts one at risk for missing being overtaken by your opponent. It's a mistake the hard core left continually makes of the right over and over. They never seem to learn.
| 499 |
Pingemi Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:48:52pm |
re: #492 Cineaste
Nope just don't like the decisions. As a matter of fact in the late election Every single candidate and question down to the local level that I voted for was defeated.
Talk about being out of sync.
Ironically I am a boardgamer and occasional D & D player, I play with a group that has been together for decades. Out of the batch of us we compared notes. And not a single one of us voted identically with another.
Politically and religiously we are all pretty different but it doesn't matter we don't friendship on stuff like that.
| 500 |
Cineaste Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:49:02pm |
re: #498 BryanS
It's hard to argue with what works--and their use of the original Boston tea party has worked as an effective rally cry for partisans on the right. Who's angry over being mocked? I do have to admit to letting out a good guffaw when I heard them talk about teabagging :)
Agreed the reason for the original tea party was a different cause than the reason for the current protests. The reason for choosing that rally cry was to inspire the idea for revolutionary change. Ridiculing something that one doesn't understand puts one at risk for missing being overtaken by your opponent. It's a mistake the hard core left continually makes of the right over and over. They never seem to learn.
Fair enough, but personally, I try not to associate with things that show me to be uneducated about history...
| 501 |
Enkidu90046 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:49:20pm |
re: #471 ggt
Thank you, that was my point. Does it really matter if, in our history, those values were written as the 10 commandments? That is our history. Why spend time arguing about it?
Those values are independent of, and predate, the 10 commandments. The 10 commandments also include stuff about having no other Gods and no idols and so forth. Are you claiming those are our American values as well? The part that is our history and our values that are also in the 10 commandments are universal and completely independent of the 10 commandments, they do not owe their source in any way to the 10 commandments.
| 502 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:49:22pm |
re: #495 iceweasel
I stated very early on in this thread that I thought the charge of being juvenile was valid.
As for the rest-- do your own research! The signs had FR's URL. Check some freak republic threads from april, or just use your own google-fu. It was out there and the teapartiers named themselves that. I saw it in real time. Just because you did not, and you're now digging in very stubbornly and arguing from your ignorance, does not shift the burden of proof to me.
Besides, I'm less inclined to help out someone who's accused me of quotemining and arguing like a creationist, and has yet to retract that. Do your own research.
Let me see if I got this right--the Tea Party people were too nerdy to do some basic research and keep themselves up-to-date on current trends of language usage?
So, when the youngun's (who don't know history) went to vote, their choices were the lame tea baggers or the jammin' guy on facebook?
hmmm...
| 503 |
Achilles Tang Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:50:27pm |
re: #497 ggt
I think there are hundreds (ask the Jewish Lizards).
I just don't think we should scrub our history and re-write our values to ward against as possible future success by a fringe group.
Not sure I follow you.
| 504 |
Pingemi Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:50:49pm |
re: #500 Cineaste
Well both movement are tax based.
Frankly from my reading of things I suspect he colonists would have done the same thing even if they WERE represented in parliament.
| 505 |
Jack Burton Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:51:18pm |
re: #475 Dark_Falcon
First, we need to expel a handful of crazies. To do this, I would target a handful of groups on the fringe of the Religious Right and work make them be seen as crazy and out of the conservative mainstream. Demonize one to warn ten.
Second would be to present our ideas to the public as responsible options. Point out how our policies are designed to be pro-growth and supportive of normal people, while the other side is pursuing policies of redistribution and catering to fringe groups.
No one in any "authority" on the right is willing or able to do this right now. All the rational voices on the right are being demonized full bore as RINOs and 'libruhas' by the party loud mouths, much as Charles is by all these asshats in the blogosphere. I think we need to wait and see if the 2010 elections are a disaster of extraordinary magnitude before people with a little pull decide to be the 2nd Coming of Buckley and say "Enough is enough".
No one in the Republican party who thinks the whacko bullshit thats going on now is good, is going to listen to me. I've never even been registered officially as a Republican. Now I remember exactly why I made that decision in the past. Even my gf calls me a "liberal who's only conservative about money and the military". If she wont take my "this is what the Republicans need to do" advice. I'm not gonna bother giving it anymore. They need to hit rock bottom, and we need to hope that we don't end up completely losing the concept of limited government in the time being.
| 506 |
Cineaste Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:51:25pm |
re: #504 Pingemi
Well both movement are tax based.
Frankly from my reading of things I suspect he colonists would have done the same thing even if they WERE represented in parliament.
I'm sorry but what about the Tea Parties is factually tax based? Big government, sure, but taxation?
| 507 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:51:40pm |
re: #501 Enkidu90046
Those values are independent of, and predate, the 10 commandments. The 10 commandments also include stuff about having no other Gods and no idols and so forth. Are you claiming those are our American values as well? The part that is our history and our values that are also in the 10 commandments are universal and completely independent of the 10 commandments, they do not owe their source in any way to the 10 commandments.
So, what would you suggest? Who should write the politically correct version of American Values? I do think we need something.
| 508 |
BryanS Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:52:09pm |
re: #487 Enkidu90046
We should ALL be free to live our lives in this country as we please regardless of our religious beliefs or lack thereof (so long as they do no harm to others) without a Government promoting religion. As for me, I am a bacon-eating shellfish-loving atheist Jew. I would be just as uncomfortable with "Under G-d" being printed on my money. And there is also the issue of religious creep. It starts as small things like putting it on legal tender and it grows into something much much more, which I think we are seeing with the Religious Right's attempts to rewrite the Constitution and the founding principles of this greatest nation on earth.
I would be in favor of printing "Under G-d" on money if only to show how silly it is that they can't even bring themselves to spell the god damned word "God".
| 509 |
Cato the Elder Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:53:07pm |
re: #307 onepistoffyid
I am not a constitutional scholar, I just know that the post office shuts down on Christmas and not Ramadan or yom kippur...therefore as far as I am concerned, Christianity is the national religon for the USA based upon its heritage, history and culture; again this is not saying that everyone has to be a christian. I as a jew am very comfortable with the Christian nature and values in the USA (as opposed to say saudi arabia or yemen).
I just wonder how long, if these particular sulfur-emanating value-thumping government-hating "Christians" ran the show, it would be before they started talking about ways to stopfen das freche Judenmaul like their cousins did in Germany. You know, Jewish influence in the media, and all that.
I never thought I'd say this, but I'm far more afraid of a Christian theocracy in this country than of a Muslim one.
The former has a real chance of happening.
*shut up the impudent Jewish yap
| 510 |
Pingemi Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:53:12pm |
re: #506 Cineaste
As all government is paid for BY taxation big government is by nature an engine for taxes, cripes they even raised the taxes on dogs here in Massachusetts.
| 511 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:53:27pm |
re: #502 ggt
Let me see if I got this right--the Tea Party people were too nerdy to do some basic research and keep themselves up-to-date on current trends of language usage?
So, when the youngun's (who don't know history) went to vote, their choices were the lame tea baggers or the jammin' guy on facebook?
hmmm...
Uh, The first paragraph, yes.
The second? Since the tea parties happened after Obama's inauguration, let alone election, I'm not following you.
'jammin'? Qu'est-ce que c'est? :)
| 512 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:53:29pm |
re: #503 Naso Tang
Not sure I follow you.
As I understand this discussion: Having "in God We Trust" on legal tender is a slippery slope to giving the theocrats control of the government.
| 513 |
Sharmuta Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:53:49pm |
re: #454 Pingemi
That's true but until 1960 the Lord's prayer was said in public schools and it didn't cause the country to self destruct.
You can make the constitutional argument that it shouldn't have been and the supreme court would agree but it can't be denied that this combined with the changing of the draft rules concerning college deferments during the Vietnam war and the Roe v Wade decision created a cultural divide in the country that we are still debating today.
One can argue that it was worth it but one can't deny it exists.
I completely reject the notion that school prayer had anything to do with the cultural issues people discuss today. I see this over and over- this idea that it was a loss of religion. I disagree- this country is just as religious as it ever was.
