Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. This post has been removed.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...? : Simply an obnoxious thing to say.  Typical of your mindless ranting. And you are a one to talk about spreading lies... Hitler is a liberal.  Lenin and Obama are similar.  The Koran does not cotain thw word "love".  Just a few of your lies. Despicable.
    Posted by Reubenhop[/QUOTE]

    Right.  But calling TEA party members terrorists?  Why, that's the fount of truth. 

    Lenin and Obama seem similar to me.  both were liberals who had a distain for the people, among other "qualities".
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...? : Please stop pretending that your little splinter organization is "We the People".  I am part of that "People" and you and yours' don't represent my interests at all.
    Posted by Reubenhop[/QUOTE]

    Reuben, why all the hostility?  Your side won:  Government gets larger, the economy will crack under the debt.  Isn't this a day you should be celebrating?
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...? : "Critical thinking"... is that what mudslinging is called these days? So instead of smearing the Tea Party as racists or terrorists, they are smeared as Confederates.  Much better smear.
    Posted by BobinVa[/QUOTE]

    Only progressives possess this "critical thinking" attribute that evades the rest of us, you know, the ones calling for fiscal sanity.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...? : "Critical thinking"... is that what mudslinging is called these days? So instead of smearing the Tea Party as racists or terrorists, they are smeared as Confederates.  Much better smear.
    Posted by BobinVa[/QUOTE]

    You refuse to even look at the argument.  That is a lack of critical thought.  We have had a states right, decentralized power political issue since the founding of the nation.  It reached its crisis point with the Civil War.  And the issue certainly did not disappear afterwards... especially in the ranks of consevatives.  That's the history.  You feel uncomfortable about it?  Too bad. Self awareness is not your forte. 
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...? : Correct Reub, but, there is most definitely that "underlying tone" of outright racism.  I refuse to believe it.  Do I think there ARE racists in this country,.....? Yes.  Some people will never change and deserve to be ignored.  Do I think a country that elected this president with a large majority is hung up on skin color,.......No.
    Posted by jmel[/QUOTE]

    For the most part, I agree with you.   The Confederacy argument was intended to make the argument a bit more dramatic than perhaps was needed.  But who would read the thing if it was about the Anti-Federalists?  Or the failure of the Articles of Confederation?
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...? : Right.  But calling TEA party members terrorists?  Why, that's the fount of truth.  Lenin and Obama seem similar to me.  both were liberals who had a distain for the people, among other "qualities".
    Posted by skeeter20[/QUOTE]

    I don't support the view you present.  That is being irresponsible in one's political beliefs and avoiding true critical thinking.  But you have no problem in engaging in such behavior.  That's how ideology has warped you.
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from KittyDuke. Show KittyDuke's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    Isn't critical thinking the core of the TP movement?

    Isn't it great to be able to change and influence government?
     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. This post has been removed.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from APerfectCircle. Show APerfectCircle's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    Just what we need...more labels.
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from lrecliner. Show lrecliner's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]Just what we need...more labels.
    Posted by APerfectCircle[/QUOTE]

    Well, according to some, assigning more labels is supposed to be thought provoking. Salon.com, where have you been all my life???!!
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    Reuben has no problem with a 'six degrees of separation' linkage between the Confederacy and the Tea Party, no matter how tenuous...this is 'critical thinking' ...
    ....but remember, don't dare to have any 'critical thinking' about any possible historical linkage between American leftists and Communists, or in fact express any negative thoughts about Leftists, that would be :  

    "McCarthyism"...smearing a group based on tenuous connections..
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from KittyDuke. Show KittyDuke's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    Perhaps my dear friend Reuben was diagnosed with 'Selective critical thinking'.
     
    It's been going around these days.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    Should I be surprised that most of the responses to this thread are disproportionately attacking or decontextualizing the argument out of hand without making any clear rebuttal...??  (other than the attacks on me personally, that is.)

    Shame on me for thinking this group was intellectually mature enough to debate a difficult, challenging proposition on its own merits - however questionable those merits may be.  This is not the first time, and I should probably know better.

    Apparently, it's perfectly fine to 'label' people who lean left politically with any number of slurs or epithet, but somehow, without any logical reason, "neo-confederate" is a damnable phrase to describe the anti-govt tea party...?? 

    And once again, the communication lines are down....

     
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from KittyDuke. Show KittyDuke's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    Generalizing is never fair.

    Isn't 'anti govt tea party' a label ??

