GarfieldJL Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 See: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/03/15/obama-protests-aka-tea-parties-largely-ignored-media Newsbusters has sourcing to back up what they put in the article primarily local sources (through the blogs), the bulk of the media is choosing to ignore it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 It looks like a bunch of hate-mongering, fear-mongering sacral-chapeaus with an agenda of ignorance to me. I see no evidence that there is anything that legitimate media should cover. The ideologue, fringe, and right-wing extremist blogs seem to have the market cornered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Ehh, so what? Even if the MSM reported on it, it wouldn't make any difference. Nothing worthwhile anyway. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 16, 2009 Author Share Posted March 16, 2009 It looks like a bunch of hate-mongering, fear-mongering asshats with an agenda of ignorance to me. I see no evidence that there is anything that legitimate media should cover. The ideologue, fringe, and right-wing extremist blogs seem to have the market cornered. Complaining about the fact we're getting a tax hike when Obama's Treasury Secretary is a tax cheat isn't hate-mongering and you know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 It smacks of a pseudo-tea party to me. Websites emerging simultaneously with the same hate-filled messages, regurgitating the fear-mongering idiocy of sacral-chapeaus like known drug addict Rush Limbaugh, etc. All the signs look the same, etc. Nuts like Limbaugh and others are good at appealing to their sheep, who are generally members of the wealthy class who are generally unaffected by joblessness and actually part of the problem which created the economic crises we're dealing with today. I posit that the people who show up at these rallies which fallaciously refer to themselves as "tea parties" are actually members of the wealthy class and are registered conservatives who allow themselves to fall into the rhetoric of talking heads like Limbaugh (and others on hate-radio and hate-blogs). Their cult leaders want President Obama to fail at all costs. This is treasonous in my opinion, certainly unpatriotic -and they hide their hatred and fear mongering by draping themselves in the flag and fallaciously applying appeals to patriotism (like using terms like "tea party"). They want President Obama to fail even at the cost of ruining the nation and driving the United States into a dark age. If my assertion of their class and purpose is correct, then anyone who follows the series of links starting with the OP's to the original photos will be hard-pressed to see anything but clean-cut white people all holding signs that look like they were created by the same makers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Complaining about the fact we're getting a tax hike when Obama's Treasury Secretary is a tax cheat isn't hate-mongering and you know it. Its hate-mongering and fear-mongering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 16, 2009 Author Share Posted March 16, 2009 It smacks of a pseudo-tea party to me. Websites emerging simultaneously with the same hate-filled messages, regurgitating the fear-mongering idiocy of asshats like known drug addict Rush Limbaugh, etc. All the signs look the same, etc. Nuts like Limbaugh and others are good at appealing to their sheep, who are generally members of the wealthy class who are generally unaffected by joblessness and actually part of the problem which created the economic crises we're dealing with today. No, it's called they thing the stimulus package was highway robbery, considering nobody read it. I posit that the people who show up at these rallies which fallaciously refer to themselves as "tea parties" are actually members of the wealthy class and are registered conservatives who allow themselves to fall into the rhetoric of talking heads like Limbaugh (and others on hate-radio and hate-blogs). Their cult leaders want President Obama to fail at all costs. This is treasonous in my opinion, certainly unpatriotic -and they hide their hatred and fear mongering by draping themselves in the flag and fallaciously applying appeals to patriotism (like using terms like "tea party"). They want President Obama to fail even at the cost of ruining the nation and driving the United States into a dark age. No, they want Obama's far-left fringe policies to fail before Obama completely bankrupts the United States. You're deliberately taking Rush Limbaugh out of context. If my assertion of their class and purpose is correct, then anyone who follows the series of links starting with the OP's to the original photos will be hard-pressed to see anything but clean-cut white people all holding signs that look like they were created by the same makers. Define Rich... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 You're deliberately taking Rush Limbaugh out of context. I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails. Seems like good enough context for me _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 No, it's called they thing the stimulus package was highway robbery, considering nobody read it. It's called unpatriotic hate-mongering and fear-mongering. The sacral-chapeaus that organized these events should be ashamed of themselves, but they're not American first. They're ideologues first and conservatives second. That they're born in the United States is their only claim to being American and their use of the term "tea party" should be offensive to anyone who considers themselves American. Okay you've gone into class warfare and racism SkinWalker. Really? How many Asians, blacks, Hispanics, etc. can you find in the photos? This is like Where's Waldo! Except the African American Waldo will stand out! If there is no relevant correlation between class and ethnicity, then we'll expect to see 42% of the people at the rally to be black -that's the percentage of the Cincinnati population that is African American. I bet you can't find one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 No, it's called they thing the stimulus package was highway robbery, considering nobody read it.Alright, did you even read it?No, they want Obama's far-left fringe policies to fail before Obama completely bankrupts the United States. You're deliberately taking Rush Limbaugh out of context.Not really. Just because he "apologized" doesn't mean that he really meant it.Okay you've gone into class warfare and racism SkinWalker.Yeah, but he's right, and it's not that hard to deny it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 16, 2009 Author Share Posted March 16, 2009 Seems like good enough context for me If you went further