From the kick your granny for a dollar capitalism files...

Is there any political description that avoids tons of negative connotations to people? Religious Right? Tea Party? Even just Democrat or Republican sends many people into a tizzy.

Otto Maddox wrote: People seem to be ready to jump on ole Iggy before he can get a post off his keyboard. Yeah, he put capitalism in his title for no great reason but other than that it is a really inoffensive post. I don't understand why liberal flavored posts are equated to trolling but conservative posts (even really inflammatory ones) are apparently just good common sense.

There's a pattern, and it has nothing to do with this board.

carguy123 wrote: Yes, but the point is the Liberals are trying to revive it. They think the name will have fewer negative connotations than does the term liberal. It's like when GTE changed names to Verizon. They hoped people would forget all the bad things about them.

It's like when the Republic Party changned their name to Tea...

In reply to Cone_Junky:

Fail. You must have gotten that from your liberal high school history book. Try reading the 5000 year leap for the truth.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

carguy123 wrote: Yes, but the point is the Liberals are trying to revive it. They think the name will have fewer negative connotations than does the term liberal. It's like when GTE changed names to Verizon. They hoped people would forget all the bad things about them.

It's like when the Republic Party changned their name to Tea...

Eddie. You're smarter than that. :)

DILYSI Dave wrote:

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

carguy123 wrote: Yes, but the point is the Liberals are trying to revive it. They think the name will have fewer negative connotations than does the term liberal. It's like when GTE changed names to Verizon. They hoped people would forget all the bad things about them.

It's like when the Republic Party changned their name to Tea...

Eddie. You're smarter than that. :)

Dave, we know that Eddie and Iggy are both smarter than that.

But they are amusing, aren't they?

oldsaw wrote: Dave, we know that Eddie and Iggy are both smarter than that. But they are amusing, aren't they?

I appreciate the condescending ridicule. Thank you for that. And I did what exactly to earn that?

Otto Maddox wrote: I don't understand why liberal flavored posts are equated to trolling but conservative posts (even really inflammatory ones) are apparently just good common sense.

QFT

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Dave, we know that Eddie and Iggy are both smarter than that. But they are amusing, aren't they?

I appreciate the condescending ridicule. Thank you for that. And I did what exactly to earn that?

Otto Maddox wrote: I don't understand why liberal flavored posts are equated to trolling but conservative posts (even really inflammatory ones) are apparently just good common sense.

QFT

Well I think it was your condescending ridicule, pretty much.

MrJoshua wrote: Have you not noticed that EVERY time their is a political debate Iggy does his best to lead everyone involved on a journey through all sorts of silly side arguments just to amuse himself?

Yes, but that doesn't mean he should get away with posting crap.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

oldsaw wrote: Dave, we know that Eddie and Iggy are both smarter than that. But they are amusing, aren't they?

I appreciate the condescending ridicule. Thank you for that. And I did what exactly to earn that?

Otto Maddox wrote: I don't understand why liberal flavored posts are equated to trolling but conservative posts (even really inflammatory ones) are apparently just good common sense.

QFT

By responding to playful ribbing with indignation.

You know, pre-emptive.

You guys are making my point for me.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: You guys are making my point for me.

What "point" is everyone making for you?

bravenrace wrote: In reply to Cone_Junky: Fail. You must have gotten that from your liberal high school history book. Try reading the 5000 year leap for the truth.

pro·gres·sive   /prəˈgrɛsɪv/ Show Spelled [pruh-gres-iv] Show IPA

–adjective 1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters: a progressive mayor. 2. making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community. 3. characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.

or

pro·gres·sive (pr-grsv) adj. 1. Moving forward; advancing. 2. Proceeding in steps; continuing steadily by increments: progressive change. 3. Promoting or favoring progress toward better conditions or new policies, ideas, or methods: a progressive politician; progressive business leadership.

Our Founding Fathers were lawyers, philosophers, and highly educated scholars. Everyone that the Conservatives hate and consider liberal.

