Off Topic · Tea Party news coverage (page 5)

Posted by orangeblobman:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by orangeblobman:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by orangeblobman:

No no, not at all. But lets use our common sense. No one would hold that sign up and expect it to be interpreted in a positive way. I am not for playing games and setting traps. Like I said, common sense would dictate that that kid on the bike meant it in a bad way. I am not saying the parties were good or bad, I was not involved and am not very political in nature, but really, what is the use of making that sign?

Well I agree that it is generally bad when any group does not have diversity. I'm a psychology professor and I teach a course on stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination, actually, and enjoy this topic a lot. Prejudice can occur at many levels of conscious awareness. I don't think many of these people are intentionally or consciously racist or prejudiced. Some may be but I suspect most are not and are generally good people who have just developed very different attitudes than I have and than most of our country right now. "Less conscious" prejudice (which we call implicit prejudice) is a much more complicated topic.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 04-18-2009 12:17 PM]

Why is it bad when a group does not have diversity? It is worse, I feel, when diversity is thrust upon a population that is, was, doing fine without it. So, as a psychology professor, do you think that forcing diversity on a population might have something to do with these 'less conscious' prejudices?

You'll have to explain what you mean by "forcing diversity" if you want me to answer the question. If you're talking about affirmative action, then my answer is no, prejudice was around way before affirmative action and will continue regardless of what happens with affirmative action. Based on my own readings of the literature, I believe prejudice, or at least a preference for those most similar to us and a bias against those dissimilar, is an inherent component of human existence. The best we can do, in my opinion, is to try to reduce it and have programs that compensate for it in areas where scientific studies show that prejudice is abundant.

RE: Diversity: There's a lot of evidence that groups of people with diverse opinions and experiences tend to make better decisions than homogeneous groups. I'm not going to go into it in detail but suffice it to say this was one of the many reasons the (mostly Republican-appointed, btw) US Supreme Court ruled a few years ago in favor of affirmative action programs.

So, you believe that a preference for those most similar to us is an inherent component of human existence, and yet your opinion is that we should reduce it? Eat and breathing is an inherent component of human existence as well, should we try to reduce this?

Yes, because there are innocent victims and my beliefs about justice view that as fundamentally wrong. There are plenty of things that are fundamental parts of human existence that we devised ways to reduce or stop in modern society:
-Difficulty traveling long distances, or traditionally beyond one's immediate family (cars, planes, boats)
-Growing facial and other body hair (Shaving, other commercial products)
-Skin burning in response to sun (sunblock)
-Pimples during adolescence (Oxy and other products)
-Hair loss during aging (Rogaine and other products)

I'm sure we can come up with thousands actually

Regarding "forced diversity," I was actually hoping you would define what you mean by it, as the term seemed vague to me, and I didn't feel I could respond before knowing what exactly you meant.




[Edited by - bonn1997 on 04-19-2009 12:48 PM]

Posted by nyk4ever:

Posted by nykshaknbake:

Bip you aren't going to win this one. It's pretty much you're with us or against us in politics these days. If someone whom we disagree it is treated poorly, they deserve it because they are dumb, hateful extremists(right or left). If you don't glow over someone on our side you're part of the enemy and deserve to be mocked and scorned.

Posted by Bippity10:

I don't even think I disagreed with anyone on this thread. I just tried to talk about media coverage and somehow got thrust into a conversation about Bush, and Klansmen and white people being pissed at black presidents, "angry conservatives" and Obama haters. I now remember why I joke around on this site so much.

I've said it time and time again, but the party structure has drawn such a line in the sand that it's ruined politics in this country.

Agreed. It's like a sporting event now. Each person just taking a side and whatever their side does, is right. Everyone else is stupid.........By the way did anyone ever respond to the original post?

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by nyk4ever:

Posted by nykshaknbake:

Bip you aren't going to win this one. It's pretty much you're with us or against us in politics these days. If someone whom we disagree it is treated poorly, they deserve it because they are dumb, hateful extremists(right or left). If you don't glow over someone on our side you're part of the enemy and deserve to be mocked and scorned.

