Another Lefty Falicy Exposed
Just like the "study"that found FOX News viewers to be allegedly the most misinformed that turned out to be bogus (so says the study aurthor himself) another "everybody knows" falicy of the left has been debunked. everytime the left likes to cling to the lie that Republicans or Conservatives give less to charity, are less educated, or are the least informed-all fantasies the left have swallowed whole-another study has shown a favorite left-wing fantasy to be bunk.
posted by Northern Exposer at 18:16
3 Comments:
Tea Party violence?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6mCTU4NpRQ
http://www.ftrradio.com/2012/12/reporter-injured-as-tea-party-rally-turns-violent-with-racially-motivated-attack/
The Tea Party has plenty of violent outliers. Just as Occupy did.
Remember, the Tea Party is a movement calling for the deconstruction of much of the government and advocates violence to do so.
It's disgusting how the media hasn't discussed the more violent members of the Occupy movement, but the Tea Party are not clean like you claim.
You've got your head so far up Ted Cruz' butt I'm not sure where he ends and you begin. Stop being an apologist for the crazier parts of the Republican party.
Both parties have crazy factions. They're currently running the GOP though.
The "cocoon" comments in that article are rather ironic considering how few conservatives will listen to news outlets outside of Fox News, "newsbusters" (who very rarely source their claims, current article a notable exception) and such.
Conservatives like to live in a bubble of news that does nothing but assert their preconceived views while conveniently ignoring anything that jeopardizes that worldview. It doesn't mean they don't understand counter opinions, but they actively choose to ignore them.
There are many very smart people who believe in Creationism for instance. Often matters of faith override logical thinking.
And often in the states, there are many people who have a religion-like devotion to their party. These people often ignore major mistakes and filter out the views they don't like that their party ascribes to.
The Tea Party is a bit different though as it's a far less unified entity with differing sects motivated by a large number of factors:
1. Party affiliation. The Tea Party gained a ton of steam when the GOP propped sections of it up as a Obama counter and to this day much of the party is more anti-Democrat than being against out of control government spending like they claim to be.
2. Government spending. While it's the main thing the Tea Party says they stand for. I wonder where they were under Bush, though? They seem to be more about spending on socialist programs (and yet they also push against Obama touching medicare, one of the most socialist programs the U.S. government has.)
3. Religion. Admittedly a minor one mostly isolated to the southern sects of the party. This is the "Obama is a secret Muslim" crazy group that does exist, but isn't nearly as big as the media portrays them to be (same with #4.)
4. The racists. Also a very small faction of the party, but also a very loud and noticeable one. The other Tea Party sects would be best isolating these folks, but they probably won't due to the media attention they sometimes attract.
Defining exactly what the Tea Party is and what it stands for therefore becomes difficult. The biggest faction is definitely the group backed by the GOP but even this sect have somewhat turned against the group that made them headline news.
The Tea Party, by its very nature, should be hated by both main parties. It means they're doing their job.
Currently, however, the GOP still sees them as a tool to be used and so much of the Tea Party seems to be a Republican mouthpiece that the Tea Party's claims become highly suspect. It's doing a wonderful job of discrediting itself with the general population as an extreme right-wing faction.
Do you see the same in say, the Occupy movement, who have been documented and proven to contain racists, rapists, addicts and so on? Yet, they are championed by the MSM.
How could anyone defend the media pet projects, but yet turn a blind eye to anything that is related to the left, who historically uses violence as a first option?
What about the unions who have bitten people's fingers off, punched right-wing blogger types and continue to ignore their own hypocrisy?
And not once have I advocated Cruz, personally. Unfair media attacks and ridiculous "nazi/racists" comparisons make him a villian? Really?
If your links (at least the first one) are trying to prove Tea Party violence, since when is putting your hand, sign or jacket in front a camera considered violent? Mind you, getting a aggressive with the sign and cursing is a little over the line, but how is that any different than the unions as mentioned above? Do you defend that as it's ignored by the media? Can we agree that it really is the MSM that is dividing us all and telling us what (mostly) left-wing ideals we should embrace (even if it does ruin lives, in which case is never heard of again?)
And I have never heard of one serious Tea Party advocate (other than the admitted fringe element) advocate violence to lower taxes and smaller government. The deconstruction as you call it does lie in the Constitution that states, more or less and I'm paraphrasing, "when the government fails the people, start another one a little further west." So, in essence the Tea Party (the serious ones) is holding up their end as patriots.
As for advocating violence to do so, hardly. If you want to talk about using violence as an end to a means, look, really look at the left's history. For every Timothy McVeigh, I can give you 10 Pol Pots, Stalins, or Idi Amins and there's more every week.
I'm kind of going back and forth between the last two comments, so forgive me, but in saying conservatives don't listen to any news outlets outside of FOX and everything beyond that up to the creationism comment, is pure projectionism. How many viewers of MSNBC watch FOX without pre-conceived notions? How many round-table discussions (Bill Maher for example) have three liberals and one conservative, or sometimes no conservatives at all? Are they afraid of being embarrassed, are they not interested in all sides. I love it when three libs (or four including the host) tell conservatives how to win elections and then just agree with each other. The "agreeing with each other" can go for the other side as well, but how many conservatives do you see on MSNBC besides S.E. Cupp? And no David Brooks and DAvid Frum are NOT conservative. Does FOX not offer more diverse opinions between their hosts and guest. All I see on MSNBC are Chris Matthews and Martin Brashear-types agreeing with like-minded opinions while vastly misinforming the masses, while using edited audio or video. Yes, mention Andrew Breitbart, but he wasn't exactly a mainstream newsman. And even he was vindicated by the eventual exposing of Anthony Weiner and how the press will believe anything negative about the right.
Anyways...
Good points all round you guys (except of course for having my head up Cruz's rear. I have no idea where that came from.
Post a Comment
<< Home