Watch the video again. Tell me when it shows Ed Shultz saying “the birthers are wrong.”
The clips from left wing commentators were a lot more unreasonable than that.
Really? Do they have a Congressional White Caucus or other racially segregated political voting block? Do they have people representing them who think it’s OK to call other people sexually derogatory names? Are you going to call Deneen Borelli an Uncle Tom next? The reality of the Tea Party is that it is made of a political cross section of America who recognize we can’t continue building debt. Every computer sold in the US should come with a national debt link that boots up every time someone logs on to the internet. It should be displayed on every electronic voting machine.
Should Tea Party members refer to you as a race baiting cocksucker or is there a form they need to fill out to qualify for this exemption?
Yes. It’s called the Republican Party.
Racism, schmacism. The Teabaggers are just pissed off Republicans. This bullshit about … ooh, they’re all about fiscal responsibility … is hollow in the face of the legions of Tea Party activists who didn’t say shit when it was their boy writing the checks.
And, for better or worse, the fact that we now have a black president who is a Democrat has attracted *some *racists to the Teabagger fold. Tough break for the non-racists in the group, but you lay down with dogs … and all that.
That would be the party that did all the heavy lifting in the civil rights movement. The party that currently has racially divided members would be the Democratic party. The Black caucus is a racially biased voting block. They support and promote racial bias in such things as educational grants and racial quotas when it favors black people and ignore it when the opposite is true.
You mean the party that implemented the Southern Strategy in response to the civil rights movement?
28% independent, 17% Democrat and 57% Republican. And they are Tea Partiers unless you wish to be referred to as a cocksucker.
I mean the party that did the actual voting for the civil rights act and doesn’t have a bigoted caucus that supports one group over another. The Black Congressional Caucus is nothing but a bunch of bigots who vote accordingly.
It wasn’t the same party then, actually. The Republicans were the liberals then. The conservative and liberal parties flip-flopped after the civil rights movement.
Stupid to even suggest. I’m almost entirely white as well.
I hate to break it to you, but my life, and that of most liberals, is going to go on on Wednesday. We’ll have similar worries to the ones we have now. Are our jobs safe? Is our health insurance going to cover us if we get sick? Will the roof last another winter or should I borrow money to get it fixed now.
If the Republicans take the House and Senate, which I don’t think they will, my life won’t change dramatically. Fortunately they won’t have a chance to pack the Court with extremists, though like the clowns they are, they will probably dely the confirmation of lower court judges. Which means justice will grind slower for the people who need it, but it shouldn’t impact me. If they prevent the sunsetting of Bush’s tax cuts for the rich, I’ll have a few more dollars in my pocket, which I’ll likely save (unless the roof needs doing that is). It’ll be a bad thing for the economy overall, but I’ll have those couple of extra bucks.
They’ll make a bunch of noise about repealing health care changes, but (a) they won’t do it; (b) I wasn’t attached to the new plan anyway; and (c) I have insurance through work at the moment, so I’m all right, Jack.
It’ll be sad because some good people will lose their seats, and some people who shouldn’t be running a local Klavern let alone be in Congress will get elected. But life will go on. And very little will change, regardless of how much you dance around celebrating, making up quotes, and trying to weasel out of it afterwards.
And 100% pissed off right wingers; they can float the, “look how independant we are” shit all they like. I ain’t buying it.
You can call me whatever you want, they’ll always be Teabaggers to me.
And did you support his same thing when the previous encumbent was spending borrowed money like a drunken sailor?
Were there rallies in DC by the teabaggers complaining about his overspending?
January 20, 2009 - Obama Inauguration
January 24, 2009 - first tea party protest
They just found out about fiscal responsibility on January 20, 2009. They really had no idea what was happening before that date.
It’s all about fiscal responsibility. Right.
Or it’s code name for Tea Party founder holding a niggar sign. Whichever one applies.
I’m not going to answer to questions posted in vulgar form.
You also didn’t notice it in all the other posts.
I think they were waiting until the incumbent is about three times drunker. We were not in recession in 2008, and the deficit was about $435 billion. We aren’t in a recession in 2010, and Obama wants a deficit of $1.56 trillion.