I think it stems from the breech of proper boundaries in the role and scope of government- the Great Society. Instead of working to improve conditions in education and the economy that would help people get themselves out of poverty- we subsidized it. We still have about the same level of poverty today as we had in the 60s, and social issues have come to the front because they've been the unintended consequence.
This notion that it was as simple as removing prayer from schools though- it's a favorite of the more theocratic wing of the right. It's much more complicated than that, and at the same time- reveals the agenda of those supporting this false notion, imo.
| 514 |
McSpiff Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:53:50pm |
re: #507 ggt
So, what would you suggest? Who should write the politically correct version of American Values? I do think we need something.
Hmmm if only the country could have some fundamental document outlining the most basic ideas upon which both government and law is formed. Ah well, maybe some day.
| 515 |
Liberal Classic Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:53:56pm |
re: #505 ArchangelMichael
I'd join the "liberal who's only conservative about money and the military" party.
| 516 |
Cineaste Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:54:05pm |
re: #510 Pingemi
As all government is paid for BY taxation big government is by nature an engine for taxes, cripes they even raised the taxes on dogs here in Massachusetts.
Just for my information - which taxes have been raised in the last 12 months?
| 517 |
Cineaste Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:54:38pm |
re: #512 ggt
As I understand this discussion: Having "in God We Trust" on legal tender is a slippery slope to giving the theocrats control of the government.
It'd be nice if God would co-sign my mortgage though...
| 518 |
Achilles Tang Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:55:14pm |
re: #507 ggt
So, what would you suggest? Who should write the politically correct version of American Values? I do think we need something.
There are as many out there as there are "policy groups". The founding documents aren't enough for you?
| 519 |
BryanS Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:55:27pm |
re: #500 Cineaste
Fair enough, but personally, I try not to associate with things that show me to be uneducated about history...
Idiots sometimes win...I mean, if you listen to the left, George Bush was the biggest idiot in the world, but somehow he was always able to best them politically.
| 520 |
John Neverbend Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:55:32pm |
re: #276 onepistoffyid
Calling Christianity the national religion of the USA doesn't mean that everyone has to be a christian or that other religons won't be respected.
It's interesting that if you look at the example of England where Christianity (specifically Anglicanism) is the national religion, with the monarch being the head of the Church of England, one might at first sight think that if the US were to adopt a similar scheme (but which denomination would be in charge?), it would be just as tolerant. I think, however, this would be a mistake, given the nature of the groups that are pushing for the US to be regarded as a Christian Country.
| 521 |
Salamantis Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:55:36pm |
re: #458 Jimmah
D'uh! Obviously they did not intend a sexual meaning to it - the point is they stupidly chose terms that already had that connotation. And now you want me to feel sad about the poor little wingnuts being all butthurt over the red faces that they have caused themselves? FAIL
And yes, I did notice that your objection has changed from who used these terms first to who applied a sexual meaning to it first. More FAIL, Sal. Should have learned more about this before you jumped in.
So let me get this straight:
The term, unlike the choice to the Tea party template, seems to be a matter of unfortunate bottom-up serendipity rather than top-down imposition. Some organizers decide to riff off the original Boston Tea Party by naming their political gatherings that, and some folks come up with the idea to send their congressspeople teabags so that they will know that there are quite a few of them, and a website innocently calls that campaign 'Teabag the Congress'. A Fox reporter also innocently refers to them as teabaggers, due to the fact that they are sending these teabags to their representatives. And it's their fault that they didn't first Google the term to find out that it just happened to be an obscure euphemism for oral-genital dipping? Or does it instead unfavorably reflect upon the puerile emotional maturity level of those who would obdurately persist in juvenilely ridiculing them by sniggeringly riffing on that second meaning?
| 522 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:56:46pm |
re: #511 iceweasel
Uh, The first paragraph, yes.
The second? Since the tea parties happened after Obama's inauguration, let alone election, I'm not following you.
'jammin'? Qu'est-ce que c'est? :)
I just think the reason Obama won is painfully obvious. The majority of the electorate are crippled when it comes to history. They are more aware of what is in the "urban dictionary". That makes those who are aware of history and are concerned with the current situation look like total nerds.
Nerds are not known for winning popularity contests. Which, is what it seems, the election has become.
| 523 |
albusteve Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:57:39pm |
so when this tidal wave of T baggers, and Beckites, and skin head supremists, and racists, homophobes, Paulians, Reaganites, anti abortionist, anti immigrant, home schooling, tax resisting, town hall screaming, gun toting, bible punching, flyover anarchists...blow BO and his liberal administration clear off the map in 2012...what will be the result?...I predict it will happen..can a mongrel, misfit, leaderless Right lead this country back to prosperity and security?
| 524 |
Cineaste Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:57:41pm |
re: #521 Salamantis
So let me get this straight:
The term, unlike the choice to the Tea party template, seems to be a matter of unfortunate bottom-up serendipity rather than top-down imposition. Some organizers decide to riff off the original Boston Tea Party by naming their political gatherings that, and some folks come up with the idea to send their congressspeople teabags so that they will know that there are quite a few of them, and a website innocently calls that campaign 'Teabag the Congress'. A Fox reporter also innocently refers to them as teabaggers, due to the fact that they are sending these teabags to their representatives. And it's their fault that they didn't first Google the term to find out that it just happened to be an obscure euphemism for oral-genital dipping? Or does it instead unfavorably reflect upon the puerile emotional maturity level of those who would obdurately persist in juvenilely ridiculing them by sniggeringly riffing on that second meaning?
But you're probably ok with calling other nitwits things like "moonbats" and "troofers" - it's just that this group are your idiots... ;)
| 525 |
Pingemi Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:58:01pm |
re: #509 Cato the Elder
With respect Cato two things:
We didn't have that going on when Christians were you know actually running the show.
Secondly I think to compare radical Christians to Radical Islam is just wrong. Where are the planes into buildings, where are the beheading videos all over youtube?
For example in under "radical Christianity" of the 50's Andrew Sullivan might be in the closet. Under Radical Islam today he would be beheaded. You can certainly say the closet is bad and a violation of personal freedom but you can't credibly argue that it is worse than being dead.
| 526 |
McSpiff Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:58:24pm |
re: #521 Salamantis
Maybe it's just reflective of how warped my generation is, but I'm not sure if I could find any of my friends in the 19-25 age group that does not know what tea bagging is. I might just have horrible friends however.
| 527 |
Salamantis Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:58:43pm |
re: #495 iceweasel
I stated very early on in this thread that I thought the charge of being juvenile was valid.
As for the rest-- do your own research! The signs had FR's URL. Check some freak republic threads from april, or just use your own google-fu. It was out there and the teapartiers named themselves that. I saw it in real time. Just because you did not, and you're now digging in very stubbornly and arguing from your ignorance, does not shift the burden of proof to me.
Besides, I'm less inclined to help out someone who's accused me of quotemining and arguing like a creationist, and has yet to retract that. Do your own research.
The quotemining charge was accurate, as the entirety of the article stated the exact opposite of what you maintained that it said alongside your cherry-picked quote.
| 528 |
transient Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:59:07pm |
re: #480 Pingemi
That being the case it has to come down to what they believe.
If a person truly believes their religion then they have to follow it. If a person feels that following it would be a violation of their oath then they should resign and stand for re-election so the people can decide with that thrown in.
Either we are in agreement, or I do not understand how this pertains to my previous post. Obviously individuals are expected to follow their belief (with appropriate input from constituents and actual data, etc.); the alternative is to follow polls --and in that case, screw the representatives and let's go straight to direct democracy. (I do not recommend this.)
If someone believes a fundamental part of his religion includes taking orders from someone in his religious hierarchy; i.e. a nonelected official and/or outside their chain of command, and they should not be running for government. When I vote for a candidate, I assume s/he will use his/her own judgment. If I wanted his religious superior in govt. office, I would have voted for him instead.
| 529 |
Enkidu90046 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:59:22pm |
re: #507 ggt
So, what would you suggest? Who should write the politically correct version of American Values? I do think we need something.
Who is talking about writing a "politically correct version of American values"? Not me. I am pointing out that this is NOT a Christian (or any other religion) nation and that the establishment of any religion, even by something as seemingly innocuous as putting "under God" on our legal tender, has no place in this country and is (in my view) unconstitutional and violates the Establishment Clause.