up in the commentary, you'd see he was talking about Obama's socialist agenda that flies in the face of everything this country stands for. If that is the kind of policies that Obama wants to put forth, then Rush hopes he fails, because Rush believes that it would completely wreck the country turning a Recession into a rather long depression. Alright, did you even read it? Not in its entirety, no, but then I didn't have a vote on the stimulus either, I know about quite a few of the items that shouldn't be in there. Not really. Just because he "apologized" doesn't mean that he really meant it. He didn't apologize, because it was the media trying to silence one of the people that have the ability to voice criticism of the "anointed one." Yeah, but he's right, and it's not that hard to deny it. The fact the overwhelming majority of people in Ohio happen to be white doesn't make them Racists, try looking at the state's demographics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 If you went further up in the commentary, you'd see he was talking about Obama's socialist agenda that flies in the face of everything this country stands for. If that is the kind of policies that Obama wants to put forth, then Rush hopes he fails, because Rush believes that it would completely wreck the country turning a Recession into a rather long depression.And how do you know what's right for the country? Not in its entirety, no, but then I didn't have a vote on the stimulus either, I know about quite a few of the items that shouldn't be in there.I don't think you're clairvoyant, so I don't understand how you know "what's right" for the economy, and "what's not right". Apparently un-American, liberal practices shouldn't be in there, right?He didn't apologize, because it was the media trying to silence one of the people that have the ability to voice criticism of the "anointed one."He's been blaming the media for everything. When the truth doesn't satisfy him, he just blurts "LIBERAL MEDIA!", bringing up a whole storm about how "they" are un-American. Seldom does he actually like to address the points, and continues with more name-calling.The fact the overwhelming majority of people in Ohio happen to be white doesn't make them Racists, try looking at the state's demographics.It's not about the people of Ohio, just those at his rally, who seem to be mainly conservative aristocrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 The fact the overwhelming majority of people in Ohio happen to be white doesn't make them Racists, try looking at the state's demographics. Even if we accept that many of the "protesters" (a.k.a. the hate-mongers & fear-mongers) are from out of town, we would still expect to see a representation of ethnic minorities in a crowd that large. Demographics of Cincinnati Demographics of Ohio If there were a valid representation of the Ohio population, between 12 and 42 percent of the people in the photos should be black. I didn't see a single one. This thread appears to be a continuation of the sentiment of hate-mongering and fear-mongering either intentionally as a proponent or unwittingly as a gullible victim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderWiggin Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 If you went further up in the commentary, you'd see he was talking about Obama's socialist agenda that flies in the face of everything this country stands for. If that is the kind of policies that Obama wants to put forth, then Rush hopes he fails, because Rush believes that it would completely wreck the country turning a Recession into a rather long depression. Here you go: "If you could send us 400 words on your hope for the Obama presidency, we need it by Monday night, that would be ideal." "I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails." Yes, later he said he was referring to liberalism in general, but there are the man's words, and that is all the context you need. _EW_ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Clearly this is how Limbaugh (and many others) feel. They have a set of conclusions to which they seek only that confirmation which supports these conclusions. That Limbaugh retracted his statement later only demonstrates that he realized just how unpatriotic it looked. But, make no mistake, hate-mongers like Limbaugh want the President to fail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 16, 2009 Author Share Posted March 16, 2009 And how do you know what's right for the country? It's because uncontrolled spending and raising taxes in a recession cause worse problems. I don't think you're clairvoyant, so I don't understand how you know "what's right" for the economy, and "what's not right". Apparently un-American, liberal practices shouldn't be in there, right? Because the tax and spend mentality has been tried and each time it has failed miserably. He's been blaming the media for everything. When the truth doesn't satisfy him, he just blurts "LIBERAL MEDIA!", bringing up a whole storm about how "they" are un-American. Seldom does he actually like to address the points, and continues with more name-calling. So you're telling me there is not a bias problem when they want to sleep with Obama? It's not about the people of Ohio, just those at his rally, who seem to be mainly conservative aristocrats. Why do I get the feeling you're trying to dismiss the fact that a lot of people in America are pissed. Oh I guess it's only okay for liberals to protest something... @ SkinWalker He didn't retract anything, he tried to clarify it because the drive by media was trying to charecter assassinate him again as usual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 The number of attendees in Philadelphia was a <gasp > whopping 50! In Boise, ID? 4! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 16, 2009 Author Share Posted March 16, 2009 The number of attendees in Philadelphia was a <gasp > whopping 50! In Boise, ID? 4! I don't think your source knows how to count... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 No, they want Obama's far-left fringe policies to fail before Obama completely bankrupts the United States. Define bankrupt, the US allready got a debt the size of Putin's ego. If you went further up in the commentary, you'd see he was talking about Obama's socialist agenda that flies in the face of everything this country stands for. The US stands for whatever the citizens of the US want it to stand for, and as far as I know so far all of Obamas "socialist" policy was part of what he was elected on. So could you please point out "socialist" policy he didn't advertise? Because if you can't I find it hard to say that "this flies in the face og everything the US stands for". It's because uncontrolled spending and raising taxes in a recession cause worse problems. While I'm not much of a Keynesian, I won't argue against the wisdom of using public spending to increase demand if the recession apears to be long, so while I would usually agree with you, the severity of this crisis calls for increased public spending, despite the bad taste it leaves. Because the tax and spend mentality has been tried and each time it has failed miserably. Really? Mind showing me the failures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 It's because uncontrolled spending and raising taxes in a recession cause worse problems.Not really. