The Tea Party shows it's colours

---

Originally Posted By: A Vare you suggesting that I am an extremist? I would classify myself as a liberal or progressive, and I do not consider liberals as extremists.Well, you know yourself and your political beliefs better than I do, no? It would be unfair for me to think or act otherwise.  Quote:Now, I don't think that you are an extremist.Thanks. I'm certainly not. In fact, I would bet that my collective posts around these parts might paint a picture of me as being a little less moderate than I actually am.  Quote:But you do seem misinformed.Umm...no. Just because I make statements that you disagree with doesn't mean I'm misinformed. Could I not make the same claim about you? Just what do you think I'm misinformed about? Quote:The tea party is full of extreme-right bigots who spout nothing but lies.This statement borders on the ridiculous. Sure, there are undoubtedly some folks in this movement that are extreme or idiotic or whatever you want to call them. And you can say the same about liberals, or the green party, or Methodists, or bikers or any other group. But it's a bit histrionic to say the movement is "full" of this kind of thing. That's more a reflection of how people they're campaigning against would like to portray them. It's very convenient. Quote:They're full of people who are actually worse than thor here.Meh...Thor's not that bad. In fact, I think his posts probably paint a picture worse than the real thing. I'm betting that he uses this board to vent just a small section of his entire way of thinking or being. It's gotten pretty easy for folks here to attack him beyond what's warranted. Quote:Now what the Republican party stands for, I never considered extremist. They identify their party as "center-right." They have been moving further and further to the right lately though.Hmmm...if this were true, I don't think Obama would be president and we wouldn't be having most of the discussions that have happened over the past few days. The leadership of the Republican Party, including the last president and most definitely the last presidential candidate, have been anything but far right. Bush campaigned right but governed more centrists. McCain was pretty darned centrist, to the point that he alienated a good portion of the party. Even a much-more-right-leaning VP candidate couldn't help him pull out a win. So if you're talking about the grass roots...the people that vote...yeah, maybe they are moving further right. I'll grant that. But if you're talking about the leadership, they've done anything but that over the past decade. But that might be changing. Quote:The tea party movement, however, IS extremist.Again, they are anything but. That's just a convenient way to write them off and discredit them.What exactly is it about them that you consider extreme. And I'm talking about the movement as a whole...the majority of the people, not a few nutjob extremes that exist within any movement or party. Quote:I think that Republicans are going to have big trouble balancing the wants of the tea partiers and the more moderate (relatively speaking) center-right base, because there is no way that they are going to be successful as a party by welcoming tea party ideas with open arms. The tea party movement is just too extreme for mainstream america. Or...the teaparty movement is mainstream America. If you look at what they're really saying and not what your liberal/democratic leaders and pundits are telling you they're saying.At any rate...thanks for the response and the attempts at rational discussion. It's rare and is appreciated when it happens.

