YOU started a thread, in which YOU posted a series of lies, and then YOU linked to a video which you called a cite.
Except, you don’t believe what you did was wrong, to you the ends justifies the means. As you say, other people lie. The Clintons lied. Obama lied. So the Tea Party might as well lie, as long as it gets them in power.
So then after posting a video and series of lies you said:
So what you’re saying is that the electorate is angry because people keep lying to them. Did you see the video clips I posted? They show Hannity flat out lying to his viewers. Not that it will have any traction on YOU. Hannity did was he felt was right, isn’t that how it goes when it’s a conservative that is a lying and deceitful asshole?
Once again, you’ve proven the exact opposite of what you set out to do. You posted a series of lies, and shown us that the Tea Party is all about lies. They’ll do what ever it takes to regain power.
So I thank you, for being dumb enough to post something so stupid. And hopefully people will realize that the Tea Party is nothing but lies to serve their goals. kudos.
If that’s true, why do they so easily fall for such stupid lies? And why do they know so little about economics and history?
Again, the clip you showed was full of lies. You should be ashamed to have posted that. It did not support your position, he showed that you are either stupid or deceitful. Why should we believe anything else you have to say?
Yup, and thus ends the great Tea Party experiment. Start with people angry about the economy, and people legitimately bothered by how government fucked up, then bring it all back to abortion.
At this point, I actually feel sorry for you. Government is only going to get bigger, taxes are only going to get higher, black people share your water fountains, women get to vote, gays will soon be able to marry turtles. Life sure sucks for conservatives. Have a beer, listen to some Elton John, watch your grand children grow up. You really don’t need to be that concerned about what other people do.
Dude, you totally took his statement out of context. What he was trying to say was that he’s right and you’re wrong. Why are you attacking him?! I don’t see you attacking other people that post stupid shit.
Why show quotes from three days ago, we can use much more recent stuff:
Okay, so here Starving Artist believes very strongly in upholding the constitution and its mandated freedoms. He first lied about what Hare said, and then explains further that Hare is a bad person because he is unconcerned about the constitution.
Abortion is constitutionally protected. It’s as much a right as gun ownership. So should republicans disregard the constitution, and speak out against a mandated freedom? Thus angering conservatives.
Or should they accept abortion, allowing society to slide to the left, thus angering conservatives.
Here is a much better description of where the Tea Party came from and what it represents.
But the best line:
Which pretty much sums it all up. Now that it will have any traction, but it goes a long way to answering the questions I had about the movement.
They’re full of shit, each and every one of them. It is a party of lies, that uses manipulation and deceit to convince gullible morans to vote Republican again.
Let me ask you this: when you guys post out of context snippets by Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin or whoever on the conservative side, are you “altering quotes”? If so, it’s such a common practice around here that it hardly deserves mention.
Still, I altered nothing. I posted the comments verbatim from the clip I linked to, for the reasons I stated above. And IMO none of the completed quotes materially alter the snippets in the clip, for reasons I also explained above.
Of course you can. And of course you will. But it wasn’t.
No.
Now, having said that I’ve got things to do and I have neither the time nor inclination to deal with your often days-long diatribes over my posts. Have you perhaps noticed how the discussion in this thread has ground to halt in the wake of all your ranting and raving? You’ve done this several times before and while there isn’t much that can be done about it, I’m simply not going to play along.
Let me get this straight, you start a thread, post a total of five times, then declare you’re leaving, and you accuse someone else of grinding it to a halt.
Really? emacknight has done more to keep this thread going than you have.
Gotta love that cite. Crosshairball. Very droll, especially that logo of the cat hacking up a hairball. Bit of a rightish sort of slant. Just a tad. Breitbart, Hewitt, Coulter, Beck, Malkin…and, oh! Micheal Savage as well! Most of the tighty righty sites disdain Mike “The Savage Wiener” Weiner, seeing as he is barking mad and venemous. Kinda like Glen Beck with tertiary syphillis.
Is this the sort of thing you offer to polite company, expecting anything but scorn and derision?
I did nothing of the sort. I merely refused to engage with emacknight, a poster whom experience has shown can bog you down so far in straw men and accusations of things you never said that you spend all your time trying just to set the record straight.
Well, the thread was moving along nicely and had generated around 40 posts in its first twelve hours, and then, in the wake of emack’s multi-post rants, nothing but twickster’s warning for the next twenty-four hours or so, whereupon it’s picked back up again as the apparent result of a post I made since then. So I don’t believe you’ve made a very case that emacknight has been driving the thread, and/or in support of your implication that I ground it to a halt.
luci, luci, luci…remember when I said in the OP, “Not that I expect any of this will gain any kind of traction around here…”? (And besides, it’s not like you never post anything from leftie sites, is it?)
