Forums | MacLife

mo'ron, what would you expect of an ego-centric media star? He has to do that or lose all credibility as a "Voice of the People".

Only you, Bren would actually find an add for this.

sturner wrote:

mo'ron, what would you expect of an ego-centric media star? He has to do that or lose all credibility as a "Voice of the People".

Only you, Bren would actually find an add for this.

Well you know, I spend at least five hours I day scanning m4m Casual Encounters.

That photo's hilarious!

bedstuy wrote:

If the Tea Party activists and their allies are going to take offense at certain terms being applied to them, they should probably avoid self-identifying with those same terms.

Do you feel the same way about the word smurf?

Obviously he can't, but that really shouldn't surprise anyone here.

NO

The "Tea Party" movement is a bunch of nonsense for the most part.

You are entitled to your opinion.
Just remember that it is yours, and remember you do not like other forcing their opinions upon you.

resedit wrote:

Sternum wrote:

There's big difference between being made fun of for giving your political movement an idiotic name and being called things like "smurf" or "smurf." I hope that you can figure that one out on your own.

THEY DIDN'T GIVE THEMSELVES AN IDIOTIC NAME.

They call themselves the Tea Party and they have from the start - referencing the Boston Tea Party.

One of their campaigns involved sending Tea Bags to Washington, and THE MEDIA took it from there, but the organizations never called themselves Tea Baggers. Ever.

Stop lying or start reading.

I'm not saying that they should have rights restricted for being in the Tea Bag movement, unlike those who want to see my rights restricted as a gay person. They have the right to speak their mind. I have the right to say they're crazy.

Stating that I think the Tea Party movement is mostly nonsense or a corporate boondoggle is different than saying that they shouldn't be allowed to stage their protests or voice their opinion. I do take issue with them bringing firearms or shouting above others so that they can't be heard. That is just poor form and communicates that their position is weak because they're unwilling (or unable) to engage in a reasoned debate. I don't like creationism or "intelligent design" and it has no place in public schools, but if people choose to believe it and want to teach it in churches or at home, that's their business.

I just find the anger of the Tea Party movement to be misdirected. It shouldn't be directed at the government, but private enterprise. It was many of the same folks who demanded government regulation be removed. This then allowed private enterprise to act irresponsibly and put our whole financial system in jeopardy. The government didn't cause the meltdown directly. They did remove the regulations, at the request of conservatives who didn't want "big government" telling private businesses what to do. So in essence, they have nobody but themselves to blame. You can't have it both ways. You can't complain about big government interfering, then complain when companies who are unregulated do things to harm people. The bailouts came to protect the system. I didn't agree with how it happened, but it happened. The alternative wasn't exactly a pretty picture. Likewise letting scores of auto workers lose their jobs (and the US losing yet more manufacturing) in the biggest recession since the Great Depression wasn't a good idea either. The stimulus is starting to have an effect, but it may be too little, too late.

I agree that there is wasteful government spending. But many of the programs targeted by the TP movement are small potatoes. It isn't people on welfare bankrupting us, it's our incredibly large military-industrial complex. Entitlements would be better off if we quit borrowing from the SS fund. And yes, we'd have more money on hand if we didn't have to pay hundreds of billions to service the debt. Oh, and starting two wars of choice didn't improve our situation. I would imagine that, like many Americans, many in the TP movement have never traveled abroad or have little idea of what life is like outside the US. Some complain about our onerous tax burden, but considering the services (or lack thereof compared to other nations), our taxes aren't that high. People in developing countries would love to have our problems.

Get mad, but get mad at the Congress for removing protections put into place after the Depression. And get mad at the financial firms who continue to engage in irresponsible business practices and predatory lending - charging usurous interest rates (very un-christian) and hurting families. Get made at the corporations who are looting the planet and polluting it to make a fast buck. Get mad at the tax shelters and outsourcing jobs. Most of these are the result of smaller government that deregulates.

resedit wrote:

bedstuy wrote:

If the Tea Party activists and their allies are going to take offense at certain terms being applied to them, they should probably avoid self-identifying with those same terms.

Do you feel the same way about the word smurf?

::detects effort to locate equivalency::

Tallgeese wrote:

Farmerkev wrote:

Let's tone down the insults please.

There are a handful of instances posted in the last month alone showing Tea Party members referring to "teabagging" or being "teabaggers".  One was posted today. In this thread. In pictorial form. On this page. So I don't think it's an insult to say that denying it is willful ignorance or flat out lying.

Yes, some do.
Just like some African Americans call themselves and others - I'm a racist cow -.
Just like some Mexicans call each other wetbacks.

That in no way detracts from those who object to such terms, nor does it detract from the point that it is highly hypocritical for people here to intentionally use the phrase "Tea Bagger" to refer to the Tea Partiers after it has been explained and demonstrated that the movement calls itself the Tea Party movement and call themselves Tea Partiers in all the movement literature and documentation.

The phrase "Tea Bagger" is used by y'all specifically to insult the tea baggers, but you cry foul when anyone from the right uses far less offensive terms and demand they lose their jobs.

Hypocrites, that's what you are.

At least be honest and acknowledge you have a double standard. It's blatantly obvious. You know it, I know it, so why lie about it?

resedit wrote:

Yes, some do.

resedit wrote:

the organizations never called themselves Tea Baggers. Ever.

HURR DURR