- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 41,104
- Reaction score
- 12,202
- Location
- South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Meaning you can't or won't answer him?
J, you over simplify and are actually using a minority to paint the whole both in using this article and how you paint those who oppose the Tea Party. Both sides have extremeists. Tea party memebers are more extremeist of the republican party, not that 100% of them are republican mine you. But those who join the tea party are LARGELY more extreme. Code pink is, for example, more extreme than you every day democrat or even the everyday liberal. Such groups tend to go too far. It is not partisan or sterotyping to say that.
No, meaning that he should re read what he commented on for comprehension...I thought that was clearly typed....
I see, so if we as conservatives don't agree with radical agenda's that have taken over, and co-opted the liberal left in government today, then we are the extremists....Nice how you do that so effortlessly.
j-mac
As nothing he said showed he lacked comprehension, that statement made no sense, hence, one has to question what you were really doing.
More, if you see radical everywhere, you are the radical.
But that really doesn't address what I said. have you read for cpmphrehension yet?
I know, it was Bill Kristol running through the crowd, shouting 'we're not gonna take it....'
:roll:
j-mac
j-mac said:So because some anti capitalist, radical, buffoon says it, and you agree with that tripe that Street writes, then it must be true eh?
what if...? said:Can you give me a quick breakdown of what the author of the book posits?
Street's book is highly sourced. Paul even went to local Tea Party group meetings to see what it was about and, like Chomsky, had at that time false impressions that there was any sort of grassroots base to it.
Now, unless you can present some evidence which shows this grassroots nature - something nobody has ever been able to present - then go for it. But the fact that you have to whine about Paul's politics instead of addressing what we're talking about exposes the fact that you are wrong and just don't want to admit it.
Street's book is highly sourced. Paul even went to local Tea Party group meetings to see what it was about and, like Chomsky, had at that time false impressions that there was any sort of grassroots base to it.
Now, unless you can present some evidence which shows this grassroots nature - something nobody has ever been able to present - then go for it. But the fact that you have to whine about Paul's politics instead of addressing what we're talking about exposes the fact that you are wrong and just don't want to admit it.
"The Tea Party portrayed in this book is not a social movement, but rather a loose conglomeration of partisan interest groups set on returning the Republican Party to power. Despite protestations to the contrary, the Tea Party is Astroturf and partisan Republican to the core. We find little to no evidence that it is a manifestation of local populism. It is not an "uprising" against a corrupt political system or against the established social order. Rather, it is a reactionary, top-down manifestation of that system, dressed up and sold as an outsider rebellion set on changing the rules in Washington. Far from being antiestablishment, the Tea Party is, we feel, a classic, right-wing, and fundamentally Republican epitomy of what the formerly left policial commentator Christopher Hitchens once called "the essence of American politics": "the manipulation of populism by elitism" (emphasis added)..."
Street, Paul and Dimaggio, Anthony. Crashing the Tea Party. p.10
Isn't civil nonviolent disobedience the tried and true method for effecting political change? I mean, agree or disagree with the protesters and their demands, but from a distance it would appear to be an effective demonstration. Were some of the protesters instigating unlawful behavior? Undoubtedly. Was the police response too aggresive? Perhaps - but predictable nonetheless.
j-mac said:No see, unlike you whom have probably never attended an actual Tea Party event, instead taking the word of dumbasses like Chomsky, or Street, who have their own agenda, I have been, and see nothing of the sort that you describe.
The thing that get's you people that are against the Tea Party is that you have no real way to discredit it because of its un organized nature and true grassroots beginnings
what if...? said:I didn't whine about anybodys politics, I think you have me mixed up or misunderstood.
My claims as to a prior existence are based on info posted here, and the fact that existing groups were co-opted, which your quote says as well.
We're on the same side here. I actually think I'm FARTHER on your side than you are and we're just failing to communicate.
I've been to a few Tea Party events, including attending some local meetings. They're extremely top-down and hierarchical.