Posted by Bippity10:

I don't even think I disagreed with anyone on this thread. I just tried to talk about media coverage and somehow got thrust into a conversation about Bush, and Klansmen and white people being pissed at black presidents, "angry conservatives" and Obama haters. I now remember why I joke around on this site so much.

I've said it time and time again, but the party structure has drawn such a line in the sand that it's ruined politics in this country.

Agreed. It's like a sporting event now. Each person just taking a side and whatever their side does, is right. Everyone else is stupid.........By the way did anyone ever respond to the original post?

Ok...whats inaccurate about some of the media's narrative that posited this "protest" as an excuse to rail against a Black president. These were the same people who for all these years screamed God Bless America at any hint of dissent --- and as little as a few years ago turned a complete blind eye to Bush wiping his ass with the constitution, ballooning our deficit, and engaging in immoral wars. On top of this, they are so politically ignorant that they dont understand that they BENEFIT from Obama's tax policies. The hypocrisy was just so overwhelming, one would think it was a mock protest AGAINST conservatives.

The backbone of this "movement" were white supremacist organizations and the Sean Hannity "I know I'm a racist and will speak their language, but swear up and down I'm not" types. Thats fact. On top of all this, these cats are so socially unaware that they took to calling themselves "teabaggers" with some of them showing up adorned with teabags hanging from their mouths (!!!) So again, how were some in the media wrong again?

There are plenty of examples of media bias. This isnt one of them. You've got to understand that.

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by nyk4ever:

Posted by nykshaknbake:

Bip you aren't going to win this one. It's pretty much you're with us or against us in politics these days. If someone whom we disagree it is treated poorly, they deserve it because they are dumb, hateful extremists(right or left). If you don't glow over someone on our side you're part of the enemy and deserve to be mocked and scorned.

Posted by Bippity10:

I don't even think I disagreed with anyone on this thread. I just tried to talk about media coverage and somehow got thrust into a conversation about Bush, and Klansmen and white people being pissed at black presidents, "angry conservatives" and Obama haters. I now remember why I joke around on this site so much.

I've said it time and time again, but the party structure has drawn such a line in the sand that it's ruined politics in this country.

Agreed. It's like a sporting event now. Each person just taking a side and whatever their side does, is right. Everyone else is stupid.........By the way did anyone ever respond to the original post?

Political arguments are fine as long as everyone involved is giving informed opinions becaus if people are going to just reguergate misinformation then no that opinion is not going to given the same amount of respect as one that involves those pesky things such as facts. Simply if you know very little about a subject and don't really care to learn more about it then don't even discuss it or try to debate it unless you have an incredibly thick skin. For example if I state that I strongly disagree with our POTUS because because he received advice from a Racist who hates America should I really be taken seriously?


I think your statement only further exemplifies who very little you do know about those concerned about politics. Most Democratics particularly Liberals (which I would consider myself) have been disappointed with some of this Administrations policies. So no most of us who truly care about what's going on in our government do not treat politics as sporting event maybe if more people took politics as seriously as they do they their sports teams we would more effective leadership in our Government.

Posted by sebstar:

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by nyk4ever:

Posted by nykshaknbake:

Bip you aren't going to win this one. It's pretty much you're with us or against us in politics these days. If someone whom we disagree it is treated poorly, they deserve it because they are dumb, hateful extremists(right or left). If you don't glow over someone on our side you're part of the enemy and deserve to be mocked and scorned.

Posted by Bippity10:

I don't even think I disagreed with anyone on this thread. I just tried to talk about media coverage and somehow got thrust into a conversation about Bush, and Klansmen and white people being pissed at black presidents, "angry conservatives" and Obama haters. I now remember why I joke around on this site so much.

I've said it time and time again, but the party structure has drawn such a line in the sand that it's ruined politics in this country.