    Can you qualify please... intellectually please?
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from lrecliner. Show lrecliner's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]Should I be surprised that most of the responses to this thread are disproportionately attacking or decontextualizing the argument out of hand without making any clear rebuttal...??  (other than the attacks on me personally, that is.) Shame on me for thinking this group was intellectually mature enough to debate a difficult, challenging proposition on its own merits - however questionable those merits may be.  This is not the first time, and I should probably know better. Apparently, it's perfectly fine to 'label' people who lean left politically with any number of slurs or epithet, but somehow, without any logical reason, "neo-confederate" is a damnable phrase to describe the anti-govt tea party...??  And once again, the communication lines are down....  
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]

    What you fail to understand is that people don't agree with the the article. In a nutshell I see the article as an obvious ploy to associate the tea party with racism, which aint exactly anything new, its just presented from a different angle. It seems to me that you have this opinion of yourself that if others don't agree with you, then they are not "intellectually mature" enough, so you insult them as being beneath you and the ability to debate rationally. That is not the case. They understand the article (and your opinion) perfectly and simply disagree with it. Even other lefties on this thread have at least partially admitted the comparison to the confederacy is a stretch as was an attempt to sensationalize. I think your ideology is blinding you. You seem smart enough to do the mental work to extrapolate the message that the author is trying to convey.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from WhichOnesPink. Show WhichOnesPink's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]Should I be surprised that most of the responses to this thread are disproportionately attacking or decontextualizing the argument out of hand without making any clear rebuttal...??  (other than the attacks on me personally, that is.) Shame on me for thinking this group was intellectually mature enough to debate a difficult, challenging proposition on its own merits - however questionable those merits may be.  This is not the first time, and I should probably know better. Apparently, it's perfectly fine to 'label' people who lean left politically with any number of slurs or epithet, but somehow, without any logical reason, "neo-confederate" is a damnable phrase to describe the anti-govt tea party...??  And once again, the communication lines are down....  
    Posted by MattyScornD[/QUOTE]

    This isn't the first time you've posted this kind of reaction. And YET you still haven't learned from it. That's very telling.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]Generalizing is never fair. Isn't 'anti govt tea party' a label ?? Can you qualify please... intellectually please?
    Posted by KittyDuke[/QUOTE]

    1) It wasn't a generalization. "Fairness" is irrelevant to the facts.

    2) Yes, it is a label but one of their own making and a prideful one at that.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from BobinVa. Show BobinVa's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    "...somehow, without any logical reason, "neo-confederate" is a damnable phrase"
     
    What a damnably stupid creepy statement. Being called "neo-Confederate" is a slander, period, who the hell you kidding?

    Actually, I did reply and answered the Far left propaganda article...
    1) overall, regional stereotypes are now dubious , given the new South, full of transplanted Northerners.  The fact the South is more conservative is based in part on the fact many Northerners sick of high taxation and failed liberalism in Northern big cities got the hell out. It has nothing to do with the Confederacy of a hundred fifty years ago.
    2)  "The impeachment of their fellow Southerner Bill Clinton was an attempted coup d'état by the Southern white minority in the United States" . Damnable fact-free lie and smear.
    3) the "Tea Party'  is not a "Party" like the GOP and Democrats, and not a Southern movement. The author strictly defined the Tea Party as elected officials, and more from the South have defined themselves as "Tea Party" ... The movement is not strictly definable as such, and is more than elected officials ....the election of moderate GOP Mass. Senator Scott Brown was one of the first results of Tea Party involvement.  As was the election of Chris Christie, whose Southern drawl needs work...
     
  23. This post has been removed.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from KittyDuke. Show KittyDuke's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

     "Fairness" is irrelevant to the facts

    With notable and selective exceptions:

    New Black Panthers
    Terrorists constitutional rights

    Cheers.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?

    In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...?:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Tea Party as 'Neo-Confederates'...? : What you fail to understand is that people don't agree with the the article. In a nutshell I see the article as an obvious ploy to associate the tea party with racism, which aint exactly anything new, its just presented from a different angle. It seems to me that you have this opinion of yourself that if others don't agree with you, then they are not "intellectually mature" enough, so you insult them as being beneath you and the ability to debate rationally. That is not the case. They understand the article (and your opinion) perfectly and simply disagree with it. Even other lefties on this thread have at least partially admitted the comparison to the confederacy is a stretch as was an attempt to sensationalize. I think your ideology is blinding you. You seem smart enough to do the mental work to extrapolate the message that the author is trying to convey.
    Posted by lrecliner[/QUOTE]

    What you fail to understand is that nobody has offered a reasonable rebuttal to the argument at hand, so therefore, they can't debate rationally...at least not on this topic.

    I said myself - very clearly - in the first line that I don't even completely agree and that its merely a thoughtful exercise.  Or did you miss that part?

    Why don't they agree?  Why is it a "ploy"?  What's the author's "angle"?  What evidence proves the author's premise is wrong?  Why are reactions to it so visceral and unreasonable?  Why was I wrong to post it in the first place?

    Mere disagreement is not a viable position in any debate, nor is discomfort.  If a topic is not to your tastes, there is no obligation to respond.

    And if we can't talk about topics like these, then this isn't much of a forum, is it...??
     

Share