Conservative VS Liberal

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Yeah, shame on you Cleo's mom, ONLY 145 voted no, ONLY 145 Republicans couldn't bring themselves to agree that children in school shouldn't be tied up, drugged, or isolated in order to discipline them.

I edited my post to make the change. Whew! Glad someone caught that mistake. ONLY 144 republicans voted no. Well, that's so much better.

[ariscus99 1]

You know what's kind of haunting, I hop on google to get another site to refer you to other then one I already posted to show the correct amount of votes, here's the official count from opencongress.org, but every website that turns up, is liberal blogs and news orgs. like media matters, the huff, and the daily kos and they all LIE about the number and say that 153 republicans vote no against this. When in fact the number is 144 and that there were democrats who voted against it as well and they all leave that little tidbit out. Convenient isn't it.

[ariscus99 1]

I realize it's a small discrepancy, but the point of it is honesty. You weren't honest when you posted it, tho in your defense you just saw the article on the daily kos and copied and pasted it here, but you did so without any fact checking at all. And everyone knows what a great honest news org the daily kos is. But in addition to your lie, they also lied when they ran the article, as did the huff and media matters and about 4 other liberal blog spots I happened onto in my 3 minute search for the official number of votes for hr 4247. So does that make the libs and dems hypocrites? Or just liars? And which is worse? IMHO I'd say the likes of the "news" orgs I mentioned are most definitely the worst mixture of both liars and hypocrites.

And I noticed you've still said nothing about how horrible the dems who voted no are, why's that?

[LeighaMason 19]

Your reference site has the number different at well.

OpenCongress is a free and open-source joint project of two non-profit organizations, the Participatory Politics Foundation and the Sunlight Foundation.

I am using the Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives web site for the offical count.

[BJean 16]

ariscus, what is your point? You've posted a couple of accusatory comments, but to what end? Are you saying the Republicans DID vote for it and Cleo's got that part wrong? Or are you saying that because some Democrats didn't support it, that exonerates the Reublicans who also didn't?

OR are you saying that the bill shouldn't have any support whatsoever?

Please explain yourself. I'm very interested in what is motivating you.

[BJean 16]

I realize it's a small discrepancy, but the point of it is honesty. You weren't honest when you posted it, tho in your defense you just saw the article on the daily kos and copied and pasted it here, but you did so without any fact checking at all. And everyone knows what a great honest news org the daily kos is. But in addition to your lie, they also lied when they ran the article, as did the huff and media matters and about 4 other liberal blog spots I happened onto in my 3 minute search for the official number of votes for hr 4247. So does that make the libs and dems hypocrites? Or just liars? And which is worse? IMHO I'd say the likes of the "news" orgs I mentioned are most definitely the worst mixture of both liars and hypocrites.

And I noticed you've still said nothing about how horrible the dems who voted no are, why's that?

Oops, my bad. I posted before I saw yours, above.

So you're just saying that because there were a couple of votes discrepcancy in the reporting that the news organizations mentioned are the worst mixture of both liars and bypocrites. HUH? Why is that? Because at some point a couple of votes were not reported on?

Or what exactly makes these organizations the "worst mixture of liars and hypocrites? I am sorry I just don't understand.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

ariscus, what is your point? You've posted a couple of accusatory comments, but to what end? Are you saying the Republicans DID vote for it and Cleo's got that part wrong? Or are you saying that because some Democrats didn't support it, that exonerates the Reublicans who also didn't?

OR are you saying that the bill shouldn't have any support whatsoever?

Please explain yourself. I'm very interested in what is motivating you.

The 9 "democrats" who voted no are probably DINOS. I don't support them. There are no RINOs because they all share the same brain and vote that way for the most part. Especially since Obama got elected.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

Another guy gets paid for saying what I've been saying on here all along. I should start getting paid.

The Tea Party Is All About Race

I was going to open this piece with an analogy about the tea party groups and why they're treated seriously by the press and the Republicans. The analogy would go something like: "Imagine [insert left-wing activist group here] getting a serious profile in a mainstream newspaper, and imagine serious Democratic politicians appearing at their convention."