Still, what on Earth leads you to believe I would expect this crowd to react to the OP with anything but scorn and derision? Scorn and derision is the de riguer response around here to anything even vaguely conserva…uh, I mean not rabidly liberal, now isn’t it? And you’ll notice I’m sure that nobody’s said anything even vaguely in defense of Obama’s statement or of Pelosi’s statements, etc., etc. But the best defense is a good offense, yes, no?, and so here we are at a point where the Tea Party and I come in for all the abuse (and we can take it), while nary a peep gets said about the President of the United States voicing the sentiment that there comes a time when people have made enough money, and where the Speaker of the House encourages Democratic representatives to ignore the will of the people even if it costs them their jobs and claims that the health care bill needs to be passed so people will know what’s in it. And how is it somehow an exuse to claim you don’t have two days and two lawyers to read a bill? I mean, isn’t it your job to know what’s in the bill you’re voting on? And what?..the government can’t afford the lawyers and the time it takes to figure out the bills it’s trying to pass?
Pretty weak sauce, luci. I’m glad I’m not on your side and not having to try to defend the statements these people have made. No wonder you guys would rather insult me instead.
And I say so. I say it right out, this is a lefty site. Its a gesture of respect for my reader. Why I don’t do is some pathetic passive-aggressive preemptive strike, I don’t start in whining about how I won’t get a fair hearing because everyone is prejudiced against me, boo hoo hoo. Like for instance…
Your site has a couple of positive points. One, is a surprisingly accurate sense of itself, comparing itself to something the cat hawks up. Refreshing candor. The second was the count, there were two people there, and I was one of them. Not for long, mind. Also mildly interesting is its peculiar bent towards Catholicism.
You expect to be taken seriously, offering this kind of crap? They offer links to every right wing slime ball, not excluding Michael Savage, for Chrrisake! Michael Fucking Savage, Rush Limbaugh with rabies! Tell me you don’t actually listen to that rectal pustule? Tell me you don’t think that anyone who takes that festering pool of paranoia and venom seriously is worth my attention?
Because they do, you know. The people you are offering as sources of intelligent commentary, they approve of Michael the Savage Wiener, they link to him.
So, you want to be taken seriously, shown some respect? You could start by not offering craptastic sites. A little step, to be sure, but you got a long, long haul ahead of you.
What I expect - here on the most intelligent message board on the planet - is that people will react to information itself rather than where comes from. It doesn’t matter a whit whether the quotes in an OP come from the lips of Rush Limbaugh himself or from the Daily Koz; what matters is whether the information presented is accurate. The information in the OP is accurate in two ways: one, it demonstrates the arrogance of our Democratic leaders; and two, it illustrates through the words of Ronald Reagan what a great many Tea Party members and other conservatives are resentful of and concerned about with regard to the direction govenment in this country is headed.
Now as to your mentioning upfront that you’re posting information from a biased site, well, good for you. But that doesn’t mean I’m bound by the same rules of etiquette that you’ve dreamed up for yourself, and it doesn’t mean there was the slightest deception in posting from the site I did. I made no effort to mislead anyone as to what it was or where it came from, and given that fact I see no see no reason to post its political orientation beforehand. People around here are perfectly capable of recognizing for themselves that the link took them to a right-wing site. But again, that shouldn’t matter in the slightest. What matters is what Obama, Pelosi, et al. said, and not only have you nor anyone else offered the slightest defense of their statements, you have chosen to condemn me simply because of where the information comes from.
When the Great Depression hit, Hoover gave a ton of money to the banks to loan out. The banks held on to the money saying thank you very much. Sound familiar?
As for the other points, I pointed out that the validity of the various points are open to debate. In fact, your point 1 is contradicted by New Deal Democrat whose argument would be that you can’t prove that TARP saved the economy but you can’t say that the economy was saved by TARP. In fact it might have been saved IN SPITE OF TARP or if left alone it may have been saved on its own. What proof do you have that without TARP we would have had Great Depression II?
I remember when Ross Perot was trumpeting the deficit as Problem Number One, and promised to fix it the plain-common-sense way: Cut spending and raise taxes at the same time. Which might have been disastrous for the economy in practice, but, still . . . Never thought I’d miss him.