I am not saying that Religion should never be mentioned... obviously religion is an important aspect in world history and in the history of this nation. How can you discuss the abolitionists without mentioning their religious beliefs, for example? But teaching history is different than the government being in the business of promoting religion.
| 530 |
What, me worry? Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:59:51pm |
re: #497 ggt
I think there are hundreds (ask the Jewish Lizards).
I just don't think we should scrub our history and re-write our values to ward against as possible future success by a fringe group.
Jews are required to abide by 613 commandments. All of mankind are required to abide by only 7 of the 10. [Link: www.torah.org...]
Those 613 encompass a lot of other laws, they are mitvahs really (good deeds) about food, marriage, sex, the environment, farming, all sorts of things. Those things Jews strive to do. Those things Jews will be judged on doing or not doing. This is what it means by being the chosen people. We were chosen to do these things.
Here's a basic rundown:
[Link: www.jewfaq.org...]
But also there's a lot of discussion surrounding a lot of these topics, so it's really unfair to read the sentence and draw conclusions.
| 531 |
Ice-9 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 8:59:58pm |
Sorry, I haven't read any comments yet, but I just wanted to say Wow. That was an amazing interview, and one that crystalized lot of muggy thoughts in my head about the shoddy state of FOX News/Glenn Beck/Tea Party fearmongering posing as conservative political debate in this country today. In fact, it was so nutrient-rich, I'm going to have to view it again, so it all soaks in.
Thank you, Charles.
| 532 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:00:06pm |
re: #521 Salamantis
Here's teapartiers calling themselves teabaggers and exhorting people to 'teabag' back in February.
[Link: washingtonindependent.com...]
Sorry, they earned mockery. Don't shoot the messengers.
| 533 |
Pingemi Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:00:58pm |
re: #513 Sharmuta
The prayer per say represented a shared values system. That is why you had culturally unity. Although I can't believe I forgot about the influences of the great society. That is an excellent point.
| 534 |
Cato the Elder Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:01:12pm |
re: #521 Salamantis
So let me get this straight:
The term, unlike the choice to the Tea party template, seems to be a matter of unfortunate bottom-up serendipity rather than top-down imposition. Some organizers decide to riff off the original Boston Tea Party by naming their political gatherings that, and some folks come up with the idea to send their congressspeople teabags so that they will know that there are quite a few of them, and a website innocently calls that campaign 'Teabag the Congress'. A Fox reporter also innocently refers to them as teabaggers, due to the fact that they are sending these teabags to their representatives. And it's their fault that they didn't first Google the term to find out that it just happened to be an obscure euphemism for oral-genital dipping? Or does it instead unfavorably reflect upon the puerile emotional maturity level of those who would obdurately persist in juvenilely ridiculing them by sniggeringly riffing on that second meaning?
You think once "teabag the Congress" became a slogan there was any way in hell they wouldn't get ridiculed for it? C'mon, Sal. That's not puerile, that's inevitable.
| 535 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:01:22pm |
re: #518 Naso Tang
There are as many out there as there are "policy groups". The founding documents aren't enough for you?
hmmm, lying, murder, etc are mentioned in the Constitution? The founding documents define government limits. They are not value statements for how individuals live with each other.
| 536 |
Dark_Falcon Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:01:37pm |
re: #505 ArchangelMichael
No one in any "authority" on the right is willing or able to do this right now. All the rational voices on the right are being demonized full bore as RINOs and 'libruhas' by the party loud mouths, much as Charles is by all these asshats in the blogosphere. I think we need to wait and see if the 2010 elections are a disaster of extraordinary magnitude before people with a little pull decide to be the 2nd Coming of Buckley and say "Enough is enough".
No one in the Republican party who thinks the whacko bullshit thats going on now is good, is going to listen to me. I've never even been registered officially as a Republican. Now I remember exactly why I made that decision in the past. Even my gf calls me a "liberal who's only conservative about money and the military". If she wont take my "this is what the Republicans need to do" advice. I'm not gonna bother giving it anymore. They need to hit rock bottom, and we need to hope that we don't end up completely losing the concept of limited government in the time being.
Your points are good. I've considered just that and figured out how to proceed:
We need to take a fringe group that the party could be turned against and start quietly laying out a case against them. Not some one big and popular, someone small who can be taken down more easily. And then we need to take some asinine talking point there pushing and turn it on them as an example of how the group is a bunch of nutjobs. Small battles that we can win, and we wage the big battles later. Not for us the gallant charge of the white knight. Instead we focus on taking out some lower level crazies and work at building up some allies. Political parties are remade in such ways. It would be the work of years though. In that, you are entirely correct.
| 537 |
Pingemi Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:02:03pm |
re: #528 transient
I think our only disagreement is the "they shouldn't be running for government"
I think they should if they want to and the people can vote them in or out based on that fact.
| 538 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:02:13pm |
re: #527 Salamantis
The quotemining charge was accurate, as the entirety of the article stated the exact opposite of what you maintained that it said alongside your cherry-picked quote.
False, Sal. I pulled that quote out to mock. I linked the full article. Not the actions of someone trying to hide or obfuscate.
And now you're on my shitlist for accusing me of that.
| 539 |
Salamantis Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:02:37pm |
re: #502 ggt
Let me see if I got this right--the Tea Party people were too nerdy to do some basic research and keep themselves up-to-date on current trends of language usage?
So, when the youngun's (who don't know history) went to vote, their choices were the lame tea baggers or the jammin' guy on facebook?
hmmm...
Actually, nerds probably woulda either Googled it, or else known about it already because of the lame jokes nerds typically share. One thing you cannot accuse these people of is being nerds.
| 540 |
Enkidu90046 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:02:45pm |
re: #513 Sharmuta
I completely reject the notion that school prayer had anything to do with the cultural issues people discuss today.
I would give you a thousand updings if I could.
| 541 |
Cineaste Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:03:15pm |
re: #530 marjoriemoon
Jews are required to abide by 613 commandments. All of mankind are required to abide by only 7 of the 10. [Link: www.torah.org...]
Those 613 encompass a lot of other laws, they are mitvahs really (good deeds) about food, marriage, sex, the environment, farming, all sorts of things. Those things Jews strive to do. Those things Jews will be judged on doing or not doing. This is what it means by being the chosen people. We were chosen to do these things.
Here's a basic rundown:
[Link: www.jewfaq.org...]
But also there's a lot of discussion surrounding a lot of these topics, so it's really unfair to read the sentence and draw conclusions.
Though it is worth pointing out that there is a split identity to Judaism. It exists as both a culture and a religion in parallel. There are millions of Jews who are not spiritual at all but are culturally Jewish. Though my ancestors came from across Eastern Europe, I don't view myself as "Polish-American" or "Latvian-American" but rather Jewish American. I view it as a cultural history and I can partake of the religious elements to the extent I choose.
It's also an interesting footnote that Judaism never explicitly demands that you believe in God. There is not commandment to believe in God, only that you cannot believe in another God or Gods.
| 542 |
Enkidu90046 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:04:11pm |
re: #515 Liberal Classic
I'd join the "liberal who's only conservative about money and the military" party.
I'd be happy to join as well.
| 543 |
Cineaste Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:04:34pm |
re: #530 marjoriemoon
*to my previous point: there is a multitude of Jewish organizations that have little to no religious function at all (ADL, JDC, AJC, etc...)
| 544 |
Cato the Elder Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:05:32pm |
re: #525 Pingemi
With respect Cato two things:
We didn't have that going on when Christians were you know actually running the show.
We didn't have what going on?
Secondly I think to compare radical Christians to Radical Islam is just wrong. Where are the planes into buildings, where are the beheading videos all over youtube?
For example in under "radical Christianity" of the 50's Andrew Sullivan might be in the closet. Under Radical Islam today he would be beheaded. You can certainly say the closet is bad and a violation of personal freedom but you can't credibly argue that it is worse than being dead.
You might want to read up on your Christian Reconstructionism. It's not your grandfather's "radical Christianity" of the 50s. More like the 1500s.