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics Because the tax and spend mentality has been tried and each time it has failed miserably.I fail to see how lowering taxes alone automatically solves a near-depression.So you're telling me there is not a bias problem when they want to sleep with Obama? You will please stop saying that? Christ, it's so ridiculous that it has no merit whatsoever.Why do I get the feeling you're trying to dismiss the fact that a lot of people in America are pissed. Oh I guess it's only okay for liberals to protest something...No, I just don't like the ignorance and fear-mongering related to the general negativity that has been associated with liberalism and socialism by ultra-conservative Americans, which has been perpetuated since the Industrial Revolution. It's annoying, stupid, and several other things, that unfortunately, has survived this long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarfieldJL Posted March 16, 2009 Author Share Posted March 16, 2009 Not really. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics Isn't this the same wikipedia that got in trouble for trying to cover up Obama's negatives. I fail to see how lowering taxes alone automatically solves a near-depression. That's why you cut government wasteful spending at the same time, not spend more on pork. You will please stop saying that? Christ, it's so ridiculous that it has no merit whatsoever. The truth isn't ridiculous, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the Media is in the tank for Obama. No, I just don't like the ignorance and fear-mongering related to the general negativity that has been associated with liberalism and socialism by ultra-conservative Americans, which has been perpetuated since the Industrial Revolution. It's annoying, stupid, and several other things, that unfortunately, has survived this long. Actually, I don't like the snobbish liberal attitude where free speech is okay only if they agree with it. I'm disgusted with how liberals think that it's okay for them to use hate speech, but when Conservatives protest, Conservatives apparently have no right to do so. The US stands for whatever the citizens of the US want it to stand for' date=' and as far as I know so far all of Obamas "socialist" policy was part of what he was elected on. So could you please point out "socialist" policy he didn't advertise? Because if you can't I find it hard to say that "this flies in the face og everything the US stands for". [/quote'] He actually didn't advertise any of his real views (he tried to hide them), he just promised change, it was just people like Sean Hannity that were pointing out that Obama was a socialist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 He actually didn't advertise any of his real views (he tried to hide them), he just promised change, Really? I listened to his speeches, read the statements from his campaign, and so far he hasn't (to my knowledge) done anything more "socialist" than what he said he would. If people choose not to educate themselves on his plans and views and still voted for him, that was their decision, and, if they don't like theese policies, they'll be able to scrap him at the next election. Obama was a socialist Can we operationally define this word for the purpose of this thread? Right now it sounds like it could mean anything from liberal to communist. Isn't this the same wikipedia that got in trouble for trying to cover up Obama's negatives. Please read about Keynesian economics, I don't care which source you use, but the wiki article is, essentially, correct (this is from someone with little love for his ideas). That's why you cut government wasteful spending at the same time, not spend more on pork. I don't see the point of replying to this before you at least get a basic understanding of keynesian economics, but to give a short answer, spending is spending, wastefull or not it generates demand, and while there are ways to spend that are better than others, you don't want to cut spending in a recession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrrtoken Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Isn't this the same wikipedia that got in trouble for trying to cover up Obama's negatives.God, just read the damn article. Keynes proposed the theory of deficit spending to get out of a depression. Those principles were put into effect by FDR, and they worked, although WWII pretty much sealed the deal.The truth isn't ridiculous, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the Media is in the tank for Obama.I'm not denying it, but you're blowing it to ridiculous proportions.Actually, I don't like the snobbish liberal attitude where free speech is okay only if they agree with it. I'm disgusted with how liberals think that it's okay for them to use hate speech, but when Conservatives protest, Conservatives apparently have no right to do so.Funny, if you switch around liberal and conservative, you get the same thing. Hm.He actually didn't advertise any of his real views (he tried to hide them), he just promised change, it was just people like Sean Hannity that were pointing out that Obama was a socialist.Even if he was a socialist (which is the American definition of a socialist, so it's really moderate, FYI), how would that be god-awful for America? Can we operationally define this word for the purpose of this thread? Right now it sounds like it could mean anything from liberal to communist.Pfft, same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 In Boise, ID? 4! Wow. Damn liberal media with that kind of turnout they should have at least sent Al Roker to cover it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinWalker Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 I don't think your source knows how to count... Perhaps not. They are, after all, conservative bloggers. Cognitive function and all.... http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2009/02/27/philadelphia-tea-party-protest/ Oh, and one legitimate news source (as opposed to the hate-mongering blogs you cited). http://www.idahostatesman.com/boise/story/682547.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.