Agreed. It's like a sporting event now. Each person just taking a side and whatever their side does, is right. Everyone else is stupid.........By the way did anyone ever respond to the original post?

Ok...whats inaccurate about some of the media's narrative that posited this "protest" as an excuse to rail against a Black president. These were the same people who for all these years screamed God Bless America at any hint of dissent --- and as little as a few years ago turned a complete blind eye to Bush wiping his ass with the constitution, ballooning our deficit, and engaging in immoral wars. On top of this, they are so politically ignorant that they dont understand that they BENEFIT from Obama's tax policies. The hypocrisy was just so overwhelming, one would think it was a mock protest AGAINST conservatives.

The backbone of this "movement" were white supremacist organizations and the Sean Hannity "I know I'm a racist and will speak their language, but swear up and down I'm not" types. Thats fact. On top of all this, these cats are so socially unaware that they took to calling themselves "teabaggers" with some of them showing up adorned with teabags hanging from their mouths (!!!) So again, how were some in the media wrong again?

There are plenty of examples of media bias. This isnt one of them. You've got to understand that.

Personally I think anytime 1000's of people protest in our country it's an important thing. Whether I agree with them, or if they are crazy, or if they are racists, doesn't matter. It's still worthing understanding other people when that many people protest. Understanding why they are doing what they are doing and then making my own decision as to whether I should pay attention to it. I dont' think the media gave me that chance. I think CNN and MSNBC made up their minds about the people protesting and covered it accordingly. They ridiculed they shamed etc. I'm okay with those feelings. I have no problem with the those channels and reporters feeling that way. But if they deem the protest to be important enough to cover, they should cover it and give me information without their opinion. Fox was the exact same way. They made up their minds that all the people were angels and they covered it accordingly. It was silly.

Now whether it was an example of media bias is our own personal opinions. You didn't think it was. I thought it was. Now, why couldn't we have that conversation without me being called a conservative or having some underlying agenda? I thought it was a legitimate topic to discuss and that is why I brought it up. If you think there are more relevant examples why not bring them up? We probably agree on those settings. And I probably railed against those as well to somebody.

[Edited by - bippity10 on 21-04-2009 5:38 PM]

Posted by bitty41:

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by nyk4ever:

Posted by nykshaknbake:

Bip you aren't going to win this one. It's pretty much you're with us or against us in politics these days. If someone whom we disagree it is treated poorly, they deserve it because they are dumb, hateful extremists(right or left). If you don't glow over someone on our side you're part of the enemy and deserve to be mocked and scorned.

Posted by Bippity10:

I don't even think I disagreed with anyone on this thread. I just tried to talk about media coverage and somehow got thrust into a conversation about Bush, and Klansmen and white people being pissed at black presidents, "angry conservatives" and Obama haters. I now remember why I joke around on this site so much.

I've said it time and time again, but the party structure has drawn such a line in the sand that it's ruined politics in this country.

Agreed. It's like a sporting event now. Each person just taking a side and whatever their side does, is right. Everyone else is stupid.........By the way did anyone ever respond to the original post?

Political arguments are fine as long as everyone involved is giving informed opinions becaus if people are going to just reguergate misinformation then no that opinion is not going to given the same amount of respect as one that involves those pesky things such as facts. Simply if you know very little about a subject and don't really care to learn more about it then don't even discuss it or try to debate it unless you have an incredibly thick skin. For example if I state that I strongly disagree with our POTUS because because he received advice from a Racist who hates America should I really be taken seriously?


I think your statement only further exemplifies who very little you do know about those concerned about politics. Most Democratics particularly Liberals (which I would consider myself) have been disappointed with some of this Administrations policies. So no most of us who truly care about what's going on in our government do not treat politics as sporting event maybe if more people took politics as seriously as they do they their sports teams we would more effective leadership in our Government.

I need to meet you in person to discover if you are as wonderful in person as you are on this website.

"more people took politics as seriously as they do they their sports teams we would more effective leadership in our Government."