You and the "Tea Party" bandwagon are failures. The baggers are always trying to speak for the Founding fathers, but I think they would have hanged Glenn Beck and his crew from the highest yardarm if they spouted thier BS while creating our nation.

z31maniac wrote: What "point" is everyone making for you?

If a conservative position is posted everyone responds as if it's simply common sense. If a liberal point dare be made in public, it is immediately met with personal attacks and ridicule.

Before the attacks (on me) started, I made two posts to this thread. One saying that there is a pattern to this kind of thing and that it happens everywhere, not just this forum. And another that suggested that the Tea Party was a rebranding of an unpopular Republican party. Neither a personal attack and both, while opinion, at least based on some actual fact.

If you don't agree with me, that's fine. Say so. Make a point. Show that I'm wrong. But immediately attacking me personally really just shows that I'm right.

And I'll tell you this- I think it's really unfair to lump me into the same boat as Iggy. If you look at my contributions to these discussions on the whole you'll find that, yes, I have opinions and I state them strongly. I also make logical arguments and respond to different opinions with an open mind. I've been convinced to change my view, to a degree, on some subjects when presented information I wasn't aware of.

^Meh, I can't say much.

I wouldn't want to reveal which of my espoused positions are the truth and which are vaporware.

If you KNOW I'm trolling, like Iggy, it takes away the fun for me.

Fun with the progressive definition. The thing is, though, that American political parties derive very little from their actual name, so it's not actually that useful.

fast_eddie_72 wrote:

z31maniac wrote: What "point" is everyone making for you?

If a conservative position is posted everyone responds as if it's simply common sense. If a liberal point dare be made in public, it is immediately met with personal attacks and ridicule. Before the attacks (on me) started, I made two posts to this thread. One saying that there is a pattern to this kind of thing and that it happens everywhere, not just this forum. And another that suggested that the Tea Party was a rebranding of an unpopular Republican party. Neither a personal attack and both, while opinion, at least based on some actual fact. If you don't agree with me, that's fine. Say so. Make a point. Show that I'm wrong. But immediately attacking me personally really just shows that I'm right. And I'll tell you this- I think it's *really* unfair to lump me into the same boat as Iggy. If you look at my contributions to these discussions on the whole you'll find that, yes, I have opinions and I state them strongly. I also make logical arguments and respond to different opinions with an open mind. I've been convinced to change my view, to a degree, on some subjects when presented information I wasn't aware of.

Clearly saying inflammatory things (like that the tea party is the republican party) gets you closer to iggy, not farther away.

In reply to tuna55:

I think it would be fair to say that the tea party is not a bipartisan effort. Their base is firmly rooted in the world of the republicans.

fast_eddie_72 wrote: Before the attacks (on me) started, I made two posts to this thread. One saying that there is a pattern to this kind of thing and that it happens everywhere, not just this forum. And another that suggested that the Tea Party was a rebranding of an unpopular Republican party. Neither a personal attack and both, while opinion, at least based on some actual fact.

You're taking things way too personally and too seriously (within the context of the thread). YMMV.....

Ig's a troll and wallows in other people's mud. He set a trap with an inflammatory thread title and went (laughing) back to his hole. Although not alone, carguy123 walked into the trap and you followed right behind.

Admittedly, I have a twisted sense of humour and, thusly, I am amused.

Otto Maddox wrote: In reply to tuna55: I think it would be fair to say that the tea party is not a bipartisan effort. Their base is firmly rooted in the world of the republicans.

The quote was "...when the republican party changed their name to tea"

I agree that the tea party is made up primarily of the more conservative and the more libertarian of the republicans, as well as smaller amounts of the more moderate libertarians and even some democrats. That isn't being disputed. The Tea parts isn't a party that has elected officials. Nobody changed their name, and certainly only the minority of existing republicans fit the bill of the tea party. Saying that ignores the fact that the vast majority of the republican party stayed the same.