Regards,
Shodan
I’ll take that as reading “No there weren’t, but I can’t think of a good reason why spending by a Democrat on attempting to save jobs is bad, but spending by a Republican to kill dusky people is good.”
Is this really that complicated? What he said was basically a meaningless platitude that can never be achieved. If we all agree that some things should be amplified, but that too much of its being done, there is not much we can do besides wading through the bullshit and imposing a cost to amplifying nonsense.
It’s the cable news version of the tragedy of the commons. Everyone acting in the own self-interest will use outrage and anger to achieve ratings, but it will ultimately deplete our shared empathy and desire to be involved and informed. I get that. But the solution is not to say the farmers using a little more than their share of the resources is as bad to the guy who uses far too much, while burning all the other land near the farmers he doesn’t like. There is a reason why we have a right-wing news pundit sharply lampooned by Colbert, but there is not a left-wing equivalent. Why? Because both sides do not “overuse the tool” in equal amounts.
Furthermore, the solution is also not to say that nobody should use the land at all. The point is that there needs to be a cost for overuse, or in this case, lying and distorting the truth to evoke anger. He does that on his show by ridiculing them. But, he also exacerbates the problem by having these idiots on as his guests. It legitimizes them.
Either way, I think the lapse in judgment is to think that amplification is the problem rather than there being tons of people out there selling bullshit without being called on it. To fix that you need a better educated populace more readily able to sniff out bullshit. Telling people to stop doing something (slinging bullshit) when they are not incentivized to do so is foolish.
Some of the left-wing clips were more unreasonable, but a lot (on both sides) were taken out of context, and used unfairly to illustrate Colbert/Stewert’s point.
Let’s take a couple of the Ed Schultz clips. Some sounded bad, which others were fairly tame. For example, at 2:20, he is quoted as saying the following:
“the tea-parties are misguided. I think they’re racists…”
“I think they are clinging to their guns and religion”
The first is clearly an defensible position expressed calmly, and likely (of what I know about Schultz) with a rationale for thinking that. Either way, not too caustic. The second quote likely references the Obama quote using the same language. Agreeing with a opinion, while using the same verbiage as the original speaker, can hardly be considered needlessly inflammatory (as was implied).
Chris Matthews (who I misidentified from memory) is quoted (out of context) saying, “yahoos and birthers”. The implication, not made by him, or anyone else for that matter, is that they are what’s wrong with America. [Here](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38242117/ns/msnbc_tv-
hardball_with_chris_matthews/) is the actual context (AFAICT):
Hardly, the invective they make it seem like it was. I cannot find the transcripts for the Ed Schultz quotes. Now let’s look at a couple of right-wing quotes. Glenn Beck is
[quoted]
(Fox's Beck: Obama is 'a racist' - - POLITICO.com) talking about Obama being a racist. The exact quote is as follows:
When called on relents a bit, but sticks to his point that Obama “has a problem”. He also offers no real factual basis or rationale for having this belief.
While not quoted by Colbert, Beck has also said the following:
And this
How exactly is what Glenn Beck said/says and what Chris Matthews/Ed Schultz said at all similar? Can all of them be stubborn and bombastic Of course, but equating them is like equating cancer and the flu.
That’s the problem. A lot of this fanaticism is perpetuated by people valuing false balance as opposed to truth. What Stewart should be advocating is a more rigorous and thoughtful debate rather than taking issue with the tone. The problem with Glenn Beck is less that he is hyperbolic, but rather that he is full of shit, and is not called on it. When Stewart makes it seems like all the pundits are equally accountable for what passes for political discourse, he is doing everyone a disservice.
He “wants” it? Well I guess that is pretty typical of the accuracy I expect from you.
But shouldn’t there have been at least a quarter of the outcry? Something? A peep? A question that the money was being wasted on overseas adventurism? A murmur of unrest amongst the good tax paying citizens?
Or alternatively should there have been silence from the right in the face of profligacy, combined with criticisms of those who dared complain as “unpatriotic”?