The problem is, when I really evaluated what the various far-left activist groups are all about and compared them with the tea party movement, there really wasn't any equivalency. At all.

Because when you strip away all of the rage, all of the nonsensical loud noises and all of the contradictions, all that's left is race. The tea party is almost entirely about race, and there's no comparative group on the left that's similarly motivated by bigotry, ignorance and racial hatred.

I hasten to note that I'm talking about real racism, insofar as it's impossible for the majority race -- the 70 percent white majority -- to be on the receiving end of racism. That is unless white males, for example, are suddenly an oppressed racial demographic. But judging by the racial composition of, say, the Senate or AM talk radio or the cast members playing the Obamas on SNL, I don't think white people have anything to worry about.

This isn't an epiphany by any stretch. From the beginning, with their witch doctor imagery, watermelon agitprop and Curious George effigies, the wingnut right has been dying to blurt out, as Lee Atwater famously said, "nigger, nigger, nigger!"

But they can't.

Strike that. Correction. TeaParty.org founder Dale Robertson brandished a sign with the (misspelled) word "niggar." So they're not even as restrained as the generally unstrung Atwater anymore.

Most of the time, they merely imply the use of the word. Rush Limbaugh referring to the president as a "black man-child," for example. Every week, a new example pops up on the radio and somehow the offenders are able to keep their job while Howard Stern is fined for saying the comparatively innocuous word "blumpkin." Limbaugh, on the other hand, can stoke racial animosity on his show by suggesting that health care reform is a civil rights bill -- reparations -- and no one seems to mind. And no, the impotence isn't an adequate Karmic punishment for Limbaugh's roster of trespasses.

The tea party is an extension of talk radio. It's an extension of Fox News Channel. It's an extension of the southern faction of the Republican Party -- the faction that gave us the Southern Strategy, the Willie Horton ad,

and the racially divisive politics of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove. It's an extension of the race-baiting and, often, the outright racism evident in all of those conservative spheres.

But unlike the heavy-handedness of Dale Robertson and others, the tea party followers are generally more veiled about why they're so outraged by our current president.

In the New York Times this past weekend, David Barstow profiled a teabagger from Idaho:

SANDPOINT, Idaho -- Pam Stout has not always lived in fear of her government. She remembers her years working in federal housing programs, watching government lift struggling families with job training and education. She beams at the memory of helping a Vietnamese woman get into junior college.

But all that was before the Great Recession and the bank bailouts, before Barack Obama took the White House by promising sweeping change on multiple fronts, before her son lost his job and his house. Mrs. Stout said she awoke to see Washington as a threat, a place where crisis is manipulated -- even manufactured -- by both parties to grab power.

Now you might be saying to yourself, I don't see the racism here. But if you eliminate all of the reasons for Stout's participation in the tea party movement as being contradictory or nonsensical, all that's left is race.

Let's deconstruct.

She claims to be against the bank bailouts, but the tea party is against the president's bank fee designed to recover the TARP money. They also appear to be against financial regulatory reform. None of this makes any sense. If tea partiers are against the bailouts, basic logic dictates that they ought to be in favor of getting the money back. Or do they prefer that the banks keep the money and orchestrate further meltdowns? Honestly, I'm not even entirely sure they realize that the bailouts and the recovery act (stimulus) are two different things. But they're also against the recovery act -- you know, whatever that is.

She also told the New York Times that she's tired of politicians "manufacturing crisis."

Right. Three things here.

First, where was she -- where were the teabaggers -- when the far-right endorsed and supported a massive increase in the size of government, unitary executive power grabs and unconstitutional measures fueled by fear-mongering over the very remote threat of terrorism? Crickets chirping. The odds of being killed in an airborne terrorist attack are literally 1 in 10 million. You're much more likely to kill yourself than to be killed by a terrorist.

Second, I refuse to believe that health care is a "manufactured crisis." People are going broke and dying every day. Even the most conservative estimates show that there are 9/11-level casualties each month due to a lack of adequate health insurance. The horror stories are readily available online. Just Google "health insurance horror story" and see how manufactured the crisis is.