I repeat: In this country I'm far more afraid of Christian theocrats than their Muslim Glaubensbrüder.
| 545 |
Dancing along the light of day Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:05:43pm |
re: #523 albusteve
Yes, these fears are being fed. And, it won't be pretty if the radicals take effective action.
| 546 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:05:58pm |
re: #529 Enkidu90046
"But teaching history is different than the government being in the business of promoting religion."
I totally agree. The other side of this is that the non-religious whackos (or whatever we call them) don't want any reference to religion in schools --even as pertinent history.
Or ANY teaching of values that might be construed as religious in nature, whether or not religion is mentioned.
As a result, I think it is really hurting our country and hurting individuals.
| 547 |
Sharmuta Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:06:39pm |
re: #533 Pingemi
The prayer per say represented a shared values system. That is why you had culturally unity.
Cultural unity for who?! Think it was unifying for Jewish children to have to say a Christian prayer?
| 549 |
harpsicon Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:07:07pm |
re: #506 Cineaste
I'm sorry but what about the Tea Parties is factually tax based? Big government, sure, but taxation?
First of all, Bush's tax cuts will almost surely be allowed to expire next year, and they think, quite rightly I think, that in order to pay for all of his bailouts and programs, that it is inevitable that taxes will have to be raised a lot, and not just on those with incomes over $250K.
Also, for the first time in this country there is serious talk of a national sales tax, probably a VAT.
I'm not a tea-partier, bagger or whatever, but I think they're almost surely right on this.
| 550 |
Salamantis Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:08:17pm |
re: #538 iceweasel
False, Sal. I pulled that quote out to mock. I linked the full article. Not the actions of someone trying to hide or obfuscate.
And now you're on my shitlist for accusing me of that.
But I noticed that when you posted that link as proof that the Tea partiers themselves coined the term, you didn't pull the part of that short article out (it fit in a single post) that, ightly or wrongly, attributed the coining of the term to Anderson Cooper, didja? And that part was before the part you did quote, so you can't claim that you didn't read that far down.
I don't give an anorexic shit about either pedestals or shitlists, one way or the other; I care about what is and is not indeed the case. I couldn't respect myself if I didn't.
Motor oil is motor oil. And quotemining is quotemining.
| 551 |
Enkidu90046 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:09:11pm |
re: #546 ggt
"But teaching history is different than the government being in the business of promoting religion."
I totally agree. The other side of this is that the non-religious whackos (or whatever we call them) don't want any reference to religion in schools --even as pertinent history.
Or ANY teaching of values that might be construed as religious in nature, whether or not religion is mentioned.
As a result, I think it is really hurting our country and hurting individuals.
I have heard these assertions before, but never seen any there there. Where are these supposed groups that want to write religion out of the teaching of history?
| 552 |
Achilles Tang Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:09:11pm |
re: #525 Pingemi
Secondly I think to compare radical Christians to Radical Islam is just wrong. Where are the planes into buildings, where are the beheading videos all over youtube?
This is a crock argument. The bottom line is simply whether they intend to control your personal life in similar ways, and they do.
| 553 |
Cineaste Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:09:12pm |
re: #549 harpsicon
Also, for the first time in this country there is serious talk of a national sales tax, probably a VAT.
I haven't heard any serious talk about a VAT but, frankly, I would be in favor of one over payroll taxes. It is a consumption tax and thus the rich pay more but only on the things they choose to buy. If you buy a big-ass house, you pay a lot in tax, you rent, you don't.
It won't happen but it's worth thinking about.
| 554 |
transient Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:09:15pm |
re: #507 ggt
So, what would you suggest? Who should write the politically correct version of American Values? I do think we need something.
Apple pie? Ballpark franks?
| 555 |
Holidays are Family Fun Time Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:09:22pm |
new thread --and I need to sleep.
weet dreams all!
| 556 |
Dark_Falcon Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:09:28pm |
re: #539 Salamantis
Actually, nerds probably woulda either Googled it, or else known about it already because of the lame jokes nerds typically share. One thing you cannot accuse these people of is being nerds.
Agreed. The people who attend events like that tend not to up to date on sexual terminology, nor do they wish to be.
Sal, Ice, May I ask a favor? Could you two each state your cases once more, simply? I like and respect both of you and I'd like to see if we can resolve this disagreement without bitterness. I don't know who, if anyone, is at fault. I am just seeking peace.
| 557 |
Ziggy Standard Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:09:42pm |
re: #521 Salamantis
So let me get this straight:
The term, unlike the choice to the Tea party template, seems to be a matter of unfortunate bottom-up serendipity rather than top-down imposition. Some organizers decide to riff off the original Boston Tea Party by naming their political gatherings that, and some folks come up with the idea to send their congressspeople teabags so that they will know that there are quite a few of them, and a website innocently calls that campaign 'Teabag the Congress'. A Fox reporter also innocently refers to them as teabaggers, due to the fact that they are sending these teabags to their representatives. And it's their fault that they didn't first Google the term to find out that it just happened to be an obscure euphemism for oral-genital dipping?
Your first attack has completely failed Sal, we are now left with nothing but a doomed to complete failure attempt on your part to make me feel bad for idiotic wingnuts who - yes - should have googled the term before making it a campaign slogan! Or perhaps if they just weren't so disturbingly disconnected from the rest of US culture, one of them might have been able to say "hay - hang on we can't use that". Maybe then the rest if us wouldn't have been able to have such a laugh at their expense.
Or does it instead unfavorably reflect upon the puerile emotional maturity level of those who would obdurately persist in juvenilely ridiculing them by sniggeringly riffing on that second meaning?
This is so choked up with pomposity and personal insult it could have come out of the mouth of bs monkey himself. I'd advise against relying on that sort of puffed up verbosity in arguments with me - see previous discussions with bsm for an idea of the degree of success you are likely to meet with if you do.
Oh and here's a pic from way back in feb this year:
[Link: washingtonindependent.com...]
| 558 |
Sharmuta Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:11:12pm |
re: #533 Pingemi
Although I can't believe I forgot about the influences of the great society. That is an excellent point.
The vast majority of "social issues" comes back to government spending.
Think about it.
| 559 |
transient Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:11:19pm |
re: #537 Pingemi
I think our only disagreement is the "they shouldn't be running for government"
I think they should if they want to and the people can vote them in or out based on that fact.
Yep, we disagree on that.
;)
| 561 |
Dark_Falcon Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:13:13pm |
| 562 |
Pingemi Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:14:10pm |
re: #536 Dark_Falcon
The problem there is you win elections by getting a majority, it's hard to win when you exclude people.
For example if I was a GOP candidate and I was approaching a Ron Paul supporter I would emphasize my support for smaller government and opposition to abortion. If he brought up the Crazy uncle isolation/Israel stuff I would disagree with him but If wooing him I wouldn't bring it up when making my initial point.
As Captain Renault said to Rick
How extravagant you are, throwing away women like that. Someday they may be scarce.
You win elections by finding areas of agreement with as many voters as possible and getting them to vote on you based on those areas.
Didn't Reagan say something like Just because they support me doesn't mean I support them?
| 563 |
Dancing along the light of day Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:14:28pm |
re: #561 Dark_Falcon
Nic is blue, send email?
| 564 |
What, me worry? Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:15:16pm |
re: #541 Cineaste
Though it is worth pointing out that there is a split identity to Judaism. It exists as both a culture and a religion in parallel. There are millions of Jews who are not spiritual at all but are culturally Jewish. Though my ancestors came from across Eastern Europe, I don't view myself as "Polish-American" or "Latvian-American" but rather Jewish American. I view it as a cultural history and I can partake of the religious elements to the extent I choose.
It's also an interesting footnote that Judaism never explicitly demands that you believe in God. There is not commandment to believe in God, only that you cannot believe in another God or Gods.
Indeed. I am also culturally Jewish more than religious. Although I've been studying more over the years. The culture is as binding as the religion in my view.
I try to explain this to my Christian friends, the idea that you don't have to believe but it never comes across well. The best I can do is to say, God doesn't care if you believe in Him or not, only that you do the right things. Actions more than thoughts are important.
My grandpa once told me he didn't believe in God because of Hitler. All my grandparents lost their families. We had a discussion about free will and all that, but he didn't by it. Yet he said all the prayers during the holidays. I came to the conclusion it wasn't that he didn't believe as much as he was angry which manifested as disbelief.