I agree. I also think that if more people took the time to listen to the opinion of someone they disagree with instead of insulting, putting down intelligence levels we would probably have a more informed public. Information is more than reading in books and studying "facts"(most of the times the facts are actually theories and studies that aren't actually facts), it's about listening. It's about understanding that all people have different experiences that mold their belief systems. What may be fact for me, is not a fact for someone else. A liberal policy that makes perfect sense for me in the city of Boston would not work for someone in Wyoming or Montana or Alabama or Iraq or Japan. What may be reality for me when I was making $3/hr is not reality for someone making 25 million. And there is no shame in either of us thinking differently. We don't take the time to listen and discuss anymore. We scream, put down, insult, label without getting to know, and fall into the Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Rachel Maddow style of "discussion". It's a sport, it's not actually a conversation


[Edited by - bippity10 on 21-04-2009 5:52 PM]

There was nothing political about my original post, yet somehow it was made political. Some of us defend our opinions so strongly that we argue with those that aren't even arguing with us on topics that were not even brought up.

Now for Bitty, Bonn or sebstar using what you know of me. And using what I have posted so far in this thread, I'd be curious to know what my opinion is of the protestors. I have yet to give my opinion(or have I) but somehow you guys seem to have it all figured out. So tell me, how do I feel about the protestors?

The problem becomes when we take diversity in experiences and perspectives and just take it to be equivalent to what wavelength of light is not absorbed by your skin. I think diverse opinions and backgrounds will let you cover more angles and make a desicion making process less prone to group think but it has to be mental and not jsut superficial.

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by orangeblobman:

Posted by Bonn1997:

Posted by orangeblobman:

No no, not at all. But lets use our common sense. No one would hold that sign up and expect it to be interpreted in a positive way. I am not for playing games and setting traps. Like I said, common sense would dictate that that kid on the bike meant it in a bad way. I am not saying the parties were good or bad, I was not involved and am not very political in nature, but really, what is the use of making that sign?

Well I agree that it is generally bad when any group does not have diversity. I'm a psychology professor and I teach a course on stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination, actually, and enjoy this topic a lot. Prejudice can occur at many levels of conscious awareness. I don't think many of these people are intentionally or consciously racist or prejudiced. Some may be but I suspect most are not and are generally good people who have just developed very different attitudes than I have and than most of our country right now. "Less conscious" prejudice (which we call implicit prejudice) is a much more complicated topic.

[Edited by - bonn1997 on 04-18-2009 12:17 PM]

Why is it bad when a group does not have diversity? It is worse, I feel, when diversity is thrust upon a population that is, was, doing fine without it. So, as a psychology professor, do you think that forcing diversity on a population might have something to do with these 'less conscious' prejudices?

You'll have to explain what you mean by "forcing diversity" if you want me to answer the question. If you're talking about affirmative action, then my answer is no, prejudice was around way before affirmative action and will continue regardless of what happens with affirmative action. Based on my own readings of the literature, I believe prejudice, or at least a preference for those most similar to us and a bias against those dissimilar, is an inherent component of human existence. The best we can do, in my opinion, is to try to reduce it and have programs that compensate for it in areas where scientific studies show that prejudice is abundant.

RE: Diversity: There's a lot of evidence that groups of people with diverse opinions and experiences tend to make better decisions than homogeneous groups. I'm not going to go into it in detail but suffice it to say this was one of the many reasons the (mostly Republican-appointed, btw) US Supreme Court ruled a few years ago in favor of affirmative action programs.

Wow. So making sexual jokes in regards to protestors, even if they are wrong is fair and to not think so demonstrates alot of ignorance. I bet Bip takes politics as seriously as you or I. And I follow it alot. All you've shown is that you read the DailyKos and Huffington Post.

Posted by bitty41:

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by nyk4ever:

Posted by nykshaknbake:

Bip you aren't going to win this one. It's pretty much you're with us or against us in politics these days. If someone whom we disagree it is treated poorly, they deserve it because they are dumb, hateful extremists(right or left). If you don't glow over someone on our side you're part of the enemy and deserve to be mocked and scorned.

