Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have listened to the TEA PARTY AKA Teabaggers and I am not favorably impressed. They yell and scream about government spending and taxation but they do not offer alternatives to either the spending that mostly benefits them or who to tax instead of borrow from to run even their diminished government.
They are just a front for more "supply side" economics that have nearly bankrupted our country. At best they are fools and at worst they are more of the same Republican self serving trash.
You see, I'm not making attributing the statements to the GOP but to the tea party.
I think my entire post went over your head. Prejudice is pre-judging. It doesn't matter who you are pre-judging. Pre-judging is not a good thing. Judge when you have the facts, judge after you've listened, judge after you've taken the time to know.
This entire thread is about a widespread tendency to pre-judge tea partiers because they've had some goofy signs at gatherings, because the media have interviewed some members, and then televised the most ridiculous statements. It's like the rest of the world ridiculing Americans for their stupidity based on the Jay Leno "Man in the Street" interviews. MSNBC, CNN, and even your local news affiliate are after advertising dollars, and they get more dollars for being more entertaining.
People on this thread criticize the tea partiers for not having good news sources. But if you rely on the media to tell you about tea partiers, rather than learning about them directly, then your source of information is corrupted. There are tea partiers in pretty much every community. The core of the movement is about tax protest, and about government spending. These are valid concerns. Just because there are sprinkles, whipped cream and nuts at the tea parties doesn't mean that every cup of tea is polluted by these extraneous things.
And I can't believe that I'm arguing that we should listen before we judge, and how many people are arguing against that.
I think my entire post went over your head. Prejudice is pre-judging. It doesn't matter who you are pre-judging. Pre-judging is not a good thing. Judge when you have the facts, judge after you've listened, judge after you've taken the time to know.
This entire thread is about a widespread tendency to pre-judge tea partiers because they've had some goofy signs at gatherings, because the media have interviewed some members, and then televised the most ridiculous statements. It's like the rest of the world ridiculing Americans for their stupidity based on the Jay Leno "Man in the Street" interviews. MSNBC, CNN, and even your local news affiliate are after advertising dollars, and they get more dollars for being more entertaining.
People on this thread criticize the tea partiers for not having good news sources. But if you rely on the media to tell you about tea partiers, rather than learning about them directly, then your source of information is corrupted. There are tea partiers in pretty much every community. The core of the movement is about tax protest, and about government spending. These are valid concerns. Just because there are sprinkles, whipped cream and nuts at the tea parties doesn't mean that every cup of tea is polluted by these extraneous things.
And I can't believe that I'm arguing that we should listen before we judge, and how many people are arguing against that.
Well said. I have to wonder how many of those most dismissive and insulting of the Tea Party movement have ever attended an event? Or even looked at their web site, for that matter.
To say that one must listen to to a group's agenda, especially when one doesn't agree with them-is a nice theory-but I don't agree- why would I need to waste my time listening to anyone spouting for example racist ideas, treasonous ideas or any hateful ideology? Would you stop and listen to a group of neo nazis if they were giving a rally?What about a group of Islamic jihadists? Not all talking or ideas are worth listening to-
Hmmmm....
I listen to your ideas. In a respectful manner. I disagree with you. I rebut your argument, respectfully. And we can engage in a productive conversation where I have a chance at changing your mind, or, at the very least, remaining civil and learning about each other.
Or, I decide beforehand that you are going to spout a bunch of hateful tripe, and I walk away before hearing anything you have to say, we never have a conversation, and the hate and misunderstandings go on and on and on.
You can't know if someone's talk or ideas are worth listening to, until you've actually listened to them, can you?
The term is common usage, even in the media. If youchoose to attach an off-color meaning, it's your choice. Be happy with your choice.
It shouldn't be in common usage, because it is denigrating.
It's just as easy to speak and type "tea partiers" as it is to type "teabaggers". And to lose the negative connotations. Respect goes both ways. Being rude to people you disagree with may be satisfying and amusing, but it starts the conversation off on the wrong foot.
Exactly, and this is why the Far Left is scared ****less because now they have a united front of the unified American people against them. A Gallup poll indicated that Tea Partiers were closer in political values then either the Dems or Reps to the majority of respondents. The Republicans, and especially the Democrats and the Far Left are so out of touch with mainstream America.
The Tea Party movement will bring down Clueless Barry and end the archaic two party system at the same time.
And this is another example of not listening. The left, far or otherwise, is not scared *less of the tea party movement. The left is legitimately concerned about the number of people on the political fringes who have attached themselves to the tea party movement. That's a legitimate concern, just as taxes and government spending are legitimate concerns. We all need to listen to each other, instead of listening to the media pundits. It's not easy, it's work sometimes to actually listen to people you disagree with. But if you don't listen to them, you can't respond to what they are saying. And that's what having a conversation is all about.
It shouldn't be in common usage, because it is denigrating.
It's just as easy to speak and type "tea partiers" as it is to type "teabaggers". And to lose the negative connotations. Respect goes both ways. Being rude to people you disagree with may be satisfying and amusing, but it starts the conversation off on the wrong foot.
I believe it was the partiers themselves who gave the movement a bad name.
And if these fringe racist/extremists don't represent the true values of the movement, then the tea party crowd has a lot of work to do to disavow their presence at their rallies and to separate their intended message from the message they're actually sending, which is one of hate, fear, ignorance, and intolerance.
But in America, they're totally free to express those sentiments. And the public is totally free to reject it.
You responded to a post I made to ringwise. Unless you're an alt for ringwise, you're the one deflecting. And being very selective in your "outrage."
He's not being selective. He's been at this for days, weeks even. He's trying to get people to stop using an insulting term to describe a political movement. Not just because he finds it insulting, but because it is used to denigrate a group of people. In the same way that "Hussein" is not a bad word in and of itself, but when used repeatedly to refer to the President, it's meant in an insulting and denigrating way.
He's being nothing BUT selective in his "indignation."
And being completely phony at the same time.
Quote:
He's been at this for days, weeks even. He's trying to get people to stop using an insulting term to describe a political movement. Not just because he finds it insulting, but because it is used to denigrate a group of people. In the same way that "Hussein" is not a bad word in and of itself, but when used repeatedly to refer to the President, it's meant in an insulting and denigrating way.
Perhaps if the partiers were better behaved and less inflammatory themselves, they'd be much better received by the public. In my book, they have no room to complain about anyone else's "manners."
Last edited by Old Gringo; 04-07-2010 at 08:06 AM..
I advise you to minimize your hypocrisy and become much more of a Mr Manners and express outrage in measure to all name calling on this forum. Selective indignance is transparently phony.
I suggest you claimed you did not name call and then the next line did so.
the hypicrisy is with you
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