Third, look at any bar graph of the economy as of one year ago or any basic jobs number and tell me if the crisis is manufactured. Hell, Pam Stout's son lost his house! How can she possibly suggest the economic crisis was manufactured?

I hate to single out one person, but Stout's incongruous anger is indicative of the entire movement.

From the outset, the tea party was based on a contradictory premise (the original tea party was a protest against a corporate tax cut). And when you throw out all of the nonsense and contradictions, there's nothing left except race. There's no other way to explain why these people were silent and compliant for so long, and only decided to collectively freak out when this "foreign" and "exotic" president came along and, right out of the chute, passed the largest middle class tax cut in American history -- something they would otherwise support, for goodness sake, it was $288 billion in tax cuts! -- we're left to deduce no other motive but the ugly one that lurks just beneath the pale flesh, the tri-corner hats and the dangly tea bag ornamentation.

Irrespective of whether the president passed a huge tax cut or went out of his way to bring Republicans into the health care process, the seeds of racial animosity from the far-right were sown during the campaign. In those lines waiting for then-vice presidential candidate and current tea party heroine Sarah Palin, their loud noises spread the pre-scripted lies, lies that entirely hinged on the president's African heritage. A white candidate would never be accused of being a secret Muslim. A white candidate would never be accused of being a foreign usurper. Only a black candidate with a foreign name would be accused of "palling around with domestic terrorists."

In the final analysis, when you boil away all of the weirdness, it becomes clear that the teabaggers are pissed because there isn't yet another doddering old white guy in the White House -- like they're used to. That's what this is all about.

By way of a postscript, one of the many faceless radio talk show wingnuts, Jim Quinn, this week called President Obama a "Kenyan wuss" who should be "slapped silly." The Kenyan lie and the "slap silly" insult aside, this president is no wuss. You know how I know? He's a black man who ran for president and won despite the growing mob of gun-toting militant white bigots like Jim Quinn who are sucking air in America. President Obama achieving this despite the hatred and threats against him takes serious guts. Guts that Jim Quinn and the tea party movement will never understand.

from: Huffington Post.

Edited March 4, 2010 by Cleo's Mom

[ariscus99 1]

Oops, my bad. I posted before I saw yours, above.

So you're just saying that because there were a couple of votes discrepcancy in the reporting that the news organizations mentioned are the worst mixture of both liars and bypocrites. HUH? Why is that? Because at some point a couple of votes were not reported on?

Or what exactly makes these organizations the "worst mixture of liars and hypocrites? I am sorry I just don't understand.

First, the number was wrong, they undoubtedly know that, they are reporters, they get paid to investigate and report. I'm not and I found out the real numbers in about 180 seconds.

Second, they try to bash the republicans for voting no, but say nothing as did CM about the dems, until I asked for the second or third time then I get some one liner about how they're that one sect of dems she doesn't like. She likes em all but those 9. Those nine are mean. If you read much from any of the web sites I talked about you'll see they misrepresent information all the time, they take quotes out of context, run wholly untrue stories etc. etc. They are all very very far left, and only report things they think will help the far left agenda. Which is fine, but do so TRUTHFULLY! Thats my problem and thats why they are liars, and hypocrites.

[Cleo's Mom 257]

First, the number was wrong, they undoubtedly know that, they are reporters, they get paid to investigate and report. I'm not and I found out the real numbers in about 180 seconds.

Second, they try to bash the republicans for voting no, but say nothing as did CM about the dems, until I asked for the second or third time then I get some one liner about how they're that one sect of dems she doesn't like. She likes em all but those 9. Those nine are mean. If you read much from any of the web sites I talked about you'll see they misrepresent information all the time, they take quotes out of context, run wholly untrue stories etc. etc. They are all very very far left, and only report things they think will help the far left agenda. Which is fine, but do so TRUTHFULLY! Thats my problem and thats why they are liars, and hypocrites.

