Tea Party Terrorists vs. Liberal Communists

2011-08-03 10:17:05

#1

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|6954|US

So, in the past few weeks, we have been seeing a ridiculous amount of name calling and hate from both sides of the American political aisle. So, who here thinks this is a problem? Will this be the age of name calling?

I for one, think the current tone from both sides contributes to our seeming inability to address actual reform and ensure future economic solvency. How likely are you to be able to come to a reasonable and effective compromise if you think the guy across the table is a "terrorist" or "communist?"

Should we, the public, simply accept that politicians and the media hate each other? Is there anything we can really do, other than watch Jon Steward demand that people "Take it down a notch?"

2011-08-03 10:27:13

#2

presidentsheep: Back to the Fuhrer; +208|6201|Places 'n such

Damn whigs.

I'd type my pc specs out all fancy again but teh mods would remove it. Again.

2011-08-03 10:40:26

#3

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5825

Well, it would be nice if both sides actually came together and got things things done instead of excessively bicker but that's hard to do when conservatives-liberals are on the opposite side of the ideological spectrum on the things we want them to solve the most. How can you find a compromise with someone you know is just plain wrong? Of course this is probably a romanticized view of things and the political gridlock is nothing more than pure ego and career maneuvering by politicians.

I don't think we should accept that Congress is broken but I don't completely agree with the "tone it down" thing. It seems like people only want to "tone it down" when their side is in power and become complete dickwads when they are not.. Aside from the annoyance of blatant hypocrisy- i don't believe the government or our leaders actually deserve respect. But that has more to do with some extreme individualist beliefs i have...

Anyway, until we get to this point again

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Southern_Chivalry.jpg

I think we are still fine.

2011-08-03 12:15:57

#4

RAIMIUS: You with the face!; +244|6954|US

Yes, blame the Whigs!

Clearly, the "Keep it civil" idea has been used as a political tool recently. The aftermath of the Arizona shooting produced calls by liberals for conservatives to reduce their "hate." Yet, after seeing their strategy largely cut out during the recent debates, they are the ones accusing people of being terrorists, hostage takers, insane, etc. I'm sure it would be easy to find examples of this from both sides with 30 seconds of Google searching.

We are not approaching the pre-Civil War levels of animosity yet, but I think we are living with some very self-destructive rhetorical tendencies.

2011-08-03 12:17:03

#5

RTHKI: mmmf mmmf mmmf; +1,741|6977|Cinncinatti

i dont think this is anywhere close to the civil war..

2011-08-03 16:48:44

#6

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6685|The Land of Scott Walker

Not calling names if it's true. Communist towards many liberals is a factual description of their positions.

2011-08-03 16:53:53

#7

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6393|what

Stingray24 wrote:
Not calling names if it's true. Communist towards many liberals is a factual description of their positions.

lololol

2011-08-03 16:54:51

#8

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5825

Stingray24 wrote:
Not calling names if it's true. Communist towards many liberals is a factual description of their positions.

5/10

Almost got me.

2011-08-03 17:04:12

#9

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6393|what

Not calling names if it's true. Fascist towards many conservatives is a factual description of their positions.

2011-08-03 17:07:12

#10

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5598|London, England

AussieReaper wrote:
Not calling names if it's true. Fascist towards many conservatives is a factual description of their positions.

Both sides are fascist, they just differ on what the end result should look like.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-08-03 17:10:49

#11

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6777|Long Island, New York

Remember when I asked Stingray if he liked coming off like a redneck and he got all defensive? Yeah, well...

Honestly, the "name calling" really isn't anything new. Highly doubt stuff like the Sherman Antitrust Act and the New Deal weren't passed with their fair share of insults being passed around. It just seems worse in this new age of media where if someone in Congress so much as makes a mockery of an opponent or breathes a way someone doesn't like, the media jumps on it.

2011-08-03 17:46:36

#12

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6685|The Land of Scott Walker

We men are all red-blooded when it comes to the female form. Well, most of us. Stop lying to yourself, Poseidon. Embrace the testosterone. You cannot deny biology, even when trying to be politically correct.

2011-08-03 17:51:16

#13

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5499|foggy bottom

the tea party are idiots

Tu Stultus Es

2011-08-03 17:54:19

#14

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6393|what

Stingray24 wrote:
You cannot deny biology, even when trying to be politically correct.

Really, but I thought you denied evolution?

2011-08-03 17:58:26

#15

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6777|Long Island, New York

Stingray24 wrote:
We men are all red-blooded when it comes to the female form. Well, most of us. Stop lying to yourself, Poseidon. Embrace the testosterone. You cannot deny biology, even when trying to be politically correct.

I wasn't aware telling someone they're once again embracing the stereotype of a redneck was being politically correct.

It's like you tried to reach for something to insult me with but ended up making a really weird comment.

2011-08-04 03:44:59

#16

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6651|'Murka

The tea partiers were elected for a specific purpose: to curb government spending. They seem to be taking their mandate and jobs seriously in that regard, and it's bothering the entrenched old guard in Washington...to include the media.

Now, that isn't to say that the new crowd couldn't stand to learn a bit about tact and political maneuvering/strategy to ensure they get their way on their ultimate goal of cutting government spending. The dems have effectively used rhetoric and the media to turn them into caricatures that suit the dems, and the tea partiers are so single-minded in their tasks, they don't bother to defend themselves against it.

