Previous  1  2  3  4  Next

Fine we agree then.

Yes well legitimate issues get clouded beyond perception by the silliness.

   

Sure. But some people defending the leftist/Democratic side of the issue get just as clouded. Not JUST the Republicans. Attacking all of them for whatever silliness that occurs is unfair, because both sides are committing the issue

   

Yes but this isnt a thread about democratic silliness. This is a thread about supposed 'flea and tick like', "socialists" showing up at "tea bagger" parties and....what? Nothing. Just another stage to rant a lot of useless nonsense about supposed socialism. And my criticisim was focused on that. Pointing out that democrats can be 'just as bad' is frankly beside the point. We can do this all day: any issue regarding democratic silliness (for lack of a better word) can just be negated by pointing out republican 'silliness' and so on and so on. Goes nowhere and addresses nothing. Nothing wrong with focusing on one issue at a time.


Meeeh, I don't think I did attack 'all of them'. I think it's pretty clear I'm attacking this throwing up of the 'socialism spector' at any given opportunity. It's really no different than throwing up the "Hitler Card" at any given opportunity....
"Obama/Bush drives cars and has body guards....you know who else drove cars and had body gaurds? Hitler!"
...the socialism thing, imo, is on this same childish level.

   

Hmm. You give off the wrong impression then. The same impression I received when I first saw your distaste for "Republican Talking Points" in the ACORN discussion a few months back. Sometimes "Republican Talking Points" are legitimate issues and not just whining.

Edit: If you say so. I think the "socialism" statement is a label used by populists to rally support against legitimate issues. Maybe the socialism label is wrong, but the issue is still there and should still be discussed. The Hitler label is wrong in any sense.

   

What can I say? I don't rememebr exactly what the gist was from a couple of months back but I'm pertaining to this discussion here and the post I made that you replied to.


Yes but some criticizims - a LOT of them - are centered soley on disproval of a specific issue based on the (wrong) idea that the issue is about 'socialism' when it isn't.

   

Fair enough. The past is the past.



Maybe, but I haven't seen that on this site and I'm not going to bother with those outside criticisms if those people can't have a voice to respond. I have better things than to join a circle jerk.

   

My point is the tea party movement was in its origins, and at its core an anti-tax, pro-personal-liberty, pro the American dream, right to seek personal success, kind of movement.

Now I happened to notice a new type individual moving in on the movement. People who are more nanny state, need to control, redistribute the wealth from above types. Apparently it is now uncool to refer to those type of people as socialists, or their policies as socialistic. Very well then. What do I call them?

   

Ticks apparently. Carry on fiddledog, I promise not to molest your little hate-fest threads you love to post so much.

   

Cool. Thanks. To all my peeps then. What are we going to do about all these damned socialists trying to hijack the movement to lower taxes, and demand more personal freedom to succeed?

The first thing I'd recommend is don't be intimidated by stuff like hateful labeling of critique as "hate-fest". It's an old Saul Allinsky trick, where they infiltrate, then insist you live up to your own rules. So you see, I can't call a socialist a socialist because that would be "hateful", and we don't want to be that.

I guess we should visit a Palin thread some time, and learn the proper way to pleasantly critique. (you got the sarcasm there, right?)

   

I'm sorry were you speaking to me? It's funny because the body of your psot here seems to be tring to be sarcastic but I really don't see much difference.

   

Probably should have spoke out when dubya was signing every single spending bill, EVERY SINGLE SPENDING BILL, that was put in front of him. Those cost money. Probably should have spoke out before Obama's auto bail out. Bailing out car companies? Why the hell would you do that? And to the tune of how much???

Probably shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq, kind of expensive. Probably should have told greenspan to shove his deregulation... also wound up being kind of expensive.

Now, time to pay for all that debt. Whining about taxes is just that, whining. The debt has to be paid.

Demand more personal freedom to succeed? You mean freedom to dump this debt on the next generation. Pretty sure that's what you meant.

   

Actually the classic tea party attendees aren't big fans of Bush either. If you want to attack them in a way they'll find credible, you most likely need to do it with Reagan. He's their goal post individual, if one must assume they have one with a face.

Or, are you just saying "why now?". That has a different answer.

   

Fair enough but they didn't conduct rallies against him and they didn't call him a socialist either did they? So it would seem as i suspected the difference between a POTUS that simply spends and a POTUS who's a socialist is whether or not he has a 'D' before his title.

   

I'm not out to attack anybody.


Let's hear it.

   

Very well, but this is just an opinion. I make no claim to being the gatekeeper of eternal truth.

The way I see it the tea party movement, and the townhall protests are at their core the same thing.

This is important, I think, because it was with the townhall protests we saw the MSM suddenly perk up their ears, and give them attention. At this point what could have scattered, and dissolved into a smattering of discontented voices starts to gel into a solidified force of grassroots protest.

It's common to think of townhall protests as being a reaction to healthcare, but you can trace it back farther to the discontent derived from the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill being pushed through before anybody could read the bill. At their information sources these people are told this will lead to the largest tax in their nation's history, as well as inflated prices on just about everything, and excessive nanny state controls, and auditing of their daily lives.

So from the viewpoint of the people called from their homes to jump in their cars and attend rallies, it's mostly those two issues sparking the flame - cap and tax, and expensive, excessively, socialized healthcare.

Then other stuff happens. The deficit triples. Unemployment zooms to over 10% when the purpose of the stimulus bill was supposed to keep it below 8. Discontent continues to churn over what's seeing as wasteful measures such as cash for clunkers. The campaign promise of no new taxes looks like it's doomed to be broken in ways that will challenge even the most cynical. Fuel to the flame. Now you've got a certified movement of protest, with others piling on bringing all their assorted bitches with them.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  Next