Posted by Bippity10:

I don't even think I disagreed with anyone on this thread. I just tried to talk about media coverage and somehow got thrust into a conversation about Bush, and Klansmen and white people being pissed at black presidents, "angry conservatives" and Obama haters. I now remember why I joke around on this site so much.

I've said it time and time again, but the party structure has drawn such a line in the sand that it's ruined politics in this country.

Agreed. It's like a sporting event now. Each person just taking a side and whatever their side does, is right. Everyone else is stupid.........By the way did anyone ever respond to the original post?

Political arguments are fine as long as everyone involved is giving informed opinions becaus if people are going to just reguergate misinformation then no that opinion is not going to given the same amount of respect as one that involves those pesky things such as facts. Simply if you know very little about a subject and don't really care to learn more about it then don't even discuss it or try to debate it unless you have an incredibly thick skin. For example if I state that I strongly disagree with our POTUS because because he received advice from a Racist who hates America should I really be taken seriously?


I think your statement only further exemplifies who very little you do know about those concerned about politics. Most Democratics particularly Liberals (which I would consider myself) have been disappointed with some of this Administrations policies. So no most of us who truly care about what's going on in our government do not treat politics as sporting event maybe if more people took politics as seriously as they do they their sports teams we would more effective leadership in our Government.

[To Bip]

Bro, nobody is attacking you. At least I'm not. Calm down with the persecution complex. Their positions were marginalized because their stance is laughable. Does that not count for something, or should the media have just given them a complete pass because they are "protesters"? Doesnt sound right.

I think the reason the disparity between Fox and MSNBC looked so bad was because this protest was because Fox had a huge hand in organizing and certainly promoting the teabaggers. How is a news channel going to be, essentially, a lobbying entity in an "organic movement" is beyond me. They had a vested interest in this as their coverage was obviously agenda filled. MSNBC and the like pushed back for sure. Thats not to say, however, that the protesters werent acting like complete idiots.

For example this guy murdered the whole "movement" in one minute....

All duke did was spit a few facts that are readily apparent to anybody with a brain. Just really sad how stupid these people are and how they are being so blatantly manipulated by muliti-national corporations.

[Edited by - sebstar on 04-21-2009 5:53 PM]

Posted by nykshaknbake:

Wow. So making sexual jokes in regards to protestors, even if they are wrong is fair and to not think so demonstrates alot of ignorance. I bet Bip takes politics as seriously as you or I. And I follow it alot. All you've shown is that you read the DailyKos and Huffington Post.

The protesters made the jokes when they decided to call themselves "teabaggers."

If I started a movement called the "Asslickers" to promote awareness about Donkey saliva, what is going to be the national response?

Posted by sebstar:

[To Bip]

Bro, nobody is attacking you. At least I'm not. Calm down with the persecution complex. Their positions were marginalized because their stance is laughable. Does that not count for something, or should the media have just given them a complete pass because they are "protesters"? Doesnt sound right.

I think the reason the disparity between Fox and MSNBC looked so bad was because this protest was because Fox had a huge hand in organizing and certainly promoting the teabaggers. How is a news channel going to be, essentially, a lobbying entity in an "organic movement" is beyond me. They had a vested interest in this as their coverage was obviously agenda filled. MSNBC and the like pushed back for sure. Thats not to say, however, that the protesters werent acting like complete idiots.

For example this guy murdered the whole "movement" in one minute....

All duke did was spit a few facts that are readily apparent to anybody with a brain. Just really sad how stupid these people are and how they are being so blatantly manipulated by muliti-national corporations.

[Edited by - sebstar on 04-21-2009 5:53 PM]

I acutally didn't think you were attacking me. I think Bitty insulted me in a political conversation, again............but I didn't think anyone was attacking me. I actually think you were one of the few that tried to stay on topic a little.