There are a whole bunch of elected representatives who call themselves democrats who I do not like. Because the democratic party is a big tent with a full spectrum of ideas, there are going to be ones I don't agree with. The republican tent is small and growing smaller by the day. They all vote as one, for the most part. And if there are any so called moderate republicans left - they will be targeted by the increasingly far right faction who will run tea party and other extremist candidates against them forcing them to move further to the right.

[ariscus99 1]

Another guy gets paid for saying what I've been saying on here all along. I should start getting paid.:smile2:

The Tea Party Is All About Race

I was going to open this piece with an analogy about the tea party groups and why they're treated seriously by the press and the Republicans. The analogy would go something like: "Imagine [insert left-wing activist group here] getting a serious profile in a mainstream newspaper, and imagine serious Democratic politicians appearing at their convention."

The problem is, when I really evaluated what the various far-left activist groups are all about and compared them with the tea party movement, there really wasn't any equivalency. At all.

Because when you strip away all of the rage, all of the nonsensical loud noises and all of the contradictions, all that's left is race. The tea party is almost entirely about race, and there's no comparative group on the left that's similarly motivated by bigotry, ignorance and racial hatred.

I hasten to note that I'm talking about real racism, insofar as it's impossible for the majority race -- the 70 percent white majority -- to be on the receiving end of racism. That is unless white males, for example, are suddenly an oppressed racial demographic. But judging by the racial composition of, say, the Senate or AM talk radio or the cast members playing the Obamas on SNL, I don't think white people have anything to worry about.

This isn't an epiphany by any stretch. From the beginning, with their witch doctor imagery, watermelon agitprop and Curious George effigies, the wingnut right has been dying to blurt out, as Lee Atwater famously said, "nigger, nigger, nigger!"

But they can't.

Strike that. Correction. TeaParty.org founder Dale Robertson brandished a sign with the (misspelled) word "niggar." So they're not even as restrained as the generally unstrung Atwater anymore.

Most of the time, they merely imply the use of the word. .

from: Huffington Post.

So to prove my point CM, thanks for another post that leaves out some important facts, like Dale Robertson was KICKED OUT of that rally for having that sign. Yeah, those mean racist, kicking out the only guy with N word sign. Thats so mean. Wait, oh, that would be an argument for them not being racist. Strange the huffington post would leave that tidbit out isn't it.

[ariscus99 1]

There are a whole bunch of elected representatives who call themselves democrats who I do not like. Because the democratic party is a big tent with a full spectrum of ideas, there are going to be ones I don't agree with. The republican tent is small and growing smaller by the day. They all vote as one, for the most part. And if there are any so called moderate republicans left - they will be targeted by the increasingly far right faction who will run tea party and other extremist candidates against them forcing them to move further to the right.

So by ignoring the rest of the post are you saying your okay with those sites running half truths and lies, as long as it promotes the "real" democratic agenda?

[ariscus99 1]

Liberal hypocrisy on the "nuclear option".

From ScienceBlogs.com

My favorite part is where Biden says on the floor of the Senate that the nuclear option is "the ultimate example of the arrogance of power" and a "fundamental power grab." Harry Reid also says it was only being considered because of the "arrogance of power of this Republican administration." Now if the Democrats go through with it, he'll have to be the one pulling the trigger.

It will be great fun to watch him try to justify himself. And equally fun to watch the Republicans in the Senate wax eloquent about the arrogance of the Democrats in doing what they wanted to do 5 years ago too.

[BJean 16]

airscus I see your point. Are you equally outraged by all the mistruths, misrepresentations and outright lies that are put out on a daily basis by Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and a whole host of folks at FOX News?

Just wondering...

[ariscus99 1]

airscus I see your point. Are you equally outraged by all the mistruths, misrepresentations and outright lies that are put out on a daily basis by Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin and a whole host of folks at FOX News?

Just wondering...

Absolutely, however, much of what is construed as lies by them is done so by sites like kos and huff and media matters. But when they do lie, yeah it most definitely outrages me. I don't mind a one sided media venue, thats their right, but they have an obligation to the people of the country to be as honest and forthcoming as possible at all times.

Also fox regularly apologizes for their mistakes. Not something you hear from many liberal "news" agencies.