Taliban or Tea Party?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by agzg

The problem is that it seems like it's only those on the far left or far right that are motivated to vote in primaries. So even if a ton of moderates vote in the general election, the candidates coming out of the primaries are already skewed to the sides.

Yep

Although I'd make the argument that Obama's actually a lot closer to the center (even right of center sometimes) than people like to acknowledge because it doesn't play into the Socialist Muslim Immigrant narrative.

And yep.

[MaryPoppins]

Originally Posted by agzg

The problem is that it seems like it's only those on the far left or far right that are motivated to vote in primaries.

Oh my stars, YES, even Yesser!

Originally Posted by agzg

. . . Obama's right of center sometimes [but] it doesn't play into the Socialist Muslim Immigrant narrative.

Preach!

[moe.ron]

I actually don't see the Tea Party as the west version's of the Taliban. They're more like the west version of the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East or the Prosperous Justice Party in Indonesia. It's interesting that when it come to their social outlook, both movement are almost the same. Who are the Taliban of the US, I'd say the Montana Freeman are the closest you'll get to the Taliban. If given the same circumstances, I'd say they have the potential to be as vicious as the Taliban.

[MaryPoppins]

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

Bless you sane Republicans for seeing this madness for what it is...

Mary Poppins is a proud Independent, and not a GOP supporter since 2000.

You can call me a "reverse boll weevil."

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by MaryPoppins

You can call me a "reverse boll weevil."

LOL.

[Gingerdeltaz]

First I will identify myself as the lone conservative Republican commenting on this thread...so let the feeding frenzy begin.

While I may or may not agree with all of the tenets of the Tea Party, I am far less concerned about a group that assembles by obtaining the proper permits, behaving in an orderly fashion and maintaining proper care of the facilities that they use than those on the far left that "occupy" public areas in such a manner that sexual assaults are not uncommon, nor is spitting on police officers or becoming involved in violent behavior and various other misdemeanors and felonies.

I would rather see people stand up for their beliefs by making them known in an articulate and intelligent manner than to dress in bright pink, furry costumes as vaginas, looking utterly ridiculous and demanding the arrest of Condeleezza Rice for war crimes.

I would rather hear people discuss the issues, regardless of their stance, than ridicule a public servant for his weight (Gov. Christy) or refer to an intelligent, successful, black woman as a "dirty, worthless whore" or a "House Nigger" simply because she has the audacity to disagree with their views. (Mia Love)

In my humble opinion, there could be a far more constructive discourse and greater possibility of successful solutions, if BOTH sides would concentrate on the issues and finding a common ground rather than allowing our disagreements to deteriorate into name calling and ridicule.

And I must confess that I do not think that the main stream media, which, unfortunately, many people depend upon rather than doing their own research, does not help.

If a conservative made the remarks that left wing liberal, Samuel L. Jackson made about being upset that the hurricane was missing Tampa and the possibility of "wiping out" those in attendance there would be a media uproar. If a conservative attacked the children of President Obama the way that far left liberals attack the children of Sarah Palin, the women's groups in this country would be up in arms, but it's okay, and humorous, to feed on the children of a conservative.

However, when Republicans have someone make a completely idiotic and totally uneducated remark like that of Todd Akin (Yes, I admit it)...it's headline news for days. Yet I don't hear those same media outlets being outraged at the numerous remarks tossed about by the left wing.

While there are extremists on either side of the issue that can be scary...I must confess that I find the behaviors of those on the far left to be considerably more disconcerting than those of the Tea Party.

I will step off of my "soap box" now and end my rant with the hope that we can disagree in a civil manner. Thank you.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

I'm sorry, I missed where Samuel L. Jackson, "Occupy" protestors, someone dressed as a furry vagina, and a person who publicly used the slur "house n---er" were nominees of a major party for the U.S. Senate (or members of the House committee on science). If they were, then their remarks would deserve the same attention from media outlets.



I also missed when President Obama's children were over 18 and were (starting in May 2009) paid political spokespeople with their own reality shows -- in other words, adult public figures in their own right. If that were the case, again, I'd agree that this was a fair comparison.

That's the thing, right? It's drawing a comparison between apples and kittens. Representative Akin (along with Paul Ryan, btw), has sponsored bills in the House that would restrict abortion rights. It's pretty obvious now that he's using factual inaccuracies to support that view. There have been hundreds of times when Democrats proposed and sponsored bills based on factual inaccuracies - use one of those to support your point - not Samuel L. Jackson who's not an elected official or someone dressed up as a vagina.