I think the reason the disparity between Fox and MSNBC looked so bad was because this protest was because Fox had a huge hand in organizing and certainly promoting the teabaggers. How is a news channel going to be, essentially, a lobbying entity in an "organic movement" is beyond me. They had a vested interest in this as their coverage was obviously agenda filled. MSNBC and the like pushed back for sure.

That was my whole point Sebstar. It was three channels fighting against each other and not 3 channels giving us what was happening. if it's not worth covering, than don't cover it. Now based on what we agree on, that each channel was responding to each other, how do you know that what you saw on any of the channels was actually an accurate portrayal of the people that protested. Do we really know? Or are we basing our opinions on the protestors on our personal politics. If I am a liberal I beleive CNN's coverage. If I'm a fox news person do I believe their coverage?

Were there some nuggets of truth wrapped in their cocoon of bullshyt? Yes. Did news organizations like CNN and MSNBC push back a tad bit too hard because the more successful Fox practically sponsored the "movement"? Yes. Doesnt mean that the coverage was unfair and the protesters were did wrong in any way.

Want good coverage? How about dont get in bed with white supremicists and dont turn your movement into a hyper-partisan excuse to divide the nation even further, replete with blatant hypocrisy. At least present something that isnt laughably transparent and is at least rooted in some form of reality.

Had they done that, then we can talk about something. But they didnt...Hard to give "fair" coverage to an "unfair" movement.

The teabaggers dished out shyt and it boomeranged. Cant feel sorry for them, they didnt have a leg to stand on and they fell on their face.

Furthermore, I dont remember such an influential "news" organization like Fox being such an active participant in a protest against our Government. I dont remember NBC practically co-signing any Anti-Bush protests like Fox did against Obama. And the man has only been in office for a few days!

Just another example of Fox's irresponsible and dangerous form of journalism/hate speech. That should have been a bigger story than the stupid ass teabaggers, obviously, but Fox would have used that as a way to rally their troops and create a "they're attacking us because we are conservative' narrative.

Amazing!

They made that name in reference to an important event in history not sucking someone's c ock. That's the difference.

Posted by sebstar:

Posted by nykshaknbake:

Wow. So making sexual jokes in regards to protestors, even if they are wrong is fair and to not think so demonstrates alot of ignorance. I bet Bip takes politics as seriously as you or I. And I follow it alot. All you've shown is that you read the DailyKos and Huffington Post.

The protesters made the jokes when they decided to call themselves "teabaggers."

If I started a movement called the "Asslickers" to promote awareness about Donkey saliva, what is going to be the national response?

Posted by nykshaknbake:

They made that name in reference to an important event in history not sucking someone's c ock. That's the difference.

Posted by sebstar:

[quote]Posted by nykshaknbake:

Wow. So making sexual jokes in regards to protestors, even if they are wrong is fair and to not think so demonstrates alot of ignorance. I bet Bip takes politics as seriously as you or I. And I follow it alot. All you've shown is that you read the DailyKos and Huffington Post.

The protesters made the jokes when they decided to call themselves "teabaggers."

If I started a movement called the "Asslickers" to promote awareness about Donkey saliva, what is going to be the national response?

Well if we want to get technical, these geniuses completely mangled the original tea party movement message, but we wont even get into that kind of stuff.

But if you are going to name your movement after a very well known sexual act, and not expect to get a response in vein..well, I dont know what to say. They could have easily gotten by without calling themselves "teabaggers"

Posted by sebstar:

Were there some nuggets of truth wrapped in their cocoon of bullshyt? Yes. Did news organizations like CNN and MSNBC push back a tad bit too hard because the more successful Fox practically sponsored the "movement"? Yes. Doesnt mean that the coverage was unfair and the protesters were did wrong in any way.

Want good coverage? How about dont get in bed with white supremicists and dont turn your movement into a hyper-partisan excuse to divide the nation even further, replete with blatant hypocrisy. At least present something that isnt laughably transparent and is at least rooted in some form of reality.

Had they done that, then we can talk about something. But they didnt...Hard to give "fair" coverage to an "unfair" movement.