It's like saying that GM changed their name to Corvette as a response to a (hypothetical) ad campaign featuring that car. It's silly nonsense. It's like when my three year old asks "why" after telling him "that's an airplane". When he says it it's innocent, when an adult says something like that it serves no purpose other than to annoy.

wikipedia

Commentators, including Gallup Editor-in-Chief Frank Newport, have suggested that the movement is not a new political group but simply a rebranding of traditional Republican candidates and policies.

I disagree with this contention, but they've referenced sources so I'd say it is an arguable point. It just isn't fair to dismiss people as trolls because they disagree with the majority on the board.

MrJoshua wrote: The flip side of this is that we have laws about where you can set up homeless feeding establishments and this church is probably breaking them.

They aren't feeding people though. They're giving them free food, that they are taking home, to cook/prepare/whatever, to feed their family.

tuna55 wrote: I agree that the tea party is made up primarily of the more conservative and the more libertarian of the republicans, as well as smaller amounts of the more moderate libertarians and even some democrats.

Well, first, thanks for a reasoned response.

Everything you say is true. Look at my remark again. I was using hyperbole to make my point, so I'd ask you not to be so sensitive.

But the truth remains that there are zero elected Democrats who caucus with the Tea Party. Democrats who identify as Tea Party supporters are in the single digit percentages. It would be hard to accurately describe them as anything other than part of the Republican Party.

And I do, in fact, believe their rise to prominence was fueled in part by a damaged Republic brand. (That, and a lot of money, but that’s a different subject) Until they had something new to sell, the "Party of Bush" label was a tough one to get around. It worked really well for Obama and the Democrats in 2008. I’ve often said that Obama won because he was more “not like Bush” than anyone else running.

No, the Tea Party isn't literally only a rebranding of the Republican Party. But if you look at what they said they were about, and then look at the people you see on TV representing them, it's hard to say they haven't evolved into little more than the right wing of the party. And what Republican running for office says “I’m a Republican, but I think those Tea Party folks are dead wrong”? So, really, you can only run so far away from it. Most elected Republicans aren’t representative of the Tea Party? I bet the elected Republicans would disagree. If a movement that said it was about responsible fiscal policy and not social issues can be co-opted by Michelle Bachman, they’re not the most focused group American politics has ever seen.

I've said this before, I was excited when they first started showing up and demanding that we look at our debt. I knew I wouldn't see eye to eye with them on everything since I believe taxes need to go up, (I seem to be the only person in America willing to say so) not down. But I hoped that they would put the issue front and center. And they have played a part in that. I think it's unfortunate, though, that rather than a serious debate about what might work, we're rehashing the same old politics. It's disheartening that they get a shot at actually doing something and all we get is NPR, Planned Parenthood and the elimination of Medicare. At least we’re talking about Medicare, which I’ve been saying has to be done for years, but there are solutions short of getting rid of every program you don’t like.

The reason it's offensive is because it IS about getting the country back from the hands of both the Republicans and the Democrats who have berkeleyed it up. The fact that smart people like yourself fail to recognize the difference just makes it all the more frustrating.

Yes, Michell Bachman, Sarah Palin, etc. say "I'm one of you guys." What you don't hear is a few million of us saying "Uh - no you aren't."

In reply to fast_eddie_72:

This conversation should stop here, as it isn't adding to the thread. I'll conclude with the following points:

Lindsay Graham, one of my representatives, is certainly not aligned with tea party values. Bob Inglis, another, most certainly was not, was thankfully replaced, but not with anyone noteworthy regarding tea party values. Demint, my last federal representative, sometimes does things that echo tea party values, but he isn't rock solid.

So, out of my three, I have 1/2, maybe 2/3. I certainly don't think asking a politician if they represent a particular group outside of a challenging situation can be counted upon. The view of a represented citizen who actually -is- a tea party person is certainly more valid, is it not?

Of course the tea party isn't coherent. That's sorta what grassroots means, dude. There is no leader of the tea party, no CEO, no board members, no charter.

if you'd like to debate me more, just PM me. I'm glad to do it in a thoughtful, non-thread spoiling manner.