Off Topic · Tea Party news coverage (page 6)

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"

Posted by bitty41:

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.

I actually don't think I have to lower my sensitivity level at all. I enjoy the political conversations here and normally have great conversations with everyone on every topic. I don't back down from my opinion and am telling you what I feel happened in this thread. I don't feel attacked. I do not expect any apologies or anyone to play nice, nice. But I am giving my personal observations regarding how I feel this thread and other political threads degenerate into name calling and insults and generalizations. I do find you AT TIMES to be insulting, elitist, closed minded and dismissive of those that have what is deemed to be a "conservative" point of view on any topic. Doesn't mean, I'm right. Just my opinion and I'm sticking to it. In regards to this topic, I posted my opinion on something. I ranted about the media. For four pages people yammered on about Klansmen protesting, crazy republicans, Bush, angry conservatives, eluding to me being an angry conservative that follows Rush Limbaugh, and told not to rant about this because media bias is already obvious, you big uninformed dummy. Finally when someone actually braved the topic that was originally addressed we found that we weren't to far off in our opinions on the subject. Four pages of yammering, just to find out we are on the same page. This happens a lot in our political discourse because as soon as someone challenges our beliefs we close our minds and stop listening. We insult, we label and we call names. How many times has someone on this site expressed a legitimate opinion and a passionate belief only to have someone say "you're just spitting back Republican talking points, aren't informed, need to educate yourself and are a follower of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity". Is that constructive or dismissive? Informed? Is it any different than saying "you're just doing what black people do, you aren't informed you are just spitting back Al Sharpton garbage". Both are destructive and dismissive in my view.

As for this statement:

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.

You are not hating on me, you are disagreeing with me and also educating me on political punditry. Thank you for that fine lesson. That's great, not a problem with that. But your above statement is an opinion and has little to do with how informed we are. My opinion is that she is in that category, your opinion is that she is not. Who is right on this topic depends on their point of view, not how informed they are. And yes I would also put Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olbermann and Ed Schultz and Michael Savage in a similar category. I have listened to them all and find their approach to politics(not the format of their show) to be very similar. One sided, combative, us against them and often times close minded. There are many more I would put in this category but don't have the time to list all of them. You may not agree. You may find one person to be fair while I may find them to be biased. Is that being informed or just having a point of view? Everyone's opinion is equally valid from the most politically active person on Wall Street to the most uninformed stay at home parent in the poorest town with 12 illegitmate children that doesn't have time to follow politics. I'm not sure which category I fit into, but I do know that I understand the value of an opinion of anyone no matter what direction they are coming from.

So you want to talk politics I welcome it but not disingenuous debates filled with half-truths, misconceptions, and out-right lies

We all agree on this. I would add more. I don't like disingenuous debates filled with opinions that are put forth as fact. The protests are a perfect example. From what I know none of us attended/observed the protests and/or conducted a formal unbiased poll of the participants. None of us have first hand knowledge of what went on or who the people were. Our opinions of who they were is based on our point of view, political bent, what station we watched etc. Reality is that none of us know if they were hidden klansmen, rich white people hating on the president, or normal folks who disagree with policy. Unless you were there any comment on who the protestors were is an opinion and a guess. For those who think they are best informed that reality can be a difficult pill to swallow, but that is the case. You are simply guessing who they were, based on the information that you received. Information that could have been 100% accurate or information that could have been politically biased or altered because of a childish competition amongst news stations. All i wanted was some attempt at accurate reporting so that I could form my own opinion.

bip - what's funny is that you don't know how bitty41 got her screen name...

Posted by djsunyc:

bip - what's funny is that you don't know how bitty41 got her screen name...

You are correct. I do not know