Originally Posted By: A V...and I do not consider liberals as extremists.I consider myself a liberal, possibly even a Liberal, but there are certainly liberal extremists just as with any standpoint in any and all issues. Not all liberals are extremists just as not all conservatives are extremists, otherwise the word would be meaningless.The problem with liberal extremism for people like you and I is that as liberals ourselves, the extremist view isn't too far away from our own viewpoint. Conservatist extremists are far easier for us to identify because so much of what they believe is the polar opposite of what we believe, but even then we find it hard to find the line between extremist and others, and vice versa I'm sure.You and I could be extremists, but would we ever know? We would always see our viewpoint as being the most rational and those who claim the opposite are just idiots.I had a quick look over at Conservapedia to see what defines a liberal, its quite interesting. According to their standards, I'm a die hard liberal, probably an extremist. * Taxpayer-funded and/or legalized abortion Yes * Censorship of teacher-lead prayer in classrooms and school sponsored events In non-christian schools, yes * Support for gun control Yes * Support of obscenity and pornography as a First Amendment right Yes * Income redistribution, usually through progressive taxation Yes * Government-rationed medical care, such as Universal Health Care Yes * Taxpayer-funded and government-controlled public education Government/Taxpayer controlled, yes * The denial of inherent gender differences No * Insisting that men and women be placed in the same jobs in the military When qualified, yes * Legalized same-sex marriage Hell yes! * Implementation of affirmative action When qualified, yes * Political correctness No * Support of labor unions Yes * Teaching acceptance of promiscuity through sexual "education" rather than teaching abstinence from sex. Teaching more than just abstinence, yes * A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended I think the constitution will be interpreted by people to mean whatever they want. A constitution should be able to change. * Government programs to rehabilitate criminals Yes * Abolition of the death penalty Yes * Environmentalism Yes * Disarmament treaties Yes * Globalism ? * Opposition of the Bible. No, just that all religions should have the same amount of influence on a government as each other. None. * Opposition to an interventionalist American foreign policy Yes * Opposition to full private property rights ? * Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine I think that any broadcaster dealing with important issues should fully disclose sources of information so that their reliability can be assessed. And all opinion should be clearly classified as such. * In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World. This one is weird, I am a liberal, an atheist and an acceptor of evolution but these things are completely unrelated. * Opposition to domestic wire-tapping as authorized in the Patriot Act Yes * Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama).This one I don't get as Richard Dawkins was in fact a professor and I know of nobody who calls Obama a professor.

Originally Posted By: bobaliciousI consider myself a liberal, possibly even a Liberal, but there are certainly liberal extremists just as with any standpoint in any and all issues. Not all liberals are extremists just as not all conservatives are extremists, otherwise the word would be meaningless.[/b] Well, I guess I was thinking of a strict definition of a "liberal". So, I do think that there are definitely extremists on the left of the political spectrum, but I guess that my thoughts were that, almost by definition, liberals were center-left. For example, would call a communist an extremist versus a liberal who, as wikipedia puts it, is generally "anti-socialist, when socialism means state ownership of the basic means of production and distribution, because American liberals doubt that bases for political opposition and freedom can survive when all power is vested in the state."So, basically, I guess that extremism is all relative. A liberal is definitely not an extremist relative to a communist, however many may like to call a liberal extremist relative to American politics or American liberals.by the way, that was an interesting "are you a liberal" survey that you posted. I never really knew that there was such a think as a Conservapedia. But many of those questions in that survey were humorous.

Consevapedia is the same organization that is trying to re-write the bible to get all of Jesus's socialist ideas out of there. I love the way the survey questions are loaded

Originally Posted By: unsupervisedConsevapedia is the same organization that is trying to re-write the bible to get all of Jesus's socialist ideas out of there. roflmaoSorry buddy, you can't take out what isn't there. Christ never had anything to do with politics...and anybody who believes he did is self-delusional. Quote:I love the way the survey questions are loaded Me too.

laugh it up!I love telling jokes but I'm not making this shit up

Originally Posted By: unsupervisedI love telling jokes but I'm not making this shit up I believe you. Most likely somebody else made it up and you decided to believe it without question.

Originally Posted By: unsupervised

Consevapedia is the same organization that is trying to re-write the bible to get all of Jesus's socialist ideas out of there.

I love the way the survey questions are loaded
I agree! Even as a Conservative, I think some of those questions were front-loaded and manipulative.

Originally Posted By: thor Originally Posted By: unsupervisedConsevapedia is the same organization that is trying to re-write the bible to get all of Jesus's socialist ideas out of there. roflmaoSorry buddy, you can't take out what isn't there. Christ never had anything to do with politics...and anybody who believes he did is self-delusional.Hmmm...do "socialist ideas" necessarily have to entail politics? Even so, while Jesus didn't participate in politics per se, he certainly dealt with it and had things to say about the political systems of his day.

Originally Posted By: damienHmmm...do "socialist ideas" necessarily have to entail politics? Think about that for a second. If they're not political, how could they be called "socialist" which is a political ideaology? "Humanitarian" might be a better descriptive word...though my choice would be "Christian" (but that's a dirty word in the liberal world...one they will attempt to avoid at any cost, even though Christ is the one who defines it).