My mother just saw a movie at her synagogue, "God on Trial". Have you heard of it?
| 566 |
harpsicon Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:17:23pm |
re: #553 Cineaste
I haven't heard any serious talk about a VAT but, frankly, I would be in favor of one over payroll taxes. It is a consumption tax and thus the rich pay more but only on the things they choose to buy. If you buy a big-ass house, you pay a lot in tax, you rent, you don't.
It won't happen but it's worth thinking about.
In theory I agree with you about consumption taxes.
But if it happens, it will almost surely be IN ADDITION to all the taxes we already have.
A few years ago in TX we actually had a state taxation reform was meant to lower local property taxes by about a third. Except that my bill only went down 20%, and it only took two years for it to get back to where it was before. Like magic almost...
If that sort of thing happens even in severely anti-tax TX, you can be sure that taxes won't be cut without very great, yea amazing, movement anywhere else in the country!
| 567 |
Cineaste Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:18:18pm |
re: #566 harpsicon
In theory I agree with you about consumption taxes.
But if it happens, it will almost surely be IN ADDITION to all the taxes we already have.
A few years ago in TX we actually had a state taxation reform was meant to lower local property taxes by about a third. Except that my bill only went down 20%, and it only took two years for it to get back to where it was before. Like magic almost...
If that sort of thing happens even in severely anti-tax TX, you can be sure that taxes won't be cut without very great, yea amazing, movement anywhere else in the country!
I won't argue that point.
| 568 |
Dark_Falcon Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:19:17pm |
re: #562 Pingemi
The problem there is you win elections by getting a majority, it's hard to win when you exclude people.
For example if I was a GOP candidate and I was approaching a Ron Paul supporter I would emphasize my support for smaller government and opposition to abortion. If he brought up the Crazy uncle isolation/Israel stuff I would disagree with him but If wooing him I wouldn't bring it up when making my initial point.
As Captain Renault said to Rick
You win elections by finding areas of agreement with as many voters as possible and getting them to vote on you based on those areas.
Didn't Reagan say something like Just because they support me doesn't mean I support them?
I agree with your approach in the main. However, some of the crazies are people who we don't really want and who hurt our efforts to attract moderate voters by their presence. We need to run a small number of them off to get the rest of them to cool it. We'll gain more votes than we lose with such an action.
| 569 |
Flyers1974 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:19:47pm |
re: #522 ggt
I just think the reason Obama won is painfully obvious. The majority of the electorate are crippled when it comes to history. They are more aware of what is in the "urban dictionary". That makes those who are aware of history and are concerned with the current situation look like total nerds.
Nerds are not known for winning popularity contests. Which, is what it seems, the election has become.
I agree that the majority of the electorate are crippled when it comes to history. I would add foreign policy and domestic policy. Do you think this is the reason Bush II and Reagan won as well?
| 570 |
Salamantis Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:20:12pm |
re: #532 iceweasel
Here's teapartiers calling themselves teabaggers and exhorting people to 'teabag' back in February.
[Link: washingtonindependent.com...]
Sorry, they earned mockery. Don't shoot the messengers.
You did indeed prove that this individual (and disgusting) freeper not only used the term, but knew it's sexual significance, on 2/27/09.
I would think that individuals who engaged in or knew of that name for such practices subsequently spread that meaning after the term was coined for the practice of sending teabags to congress. And the practice of sending tea bags to congress pre-dated your sign, or even Obama's election, much less inauguration:
[Link: www.thedonovan.com...]
October 2, 2008
Send a Tea Bag to Congress!
Michele of A Big Victory has a great idea to protest this ridiculously expensive "bank bailout" - she is holding a Boston Tea Party!I think we ought to send teabags to President Bush and to both houses of the Congress.
I'm very happy with my Kansas Senators, Brownback and Roberts. They voted against this ill-advised rush to take more money from the voters.
I want those Senators and Members of the House who passed the ill-conceived bills to allow Freddie Mac and Fannie May to give out 100 percent home loans to admit their mistake - do you hear me, Barney Frank and friends?
I hope their constituents have the smarts to vote Barney and Nancy and Harry out of office this November.
Posted by Beth at October 2, 2008 6:26 AM
If I were you, the thought of what that freeper intended by the term would leave a bad taste in my mouth rather than prompt giggling.
| 571 |
What, me worry? Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:21:16pm |
re: #565 Cineaste
no - haven't heard of it
Tough movie. Takes place in a concentration camp where a number of Jewish prisoners put God on trial for allowing the Holocaust, in essence, for breaking the covenant with the Jews. There's a doctor, rabbi, a criminal, a few others. Very powerful flick about faith as she described it.
[Link: www.pbs.org...]
| 572 |
Salamantis Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:22:04pm |
re: #534 Cato the Elder
You think once "teabag the Congress" became a slogan there was any way in hell they wouldn't get ridiculed for it? C'mon, Sal. That's not puerile, that's inevitable.
It can be both.
| 573 |
NJDhockeyfan Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:23:05pm |
| 574 |
Dark_Falcon Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:24:03pm |
| 575 |
Salamantis Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:24:48pm |
re: #556 Dark_Falcon
Agreed. The people who attend events like that tend not to up to date on sexual terminology, nor do they wish to be.
Sal, Ice, May I ask a favor? Could you two each state your cases once more, simply? I like and respect both of you and I'd like to see if we can resolve this disagreement without bitterness. I don't know who, if anyone, is at fault. I am just seeking peace.
I find it interesting, but not surprising, that people are updinging and downdinging posts not based upon the quality of their evidence or reasoning, but upon the quality of their friendship.
| 576 |
Pingemi Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:25:00pm |
re: #544 Cato the Elder
Actually my Grandfathers were born in the late 1800's and their Christainaty was that of the Latin mass.
and the that I meant was the stopfen das freche Judenmaul you were referring to.
I personally know plenty of people who you would consider part of the Christian right socially and they just don't think like that.
Plus a coercive Christianity doesn't save the soul, so it would be useless anyway.
Now you can rightly assume some people who choose to misuse religion as a method of power and wealth might try to make that case but they normally only draw a small amount of suckers for the sake of their gravy train, much like truthers.
If you want to worry about it feel free to do so, but I've known these people, and most are pretty much concerned with making themselves right with God at least that's my impression, and believe me some of them really don't care for the beliefs of Catholics like me but even those who think I am doomed to burn have never treated me with less that resepct.
| 577 |
Dark_Falcon Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:26:12pm |
re: #575 Salamantis
I find it interesting, but not surprising, that people are updinging and downdinging posts not based upon the quality of their evidence or reasoning, but upon the quality of their friendship.
I'm trying to be objective. So far, you seem to have the right of it, as is generally the case.
| 578 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:26:43pm |
re: #570 Salamantis
Wrong again.
There is zero proof that the signholder knew the sexual implication.
But let's get this straight. Now your argument is that people knew the sexual implication of teabagging when they picked that term...and yet it's still the left's fault for laughing at them?
Please. Stop.
| 579 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:28:26pm |
re: #575 Salamantis
I find it interesting, but not surprising, that people are updinging and downdinging posts not based upon the quality of their evidence or reasoning, but upon the quality of their friendship.
Another insult. I think we're done now.
| 580 |
Salamantis Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:28:39pm |
re: #557 Jimmah
This is so choked up with pomposity and personal insult it could have come out of the mouth of bs monkey himself. I'd advise against relying on that sort of puffed up verbosity in arguments with me - see previous discussions with bsm for an idea of the degree of success you are likely to meet with if you do.
Oh and here's a pic from way back in feb this year:
[Link: washingtonindependent.com...]
See my # 570.
And sorry, but I DO think that people who snigger at the relative sexual ignorance of others regarding some obscure secondary meaning of a common word are behaving in a puerile manner.
It reminds me of Beavis and Butthead.
"You said 'teabag', dewde! Heh-heh! Heh-heh!"
| 581 |
Pingemi Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:31:21pm |
re: #568 Dark_Falcon
You really can't run off people at a public protest you can only approach them.
For example at the tea party I attended I approached someone about a rather vulgar sign he had.