The teabaggers dished out shyt and it boomeranged. Cant feel sorry for them, they didnt have a leg to stand on and they fell on their face.

See now, we are getting somewhere. I agree with you. I thought all parties were equally irresponsible in their coverage. Fox clearly showed their bias in supporting the movement and the other channels did their best to slaughter the legitimacy of an event sponsored by Fox. Now you could be correct. This protest could have been a bunch of racists out to protest Obama. Bud judging by what we just talked about, there is a possibility(no matter how remote you may think it is) that CNN/MSNBC went overboard with their portrayal of the protestors in an attempt to discredit fox. Now again, pay attention to what I'm saying. I'm not saying either of these possibilities is true because I wasn't there. What I am doing is keeping an open mind, not making judgements on the protestors because this was clearly three channels fighting like children, and not actually reporting on the news. Now again, you may be 100% correct, but you have to be open to the possibilities of another option, no? Isn't that what keeping an open mind is?

That's why I was annoyed. And I'm equally annoyed at the disparity in coverage for many other "big" events.

I think this country is clearly too large for two political parties. Millions of Americans are not being represented by either party and need a voice. I do think both parties are catering to the extremes and our media is giving voice to those extremes.

Posted by sebstar:

Furthermore, I dont remember such an influential "news" organization like Fox being such an active participant in a protest against our Government. I dont remember NBC practically co-signing any Anti-Bush protests like Fox did against Obama. And the man has only been in office for a few days!

Amazing!

I don't disagree with you at all. That's why I included Fox in my diatribe. Their coverage was horrendous. But I'm also not going to single out Fox. They were all ridiculous.

create a "they're attacking us because we are conservative' narrative.

I think this is one of the problems with the discussions we have about politics. It's an us against them mentality. Nobody listening to each other, just talking about how intelligent their side is and how crazy the other side is. REality is that most americans lie close to the middle and are much more in agreement on issues than we make them out to be. I think it started with Rush and Sean and their "all liberals are crazy" routine. Then the liberals responded with their version of talk radio. When that did not work well it started to trickle into our daily news. Now our news(all three networks) have become three big talk shows in the same vein as Rush, Sean and Ed Schultz. Fighting it out, polarizing, "our side is better than your side", acting like children. I think it's trickled into the way we tlak to each other nowadays as well. The moment you disagree with some it becomes an adversarial relationship. Not two people discussing legitimate beliefs. Instead it becomes a loony conservative with crazy racist beliefs fighting it out with a socialist. Soon the insults fly, and nothing is accomplished. Just my opinion.

[Edited by - bippity10 on 21-04-2009 7:27 PM]

I'll add to the Kumbaya exchange and say that I know where you're coming from. This was just a weird ass story from top-to-bottom and I feel most news organizations lowered themselves to the level of the protesters rather than rose above it.

My politics are on full display so people can take my opinion for what its worth. In a political sphere, this country is changing and for certain people its really tough. Most of those people were out protesting on tax day. Instead of conservatives recognizing the shift of the nation, they are digging in their heels and going farther to the right.

As a result we are getting this weird imbalance where people are abandoning their core beliefs to bounce to other beliefs in hopes of making themselves feel better...i.e God Bless America --- now I hate America. This nation is in serious transition mode. It will make for some interesting stories and bedfellows, but the country will emerge as a better one in the coming decades.

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by bitty41:

Posted by Bippity10:

Posted by nyk4ever:

Posted by nykshaknbake:

Bip you aren't going to win this one. It's pretty much you're with us or against us in politics these days. If someone whom we disagree it is treated poorly, they deserve it because they are dumb, hateful extremists(right or left). If you don't glow over someone on our side you're part of the enemy and deserve to be mocked and scorned.

Posted by Bippity10:

I don't even think I disagreed with anyone on this thread. I just tried to talk about media coverage and somehow got thrust into a conversation about Bush, and Klansmen and white people being pissed at black presidents, "angry conservatives" and Obama haters. I now remember why I joke around on this site so much.