Originally Posted By: damien Originally Posted By: unsupervisedConsevapedia is the same organization that is trying to re-write the bible to get all of Jesus's socialist ideas out of there. I love the way the survey questions are loaded I agree! Even as a Conservative, I think some of those questions were front-loaded and manipulative. Wouldn't you also agree that some liberals do the same thing?

puts on best dad voicewell, thor, we're not talking about "some liberals" right now, we're talking about consevapedia, aren't we.

Originally Posted By: unsupervisedputs on best dad voicewell, thor, we're not talking about "some liberals" right now, we're talking about consevapedia, aren't we. Oh? I thought it was more along the lines of what was "front loaded and manipulative".

you're totally giving my "petulant child" analogy major traction herebut Billy's mom lets him stay up till 9!!

Originally Posted By: damien Originally Posted By: CockefellerYay! Obama!Yay! Democrats!Through the lies you've passed a bill. Not a good one due to the oppositions lies & twists, but perhaps it can be repaired with time.True, you may lose some positions next election, but when people find out what the republicans are truly up to, payback will be a bitch! What are these lies?What are the Republicans "truly up to"? You know very well "what lies", starting with the death panels.The 'truly up to's' are the selfish ME ME ME ME's of the right wing, where they actually want everything, but pay for nothing, among other things.Now, go play ignorant again and ask more silly questions.

Originally Posted By: thor

Originally Posted By: damien

Originally Posted By: unsupervised

Consevapedia is the same organization that is trying to re-write the bible to get all of Jesus's socialist ideas out of there.

I love the way the survey questions are loaded
I agree! Even as a Conservative, I think some of those questions were front-loaded and manipulative.

Wouldn't you also agree that some liberals do the same thing?

yes

Originally Posted By: CockefellerYou know very well "what lies", starting with the death panels.If I knew what you were talking about, I wouldn't have asked.As for the "death panels", what you and others don't want to acknowledge is that, while that might be a bit of exaggeration, there might very well be reason for concern. It wouldn't hurt for all of us to stop responding to each other in such snarky, you vs. me tones, and start trying to understand the underlying concernsThat being said...Are you willing to talk about the amazing lies that the Democrats threw out in order to get the bill passed? Quote:The 'truly up to's' are the selfish ME ME ME ME's of the right wing, where they actually want everything, but pay for nothing, among other things.Wait wait wait! You're actually suggesting it's the Republicans who want people to have services and privileges and such without paying for them? You think it's selfish to say we can't afford this? This is one of the most blind statements I've seen in a long while. Quote:Now, go play ignorant again and ask more silly questions. Well, you obviously aren't interested in being reasonable or intelligent about this, so I'm probably wasting my time with you.

Originally Posted By: unsupervised:) you're totally giving my "petulant child" analogy major traction herebut Billy's mom lets him stay up till 9!! Responses must always be in a language that is understood by the recipient. So, who was the first "child" to appear petulent in this thread?

Originally Posted By: thorSorry buddy, you can't take out what isn't there. Christ never had anything to do with politics...and anybody who believes he did is self-delusional.http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project Originally Posted By: ConservapediaBut the third -- and largest -- source of translation error requires conservative principles to reduce and eliminate.In this translation process, surely using conservative principles is going to bias the translation atleast as much as the supposed liberal bias? If the intention is to remove liberal views from the Bible then couldn't this project remove liberal ideas that should actually be there? Although you (and these project members) may not like it, it is possible that there are a few liberal messages that are supposed to be there. The project is running on an assumption that the conservatives have it right and the translations need to change, instead of just seeking the true translation.

You're absolutely right Bob. Interpreting Scripture through the lenses of our political persuasion is flat out wrong. Jesus was neither conservative or liberal. He was just right. And if what he did was more in line with a "liberal" principle then a "conservative" principle, then the former is more right then the second. I think if either side reads the Bible honestly and open-mindedly, and put what they read into action, they would both have to make some changes in their beliefs and actions.Yep...you're right.