And if someone thinks Malia and Sasha Obama haven't been attacked or snarked on, they should look harder. The difference is that Malia and Sasha haven't taken any type of political stance that I've seen besides "vote for my dad, he's a good dad." Which is what any child of a politician would say.

Originally Posted by Gingerdeltaz

And I must confess that I do not think that the main stream media, which, unfortunately, many people depend upon rather than doing their own research, does not help.

Where do you do your research?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Gingerdeltaz

First I will identify myself as the lone conservative Republican commenting on this thread...so let the feeding frenzy begin.

While I may or may not agree with all of the tenets of the Tea Party, I am far less concerned about a group that assembles by obtaining the proper permits, behaving in an orderly fashion and maintaining proper care of the facilities that they use than those on the far left that "occupy" public areas in such a manner that sexual assaults are not uncommon, nor is spitting on police officers or becoming involved in violent behavior and various other misdemeanors and felonies.

That's such an applesranges comparison. You should know better.

I would rather see people stand up for their beliefs by making them known in an articulate and intelligent manner than to dress in bright pink, furry costumes as vaginas, looking utterly ridiculous and demanding the arrest of Condeleezza Rice for war crimes.

riiiiiiight....

I would rather hear people discuss the issues, regardless of their stance, than ridicule a public servant for his weight (Gov. Christy) or refer to an intelligent, successful, black woman as a "dirty, worthless whore" or a "House Nigger" simply because she has the audacity to disagree with their views. (Mia Love)

How do you know this was done by anyone on the left? Do we know exactly who made that Wikipedia edit? Has no one on the right ever called the President a racially pejorative term?

In my humble opinion, there could be a far more constructive discourse and greater possibility of successful solutions, if BOTH sides would concentrate on the issues and finding a common ground rather than allowing our disagreements to deteriorate into name calling and ridicule.

And the Tea Party is one of the reasons we are where we are. This is a group which couldn't even agree to raise the debt ceiling. Ridiculous.

[AOII Angel]

Even her post drips with extreme disdain for opposing opinions.

[Gingerdeltaz]

Originally Posted by Low C Sharp

I'm sorry, I missed where Samuel L. Jackson, "Occupy" protestors, someone dressed as a furry vagina, and a person who publicly used the slur "house n---er" were nominees of a major party for the U.S. Senate (or members of the House committee on science). If they were, then their remarks would deserve the same attention from media outlets.

Since I want to be open minded to other points of view I will agree that Samuel L. Jackson, someone I consider to be on the far left, is not a nominee and is simply expressing his political views as a private citizen in the public view. Similarly, Rush Limbaugh, someone I consider to be on the far right, was a private citizen in the public view expressing his (equally outrageous) opinion during the birth control controversy about the "character" of Sandra Fluke. He was fodder for the mainstream media and liberal organizations for days...unlike the chirping of crickets regarding Mr. Jackson's remarks.

I also missed when President Obama's children were over 18 and were (starting in May 2009) paid political spokespeople with their own reality shows -- in other words, adult public figures in their own right. If that were the case, again, I'd agree that this was a fair comparison.

The attacks on Bristol Palin began in 2008, when she was a pregnant high school student. I do not believe that the fact that she later (in 2009) became a public figure in her own right, makes the decency of targeting her for her mother's views retroactive.

Also as a mother, I do not believe that my children are responsible for my beliefs and actions once they reach their 18th birthday. If someone disagrees with my views, they should argue their position with me, not make personal attacks on me, and certainly my children should be off-limits. In my opinion, this should hold true whether one is a public figure or not...it is basic decency.

I hope that the tone of my post does not come across as disrespectful. I do no mean it to be. I would simply like to have another opinion considered. Thank you.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Gingerdeltaz

First I will identify myself as the lone conservative Republican commenting on this thread...so let the feeding frenzy begin.
. . .
I will step off of my "soap box" now and end my rant with the hope that we can disagree in a civil manner. Thank you.