This statement has already been discredited.
I was quoting j-mac there.
Right wing groups existed. The Tea Party did not; it was manufactured from the top down by corporate interests and the media (including the liberal media - NYT and MSNBC played a huge role in its creation), and perhaps absorbed other pre-existing groups that were, however, not the Tea Party. But there was never any grassroots base to it.
This is spontaneous populism...
Right wing groups existed. The Tea Party did not; it was manufactured from the top down by corporate interests and the media (including the liberal media - NYT and MSNBC played a huge role in its creation), and perhaps absorbed other pre-existing groups that were, however, not the Tea Party. But there was never any grassroots base to it.
I've been to a few Tea Party events, including attending some local meetings. They're extremely top-down and hierarchical.
This statement has already been discredited.
I was quoting j-mac there.
Right wing groups existed. The Tea Party did not; it was manufactured from the top down by corporate interests and the media (including the liberal media - NYT and MSNBC played a huge role in its creation), and perhaps absorbed other pre-existing groups that were, however, not the Tea Party. But there was never any grassroots base to it.
Here we go...Joe, when you start out disingenuous in posting, and have obviously lost what ever argument you were attempting within the second post to me, then sorry dude you are no longer worth the comment...Thanks for playin' though. Better luck next time.
j-mac
Why is it assumed that these liberals (or, more relevantly, actually violent liberals) are the same ones who scolded conservatives for their use of dangerous rhetoric? By that logic, I can discredit your entire post with reference to the (largely conservative) KKK, which has undoubtedly committed vastly more violent atrocities than occupying the Brooklyn Bridge.I used to look at crap like this and use it as validation that my theory of, what ever libs accuse conservatives of is in fact what they do. Remember, how libs in the media, and in here tried, and continue to try and paint Tea Partiers as "extreme", "Violent", or worse?
Well, I don't recall any stories of 700 Tea Partiers being arrested...We'd better be prepared, these leftists, and libs, could very well bring violence when Barry is booted from the WH, after Obama's is done stoking the division campaign he is starting now.
j-mac
Ikari said:I don't think it started that way. I think the Tea Party did start as an honest, grass roots campaign against large government. However, I think it was very quickly captured by the body politic and now is nothing more than a propaganda machine.
what if...? said:Do you see the phenomenon I'm referring to where the tea party is causing problems for the very entities resposible for their existence?
I think the existence od the tea party could COST the Republicans the next election.
And the only proof you have is other radical leftists saying such...Yeah, now there is real proof.....pfft....You're discredited.
j-mac
This is spontaneous populism
This is not
I mean the real right-wingers are psycho...
I saw no billy clubs, no one injured, just those refusing to follow the orders of the Police being arrested after several warnings, and issued a summons to appear in court...Wow, that is harsh.....:roll:
j-mac
This is a vile comment, and what it says about you is glaring.
j-mac
Billionaire investor George Soros says he can sympathise with the ongoing protests on Wall Street, which have spread to other US cities.
He said he understood the anger at the use of taxpayers' cash to prop up stricken banks, allowing them to earn huge profits.
A large rally is planned for Wednesday in New York City, with backing from union groups.
More than 700 protesters were arrested on Saturday on Brooklyn Bridge.
The demonstrations - based at Zuccotti Park, near Wall Street and the Federal Reserve - are now entering their third week.
Answering questions during a news conference at UN headquarters on Monday, Mr Soros said: "The decision not to inject capital into the banks, but to effectively relieve them of their bad assets and then allow them to earn their way out of a hole leaves the banks bumper profits and then allows them to pay bumper bonuses."
j-mac said:This is a vile comment, and what it says about you is glaring.
Soros said:Answering questions during a news conference at UN headquarters on Monday, Mr Soros said: "The decision not to inject capital into the banks, but to effectively relieve them of their bad assets and then allow them to earn their way out of a hole leaves the banks bumper profits and then allows them to pay bumper bonuses."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?