Now I suspect if I told him to remove it because it was vulgar he would have argued and held it higher as people are won't to do, so I suggested that it might be what is highlighted by the press in Boston covering the event and he put it away.
Of course the Boston globe didn't BOTHER to cover 1500 people on the common but then that's the globe.
The Paulians were there, not too many but tried to be visual, so was one LaRouche guy who was passing out nonsense.
Most people there were too informed to fall for it.
| 582 |
Cato the Elder Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:34:37pm |
re: #576 Pingemi
Actually my Grandfathers were born in the late 1800's and their Christainaty was that of the Latin mass.
and the that I meant was the stopfen das freche Judenmaul you were referring to.
I personally know plenty of people who you would consider part of the Christian right socially and they just don't think like that.
Plus a coercive Christianity doesn't save the soul, so it would be useless anyway.
Now you can rightly assume some people who choose to misuse religion as a method of power and wealth might try to make that case but they normally only draw a small amount of suckers for the sake of their gravy train, much like truthers.
If you want to worry about it feel free to do so, but I've known these people, and most are pretty much concerned with making themselves right with God at least that's my impression, and believe me some of them really don't care for the beliefs of Catholics like me but even those who think I am doomed to burn have never treated me with less that resepct.
And again, with respect, I suggest you Google "Christian Reconstructionism".
They're just one sect among many, too. There's also the Christian Identity movement.
I don't want to worry about it. That's why I shine the light on it.
| 583 |
Salamantis Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:35:29pm |
re: #578 iceweasel
Wrong again.
There is zero proof that the signholder knew the sexual implication.
But let's get this straight. Now your argument is that people knew the sexual implication of teabagging when they picked that term...and yet it's still the left's fault for laughing at them?
Please. Stop.
I can see no other meaning for the Freeper's sign. Does he really mean to send teabags to your congresspeople before they send teabags to their constituents?
But the post in question, the very one to which you were replying, included this link:
[Link: www.thedonovan.com...]
and the text as well, from nearly five months before that sign. So clearly people were doing this sort of thing long before that sexual secondary connotation was applied to what they were doing.
| 584 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:37:28pm |
re: #580 Salamantis
Had you started and ended by saying this, you'd have found many of us agreeing with you.
But you're only saying it now because every other one of your claims has been so thoroughly debunked.
And you haven't apologised.
So clearly people were doing this sort of thing long before that sexual secondary connotation was applied to what they were doing.
Full circle again. Yes, they were too stupid to know better, and got butthurt when they were laughed at.
They earned it. Tough.
| 585 |
Flyers1974 Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:39:49pm |
Regarding the "teabag" controversy. The idea that we should refrain from using insulting language to mock political opponents isn't unreasonable.
The idea would be easier to respect if for example, just a few weeks ago, more people were rebuked by fellow posters for calling Obama "zero" or "0," etc..., among other things.
That's not to imply the specific people in this debate did this, or failed to rebuke, I wouldn't know whyat actions they took. But very few posters said much about that practice at all, so that may be the difficulty here.
| 586 |
Dark_Falcon Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:40:54pm |
re: #585 Flyers1974
Regarding the "teabag" controversy. The idea that we should refrain from using insulting language to mock political opponents isn't unreasonable.
The idea would be easier to respect if for example, just a few weeks ago, more people were rebuked by fellow posters for calling Obama "zero" or "0," etc..., among other things.
That's not to imply the specific people in this debate did this, or failed to rebuke, I wouldn't know whyat actions they took. But very few posters said much about that practice at all, so that may be the difficulty here.
Hear, hear!
| 587 |
Pingemi Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:41:39pm |
I was going to hit the sack an hour ago but this has been interesting. I'm going to check my reply to the question in the other thread and then hit the sack shortly, so I'm done in this one. Quite interesting talk though. If you aren't in the other thread I'll say goodnight now.
| 588 |
Salamantis Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:46:09pm |
re: #584 iceweasel
Had you started and ended by saying this, you'd have found many of us agreeing with you.
But you're only saying it now because every other one of your claims has been so thoroughly debunked.And you haven't apologised.
I never apologize for telling the truth as I see it. You should know that about me by now. I saw what you did as quotemining. I still see it that way. And I will see it that way until the cows come home and lay down and die. Whether it was intentional or un-, only you can know.
That doesn't mean that I consider you to be a bad person in general; far fom it - I like you.
Full circle again. Yes, they were too stupid to know better, and got butthurt when they were laughed at.
They earned it. Tough.
It rather appears to me as though the people doing the laughing are feeling butthurt, after being informed that such sniggering might not reflect favorably upon them.
| 589 |
Ziggy Standard Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:47:02pm |
re: #580 Salamantis
See my # 570.
And sorry, but I DO think that people who snigger at the relative sexual ignorance of others regarding some obscure secondary meaning of a common word are behaving in a puerile manner.
It reminds me of Beavis and Butthead.
"You said 'teabag', dewde! Heh-heh! Heh-heh!"
There's probably a bit of that in me - I have no problem owning up to that. I also like South Park, so loathe away if you feel you must! But if that is what your objection essentially amounts to now - that you have a different and in your view vastly superior sense of humour* to mine, that's pretty weak tea.
*I'm thinking perhaps a spiffily re-worded Gilbert and Sullivan verse or two would have been more up your street?
| 590 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:48:57pm |
re: #588 Salamantis
It rather appears to me as though the people doing the laughing are feeling butthurt, after being informed that such sniggering might not reflect favorably upon them.
And you'd be wrong, about this, and about my alleged use of quotemining.
| 591 |
Salamantis Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:49:45pm |
re: #589 Jimmah
There's probably a bit of that in me - I have no problem owning up to that. I also like South Park, so loathe away if you feel you must! But if that is what your objection essentially amounts to now - that you have a different and in your view vastly superior sense of humour* to mine, that's pretty weak tea.
*I'm thinking perhaps a spiffily re-worded Gilbert and Sullivan verse or two would have been more up your street?
I just see enough material that can be used to legitimately ridicule these people that it seems superfluous and unseemly to resort to a sexual insinueldo totally unrelated to the admitted nefarious designs of the ogalizers of these rallies.
| 593 |
Salamantis Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:54:28pm |
re: #590 iceweasel
And you'd be wrong, about this, and about my alleged use of quotemining.
If you are claiming that you did not intentionally quotemine, I accept that. It is quite possible to inadvertantly do so.
And if you are claiming not to feel butthurt that I find the use of the term to refer to tea partiers to be irrelevant, superfluous and unseemly, I accept that, too.
| 594 |
Ziggy Standard Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:55:03pm |
re: #591 Salamantis
I just see enough material that can be used to legitimately ridicule these people that it seems superfluous and unseemly to resort to a sexual insinueldo totally unrelated to the admitted nefarious designs of the ogalizers of these rallies.
It's just a bit of a laugh Sal, at people who have gone beyond the call of duty in earning it. It's not the whole anti-tea party 'manifesto' or anything. It's the passionate defence of this lameness that is superfluous and really a waste of time and energy.
| 595 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 9:56:36pm |
re: #589 Jimmah
*I'm thinking perhaps a spiffily re-worded Gilbert and Sullivan verse or two would have been more up your street?
Lol @ u. :)
re: #593 Salamantis
If you are claiming that you did not intentionally quotemine, I accept that. It is quite possible to inadvertantly do so.
And if you are claiming not to feel butthurt that I find the use of the term to refer to tea partiers to be irrelevant, superfluous and unseemly, I accept that, too.
Sorry, Sal. I didn't quotemine, inadvertently or otherwise. You're simply wrong about this.
| 596 |
Salamantis Sat, Sep 19, 2009 10:01:24pm |
re: #594 Jimmah
It's just a bit of a laugh Sal, at people who have gone beyond the call of duty in earning it. It's not the whole anti-tea party 'manifesto' or anything. It's the passionate defence of this lameness that is superfluous and really a waste of time and energy.
I'm not defending the tea parties themselves - far from it. And I most certainly am not defending their organizers. As I stated clearly way back in post #183:
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
I am quite convinced that the tea parties were from the very beginning and still are organized by some of the most repulsive and disgusting vermin trolling the gutters of American politics.