The dems can't defend the spending that has put us in this economic mess, so they attack those who want to cut that spending, casting them as "terrorists" and "right wing nut jobs."

Ignore the pundits and the rhetoric. Look at the actions taken.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-08-04 04:07:13

#17

mr.hrundi: Wurstwassereis; +68|6677|Germany

I think it's the mass of information that circles around the world every second. If you want to be heard you need to be loud and you need to be radical. Nobody will hear a polite, reasonable voice when at the same time there is a dozen shouting meaningless phrases like "cut spending" or "tax the rich" and insults around on full volume.

2011-08-04 17:10:00

#18

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6685|The Land of Scott Walker

AussieReaper wrote:
Stingray24 wrote:
You cannot deny biology, even when trying to be politically correct.
Really, but I thought you denied evolution?

Nah

Poseidon wrote:
Stingray24 wrote:
We men are all red-blooded when it comes to the female form. Well, most of us. Stop lying to yourself, Poseidon. Embrace the testosterone. You cannot deny biology, even when trying to be politically correct.
I wasn't aware telling someone they're once again embracing the stereotype of a redneck was being politically correct.

It's like you tried to reach for something to insult me with but ended up making a really weird comment.

Defining redneck in a flawed manner to put forth an assertion that even you don't believe is being politically correct. Stop digging, you're getting tired.

2011-08-04 17:29:17

#19

Poseidon: Fudgepack DeQueef; +3,253|6777|Long Island, New York

I'm digging but the best response you could come up with was "you're gay"? Which, ironically, even furthers the stereotype you deny so fervently.

Someone on the outside tell me if this doesn't define a redneck: obsessive of NASCAR, rooted for women's soccer team until they lost and was quick to write it off as a sport he only watched for the girls, loves guns, blinded to the republican party, heavily religious, thinks liberals are communists.

2011-08-04 18:07:55

#20

-Sh1fty-: plundering yee booty; +510|5713|Ventura, California

Name calling is so darn childish, and these idiots are running the country?

And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.

2011-08-04 19:51:01

#21

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6393|what

-Sh1fty- wrote:
Name calling is so darn childish

-Sh1fty- wrote:
these idiots

Stay classy, mate.

2011-08-04 19:55:23

#22

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6737

AussieReaper wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:
Name calling is so darn childish
-Sh1fty- wrote:
these idiots
Stay classy, mate.

the quickest way to a ban while OH is logged in is showing up shitfy, warman, or finray. he's the patron saint of stupid people.

2011-08-04 22:12:39

#23

-Sh1fty-: plundering yee booty; +510|5713|Ventura, California

AussieReaper wrote:
-Sh1fty- wrote:
Name calling is so darn childish
-Sh1fty- wrote:
these idiots
Stay classy, mate.

Never claimed to be a saint.

But good one, +1 and touché

And above your tomb, the stars will belong to us.

2011-08-05 01:35:21

#24

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6346|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
The tea partiers were elected for a specific purpose: to curb government spending. They seem to be taking their mandate and jobs seriously in that regard, and it's bothering the entrenched old guard in Washington...to include the media.

Now, that isn't to say that the new crowd couldn't stand to learn a bit about tact and political maneuvering/strategy to ensure they get their way on their ultimate goal of cutting government spending. The dems have effectively used rhetoric and the media to turn them into caricatures that suit the dems, and the tea partiers are so single-minded in their tasks, they don't bother to defend themselves against it.

The dems can't defend the spending that has put us in this economic mess, so they attack those who want to cut that spending, casting them as "terrorists" and "right wing nut jobs."

Ignore the pundits and the rhetoric. Look at the actions taken.

Its not just the Dems who have boosted spending.

Why do we have to keep pointing this out?

Fuck Israel

2011-08-05 04:22:15

#25

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6651|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
The tea partiers were elected for a specific purpose: to curb government spending. They seem to be taking their mandate and jobs seriously in that regard, and it's bothering the entrenched old guard in Washington...to include the media.

Now, that isn't to say that the new crowd couldn't stand to learn a bit about tact and political maneuvering/strategy to ensure they get their way on their ultimate goal of cutting government spending. The dems have effectively used rhetoric and the media to turn them into caricatures that suit the dems, and the tea partiers are so single-minded in their tasks, they don't bother to defend themselves against it.

The dems can't defend the spending that has put us in this economic mess, so they attack those who want to cut that spending, casting them as "terrorists" and "right wing nut jobs."

Ignore the pundits and the rhetoric. Look at the actions taken.
Its not just the Dems who have boosted spending.

Why do we have to keep pointing this out?

Congress controls the purse strings. Why do we have to keep pointing this out?

Obama's budgets have quadrupled the deficit (with dem-controlled Congressional support). Why do we have to keep pointing this out?

Research the average spending levels of the various administrations, then look at which parties controlled Congress at the time.

The point I was making about the dems not being able to defend the spending was not saying they were the ones solely responsible, anyway, Dilbert. It was saying that the spending is what the TPs are going after, and what the dems want to protect. The dems can't rationalize the spending to the American public without looking like idiots, so instead, they attack those who are going after their "precious": the tea partiers.

The debt is a multi-party problem. Never said otherwise. In fact, I've repeatedly said both parties have fiscal responsibility problems of late.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

BF2S Forums Tea Party Terrorists vs. Liberal Communists

Stingray24 wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

-Sh1fty- wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Board footer