I won't participate in the feeding frenzy -- as a moderate Democrat, I agree with almost all you said. I do, though, agree with others that the comparisons you make are apple and oranges, and I do tend to think that the 'left wing liberal" in "left wing liberal Samuel L. Jackson" risks moving away from the civil discourse you rightly call for. It seems to me that labels like "left wing liberal" and "right wing conservative" have pretty much ceased to have any meaning beyond the pejorative "extremist."

I would also say that I have seem some Tea Party rallies that made some Occupy protests I have seen look like garden parties -- the level of vitriol and, well I don't know how else to say it but ignorance about our government, was disconcerting to say the least. I'm certainly not saying all most Tea Party folks are like that, nor am I saying all Occupy protests are garden parties. I'm agreeing with your assessment that there are extremists and loonies at both ends of the political spectrum. I don't think it's helpful to have a contest on whose extremists are the looniest or scariest.

I do also think there is a tendancy among all of us to think that the "other side" gets more of a pass from the media. Sometimes it may be true, but not always. There's Todd Akin, there's Anthony Weiner. As for the Palin kids, I have a hard time thinking a comparison to the Obama kids is apt. I don't think the Obama girls have being doing reality TV. Yes. as you say comments about Bristol Palin began earlier (though she was 18/almost 18 at the time), and as I recall, there was lots of condemnation from all quarters about those comments.

As for Samuel L. Jackson's tweet, accuracy matters. He didn't say anything about "wiping out" those in attendance at the GOP convention. He tweeted "Unfair S---t: GOP spared by Issac ! NOLA prolly F-----d Again. Not understanding God's plan!" (Later, he tweeted "Daayum! Poked a Hornets nest, hunh? Apologies to God, Tampa, da GOP& Isaac(sp)! Who played the Race card?!") Was he being funny or offensive (or both)? Certainly up for debate, and there's a lot of it out there. But he didn't speak of the possibility of "wiping out" those in attendance. Criticize what he said by all means, but if civil discourse is what we're after, let's not attack what he didn't say or put what he didn't say in quotation marks.

Meanwhile, I heartily recommend (again) Patriotic Grace: What It Is and Why We Need It Now by Peggy Noonan.

[Shellfish]

As for the children of politicians, we could go back twenty years ago to when Chelsea Clinton was only 12 or 13 and the subject of nasty jokes by Rush Limbaugh and John McCain.

[Gingerdeltaz]

Oops...I mistakenly put this as part of the quote section in my reply. This should have been after the quote about Mr. Jackson. My apologies.

Since I want to be open minded to other points of view I will agree that Samuel L. Jackson, someone I consider to be on the far left, is not a nominee and is simply expressing his political views as a private citizen in the public view. Similarly, Rush Limbaugh, someone I consider to be on the far right, was a private citizen in the public view expressing his (equally outrageous) opinion during the birth control controversy about the "character" of Sandra Fluke. He was fodder for the mainstream media and liberal organizations for days...unlike the chirping of crickets regarding Mr. Jackson's remarks.

[Gingerdeltaz]

Originally Posted by Shellfish

As for the children of politicians, we could go back twenty years ago to when Chelsea Clinton was only 12 or 13 and the subject of nasty jokes by Rush Limbaugh and John McCain.

Those jokes were completely out of line and were both deplorable and unacceptable...as are those regarding the children of any politician.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Gingerdeltaz

Since I want to be open minded to other points of view I will agree that Samuel L. Jackson, someone I consider to be on the far left, is not a nominee and is simply expressing his political views as a private citizen in the public view. Similarly, Rush Limbaugh, someone I consider to be on the far right, was a private citizen in the public view expressing his (equally outrageous) opinion during the birth control controversy about the "character" of Sandra Fluke. He was fodder for the mainstream media and liberal organizations for days...unlike the chirping of crickets regarding Mr. Jackson's remarks.

Is context relevant here? Limbaugh is an influential political commentator with the top-rated talk radio show (15 million listeners). He made his comments on that radio show, and he intended them to be part of his as political discourse. Those comments have both the potential to reflect on the sponsors of his show and to influence lots of Ditto-Heads.

Jackson is an actor who tweeted the comments. Granted, he has over a million followers (seriously?), but still, it's a tweet from an actor. Does anybody really care? (Perhaps my bias is showing. I simply don't see the point of tweeting.)

Limbaugh actually has the ability to influence politics. I don't think the same can be said for Jackson. Under those circumstances, do the two comments carry the same weight or deserve the same response?