I am merely criticizing the use of a regrettable and unfortunate term to refer to them, as I also said way back in post #183:
That being the case, gratuitously sliming those who have attended such gatherings (and no, I'm not among them) with crude and odious sexual insinuendoes would seem to be superfluous and counterproductive, and to besmirch their source far more than their target.
There is far too much legitimate ammunition available against them for their political opponents to feel compelled to resort to such snarky and execrable ad hominems. For me, it's a matter of leading by example; when we call for the public political discourse be raised, the first discourse that we should raise should be our own.
Sal: Quite frankly, the use of the term reminds me of some of the juvenile snark we have come to expect on the HotAir threads, minus the sexism, racism, and homophobia.
| 597 |
Dark_Falcon Sat, Sep 19, 2009 10:05:52pm |
re: #596 Salamantis
Sal: Quite frankly, the use of the term reminds me of some of the juvenile snark we have come to expect on the HotAir threads, minus the sexism, racism, and homophobia.
That I can agree with entirely. The protesters were silly to use the term themselves, but their detractors were also in the wrong for using it on them.
| 598 |
Salamantis Sat, Sep 19, 2009 10:13:58pm |
re: #595 iceweasel
Sorry, Sal. I didn't quotemine, inadvertently or otherwise. You're simply wrong about this.
Having returned to the post in question, I must cede your point. You indeed did not refer to the quote in question as constituting a claim that tea partiers invented the term, but correctly characterized it as a claim that some of them might try to 'own' it:
Jay Nordlinger over at NRO was suggesting just last week that the tea partiers annd conservatives claim that name as a badge of honour.
However, you DID claim the photo as proof that the tea partiers had coined the term (and in that photo, with the secondary sexual meaning of the word apparent).
However, I countered with an example of the activity that spawned the term (in its primary meaing - to send teabags) being urged on the internet almost five months before the date of the photo in question.
So clearly the secondary, sexual meaning of the term did not originate with the tea partiers, but was snarkily imposed upon them by their political detractors after they first used the term in its primary, nonsexual connotation, to self-refer. As has happened with other slurs. And, as has happened in groups slimed with other slurs, there has been an even later attempt by some tea partiers to reclaim the term in its original meaning.
| 599 |
Ziggy Standard Sat, Sep 19, 2009 10:14:57pm |
re: #596 Salamantis
I know you werent defending the tea parties as such, but you were defending their butthurt as a legitimate grievance, which is what I meant by "this lameness". As for the rest, you've already said all that Sal. We know you have issues with certain types of humour. To many other people, though, it's just funny, and really not that big of a deal.
And with that I think its time to swim upthread.
| 600 |
Salamantis Sat, Sep 19, 2009 10:20:51pm |
re: #599 Jimmah
I know you werent defending the tea parties as such, but you were defending their butthurt as a legitimate grievance, which is what I meant by "this lameness". As for the rest, you've already said all that Sal. We know you have issues with certain types of humour. To many other people, though, it's just funny, and really not that big of a deal.
And with that I think its time to swim upthread.
I think it IS a legitimate grievance to object when political detractors make a name that has commonly come to refer to a group - a name whose primary meaning is anything but salacious or lascivious - an epithet of unrelated sexual ridicule due to a sexual secondary connotation initially unknown to them.
| 601 |
Ziggy Standard Sat, Sep 19, 2009 10:41:15pm |
re: #598 Salamantis
Just one final word on this:
So clearly the secondary, sexual meaning of the term did not originate with the tea partiers, but was snarkily imposed upon them by their political detractors after they first used the term in its primary, nonsexual connotation, to self-refer.
Like, obviously!:
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
And they weren't 'slimed with a slur'; they made themselves wide open to having fun poked at them, in large part due to their own lack of cultural savvy. If you want to hear real slurs and slimes, just listen to what the teabaggers are saying at their meetings. Or read what they say on their blogs.
| 602 |
Ziggy Standard Sat, Sep 19, 2009 10:42:27pm |
And now for something completely different...
| 603 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 10:52:09pm |
| 604 |
Salamantis Sat, Sep 19, 2009 10:52:15pm |
re: #601 Jimmah
Just one final word on this:
Like, obviously!:
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
And they weren't 'slimed with a slur'; they made themselves wide open to having fun poked at them, in large part due to their own lack of cultural savvy. If you want to hear real slurs and slimes, just listen to what the teabaggers are saying at their meetings. Or read what they say on their blogs.
The term teabagger reminds me of the term chickenhawk, if it also referred to avian miscegenation. With the difference that the people to whom it derogatorily refers did not send hawks to congresspeople who voted against funding the Iraq War.
| 605 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sat, Sep 19, 2009 10:58:44pm |
re: #604 Salamantis
The term teabagger reminds me of the term chickenhawk, if it also referred to avian miscegenation. With the difference that the people to whom it derogatorily refers did not send hawks to congresspeople who voted against funding the Iraq War.
So it's like exactly the same -- except for being completely different.
Sal, I can't even tell what you're arguing now, and I suspect you can't either.
| 606 |
Dark_Falcon Sat, Sep 19, 2009 11:00:17pm |
Let's just drop this one. It's not worth the candle anymore. LEt's go upstairs and talk about something else. Drinks are on me.
| 607 |
Ziggy Standard Sat, Sep 19, 2009 11:03:07pm |
| 608 |
Salamantis Sat, Sep 19, 2009 11:04:27pm |
re: #601 Jimmah
Just one final word on this:
Like, obviously!:
[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]
And they weren't 'slimed with a slur'; they made themselves wide open to having fun poked at them, in large part due to their own lack of cultural savvy. If you want to hear real slurs and slimes, just listen to what the teabaggers are saying at their meetings. Or read what they say on their blogs.
My major point is that if we are going to have any standing whatsoever to demand a modicum of political decorum from those with whom we disagree on issues, we had better be prepared to provide some as well.
Or we can just continue on embracing our own cherished and treasured snark. In which case we're in no position to complain about the snark of our political adversaries (beyond complaints about racism, sexism, and homophobia, of course).
Reciprocity: It's a two-way street. And the adults should start first, and lead the way, and, by principled example, shame the foulmouthed kids into following.
| 609 |
Salamantis Sat, Sep 19, 2009 11:06:45pm |
re: #605 iceweasel
So it's like exactly the same -- except for being completely different.
Sal, I can't even tell what you're arguing now, and I suspect you can't either.
That's what anlalogies are all about. If they were exactly the same, they'd be identities.
I note that I qualified the differences. And that you found fault with that.
| 610 |
Salamantis Sat, Sep 19, 2009 11:08:42pm |
The last thing that we should desire is to be the foulmouthed kids. Or one of two opposing sets of them.
| 611 |
Ziggy Standard Sat, Sep 19, 2009 11:23:40pm |
re: #608 Salamantis
My major point is that if we are going to have any standing whatsoever to demand a modicum of political decorum from those with whom we disagree on issues, we had better be prepared to provide some as well.
Or we can just continue on embracing our own cherished and treasured snark. In which case we're in no position to complain about the snark of our political adversaries (beyond complaints about racism, sexism, and homophobia, of course).
Reciprocity: It's a two-way street. And the adults should start first, and lead the way, and, by principled example, shame the foulmouthed kids into following.
Wingnuts are welcome to try their hand at the snark - they don't know how to do it propererly though; when they do they usually come across as genuinely nasty and fucked up, normally involving the racism, sexism, and homophobia you mentioned. Read their blogs - many of these people are busy calling the rest of the country wookies, whores and faggots among other things, and they'd be doing that whether they were getting called teabaggers or not.
So again, defending this is a waste of energy. Thinking that they'll play nice if we extinguish all mirth directed at them is just not grown up politics - its fairy tale stuff and would achieve nothing. So, I'll continue to poke fun at these chumps using the term 'teabaggers' will continue to play a part in that.
| 612 |
Ziggy Standard Sat, Sep 19, 2009 11:24:40pm |
re: #606 Dark_Falcon
Let's just drop this one. It's not worth the candle anymore. LEt's go upstairs and talk about something else. Drinks are on me.