I've said it time and time again, but the party structure has drawn such a line in the sand that it's ruined politics in this country.

Agreed. It's like a sporting event now. Each person just taking a side and whatever their side does, is right. Everyone else is stupid.........By the way did anyone ever respond to the original post?

Political arguments are fine as long as everyone involved is giving informed opinions becaus if people are going to just reguergate misinformation then no that opinion is not going to given the same amount of respect as one that involves those pesky things such as facts. Simply if you know very little about a subject and don't really care to learn more about it then don't even discuss it or try to debate it unless you have an incredibly thick skin. For example if I state that I strongly disagree with our POTUS because because he received advice from a Racist who hates America should I really be taken seriously?


I think your statement only further exemplifies who very little you do know about those concerned about politics. Most Democratics particularly Liberals (which I would consider myself) have been disappointed with some of this Administrations policies. So no most of us who truly care about what's going on in our government do not treat politics as sporting event maybe if more people took politics as seriously as they do they their sports teams we would more effective leadership in our Government.

I need to meet you in person to discover if you are as wonderful in person as you are on this website.

"more people took politics as seriously as they do they their sports teams we would more effective leadership in our Government."

I agree. I also think that if more people took the time to listen to the opinion of someone they disagree with instead of insulting, putting down intelligence levels we would probably have a more informed public. Information is more than reading in books and studying "facts"(most of the times the facts are actually theories and studies that aren't actually facts), it's about listening. It's about understanding that all people have different experiences that mold their belief systems. What may be fact for me, is not a fact for someone else. A liberal policy that makes perfect sense for me in the city of Boston would not work for someone in Wyoming or Montana or Alabama or Iraq or Japan. What may be reality for me when I was making $3/hr is not reality for someone making 25 million. And there is no shame in either of us thinking differently. We don't take the time to listen and discuss anymore. We scream, put down, insult, label without getting to know, and fall into the Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Rachel Maddow style of "discussion". It's a sport, it's not actually a conversation


[Edited by - bippity10 on 21-04-2009 5:52 PM]

You need to tone down your sensitivity level. It seems that you equate disagreement with personal insults. If it's like that for you; it's best that you don't involve yourself with these types of conversations. Political discord is one of the best things this country can offer but ignorance is also far too prevalent and not challenged enough. The Iraq War is a perfect example of what happens when we don't have honest and factual conversations about government actions or policies.

I am going to hate on you for this statement but the fact that you would put Rachel Maddow in the same category as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh shows how very little you know about the media's political pundits and I am not talking about just their opinions. It's almost as though you assume because they happen to have opinions when in reality political punditry is a bit more nuanced. Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann okay but Rachel Maddow, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh are you serious.

So you want to talk politics I welcome it but not disingenuous debates filled with half-truths, misconceptions, and out-right lies in some cases (not saying your statements including any of these) but they do happen. I'm not particularly smart but if something impacts my life I'm going to take time out to educate myself about it.

The difference in meaning is far more than a 'technicality' as you say. I would certainly expect their opponents to make lewd remarks, but major network personalities? Biased at best, unprofessional at the worst.

Posted by sebstar:

Posted by nykshaknbake:

They made that name in reference to an important event in history not sucking someone's c ock. That's the difference.

Posted by sebstar:

[quote]Posted by nykshaknbake:

Wow. So making sexual jokes in regards to protestors, even if they are wrong is fair and to not think so demonstrates alot of ignorance. I bet Bip takes politics as seriously as you or I. And I follow it alot. All you've shown is that you read the DailyKos and Huffington Post.

The protesters made the jokes when they decided to call themselves "teabaggers."

If I started a movement called the "Asslickers" to promote awareness about Donkey saliva, what is going to be the national response?

Well if we want to get technical, these geniuses completely mangled the original tea party movement message, but we wont even get into that kind of stuff.

But if you are going to name your movement after a very well known sexual act, and not expect to get a response in vein..well, I dont know what to say. They could have easily gotten by without calling themselves "teabaggers"