Ok ok... I'll see you shortly for that drink DF - I'm definitely done here now :)
| 613 |
Salamantis Sat, Sep 19, 2009 11:38:23pm |
re: #611 Jimmah
Wingnuts are welcome to try their hand at the snark - they don't know how to do it propererly though; when they do they usually come across as genuinely nasty and fucked up, normally involving the racism, sexism, and homophobia you mentioned. Read their blogs - many of these people are busy calling the rest of the country wookies, whores and faggots among other things, and they'd be doing that whether they were getting called teabaggers or not.
So again, defending this is a waste of energy. Thinking that they'll play nice if we extinguish all mirth directed at them is just not grown up politics - its fairy tale stuff and would achieve nothing. So, I'll continue to poke fun at these chumps using the term 'teabaggers' will continue to play a part in that.
That is your free choice, of course.
My view upon it is that if I allow others to drag me down onto the low road, I am playing on their turf, and they will eventually resort to depths to which I am unwilling to stoop and remain myself.
However, if I choose to take the high road, they must follow me there, and elevate their discourse to a point that they are unable to sustain, while remaining themselves.
And if my choice results in a favorable change in their unseemly tactics and methods, and maybe even in their perspective, that is all to the good.
Now I'll be the first one to admit that I have not always been able to live up to this ideal. Yet I continue to consider it a fine ideal to strive for, nontheless.
| 614 |
Figgles Sun, Sep 20, 2009 6:01:39am |
I found this a relatively well-balanced discussion on Tanenhaus, which is the text page for the Moyer's interview: [Link: www.pbs.org...] After wincing that Andrew Sullivan is a "conservative" blogger, (you'd be hard-pressed to find that a common sentiment) it is a good fair summary.
| 615 |
Figgles Sun, Sep 20, 2009 7:04:46am |
re: #611 Jimmah
The irony of this post is rich. Strawmen every which way; not an argument to be found.
| 616 |
Ziggy Standard Sun, Sep 20, 2009 10:04:23am |
re: #615 Figgles
The irony of this post is rich. Strawmen every which way; not an argument to be found.
What an utterly idiotic comment.
| 617 |
Ziggy Standard Sun, Sep 20, 2009 10:12:46am |
re: #615 Figgles
FYI, (since you don't appear to have a clue yourself) a strawman is a false version of your opponents argument. I'd like you to point out what strawman arguments I am supposed to have used on that post. Apparently they are 'every which way' so it shouldn't be hard for you to provide a list.
| 618 |
Figgles Sun, Sep 20, 2009 12:00:13pm |
re: #617 Jimmah
Such a bonanza of presumptions you take, based on two short posts. I have no need to produce lists, as they are present in your post.
So, in a broader context, what I don't get is the difference between carrying around inflammatory and extreme public protest signs (with which I, too, abhor) and inflammatory and extreme on-line posts. Where's the line -- is the line based on fashion? I think LGF is trying to be high ground in political debate, but then I see this post, (which is not uncommon at LGF) and wonder if LGF is spitting in the wind, or... what?
| 619 |
BARACK THE VOTE Sun, Sep 20, 2009 3:52:55pm |
re: #618 Figgles
Such a bonanza of presumptions you take, based on two short posts. I have no need to produce lists, as they are present in your post.
So, in a broader context, what I don't get is the difference between carrying around inflammatory and extreme public protest signs (with which I, too, abhor) and inflammatory and extreme on-line posts. Where's the line -- is the line based on fashion? I think LGF is trying to be high ground in political debate, but then I see this post, (which is not uncommon at LGF) and wonder if LGF is spitting in the wind, or... what?
Downding because there are no strawmen present in Jimmah's post, and I strongly suspect you do not know what they are.
The second paragraph of your comment is just babble. Who are you accusing of 'making inflammatory and extreme posts'?
BTW, you are welcome to object to classifying Sully as a conservative blogger...but he certainly is not a liberal, and his own self-classification ought to count for something. He considers himself more conservative than liberal, last I heard.
| 620 |
Ziggy Standard Sun, Sep 20, 2009 3:56:25pm |
re: #618 Figgles
Such a bonanza of presumptions you take, based on two short posts. I have no need to produce lists, as they are present in your post.
So, in a broader context, what I don't get is the difference between carrying around inflammatory and extreme public protest signs (with which I, too, abhor) and inflammatory and extreme on-line posts. Where's the line -- is the line based on fashion? I think LGF is trying to be high ground in political debate, but then I see this post, (which is not uncommon at LGF) and wonder if LGF is spitting in the wind, or... what?
Funny, because I still can't see any strawmen at all in my post. And I don't think Salamantis saw any either, as he, like me, is invariably extremely intolerant of that sort of tactic, and would have indicated them had there been any. That's why I asked you to point them out, and surprise, surprise, you are unable to do so despite claiming that I had made them 'every which way'.
And then you have the temerity to talk about the 'high ground in political debate'. What a joke.
| 621 |
Right Brain Sun, Sep 20, 2009 6:17:49pm |
Sam Tanenhaus is the editor of the New York Times Books review, he is the editor solely responsible for the NY Times black out on reviewing conservative books, regardless of how well-written, their popularity indicated by sales, or their influence on American culture; I notice that he could not bring himself to mention Mark Levin who has a top selling academic book, Liberty and Tyranny, a book that Mr. Tanenhaus' paper has steadfastly refused to review. Ditto for all of Ann Coulter's books, many of which made it onto the top ten bestselling books, and stayed there for months.
He also made a real chuckler: "The Supreme Court stopped the democratic process in 2000 and installed their guy." Excuse me: The Supreme Court IS part of the democratic process, and when his own paper, the NY Times, hand-counted the Florida votes they found that Bush had won. Then, the bile not yet absorbed, they counted by hand AGAIN, and found Bush had won.
That editor Tanenhaus works for a newspaper that has only a shadow of its former readership, and has to borrow operating money in Mexico at loan-shark rates indicates not a death of conservatives, but rather a death of Left-wing ideologues such as Mr. Tanenhaus and his New York Times Book Review.
| 622 |
freetoken Sun, Sep 20, 2009 10:11:12pm |
re: #621 Right Brain
While I don't agree with Tanenhaus' thoughts on the 2000 election, the fact that he refused to lend any credibility to haters like Levin and Coulter is to his credit.
| 623 |
Right Brain Mon, Sep 21, 2009 3:53:45am |
re: #622 freetoken
I have not read Liberty and Tyranny, nor frankly, any of Coulters books. However both writers are lawyers with distinguished legal accomplishments in government, whereas Mr. Tanenhaus has a degree in English only (an insufferable crowd second only to art history majors imo) and no public accomplishments whatsoever; the point being he is claiming a death of conservatism while refusing to review conservative books written by people with more education than himself, because, obviously, they do not fit his world view. In his case it smacks of a profit motive.
Khal Wimpo (free internal organs upon request!)
The Pandemic Cost 7 Million Lives, but Talks to Prevent a Repeat Stall In late 2021, as the world reeled from the arrival of the highly contagious omicron variant of the coronavirus, representatives of almost 200 countries met - some online, some in-person in Geneva - hoping to forestall a future worldwide ...
Cheechako
Once Praised, the Settlement to Help Sickened BP Oil Spill Workers Leaves Most With Nearly Nothing When a deadly explosion destroyed BP’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, 134 million gallons of crude erupted into the sea over the next three months — and tens of thousands of ordinary people were hired ... Cheechako
Alone in a Bathroom: The Fear and Uncertainty of a Post-Roe Medication Abortion Angel tucked two white pills into each side of her mouth, bracing herself as they began to dissolve. Her deepest fears and anxieties took over. Angel had wanted to talk to a doctor before she took the pills to ... Cheechako
They Were Desperate to Get Pregnant. Then IVF Gave Them Extra Embryos. One morning last spring, Ashley Harrolle put her 1-year-old daughter down for a nap and went to the kitchen. She pulled up her fertility clinic’s contact information. It was time to make the call. In a freezer several hundred ... CheechakoJoe Bacon ✅
Texas County at Center of Border Fight Is Overwhelmed by Migrant Deaths EAGLE PASS, Tex. - The undertaker lighted a cigarette and held it between his latex-gloved fingers as he stood over the bloated body bag lying in the bed of his battered pickup truck. The woman had been fished out ... Cheechako
