• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Marvel Comics' depiction of anti-tax protesters inspires anger, apology

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
no, we are not. We are people who believe in liberty, and the rule of law....


Anarchists, well if I was an anarchist, in an anarchist society, I'd be a warlord.... And therefore no longeran anarchist. :lol:





Who is not protesting peacefully? huh?
Click to expand...

Terrorists. Anarchists who bombed the stock market. The Seattle and Oregon anarchists who smashed windows, although ending up getting billy-clubbed and gassed, as it were.

Libertarianism is maximizing man's freedom. This can only occur at the cost of centralized power. Radical Democracy has already eaten the Libertarian movement for dinner, and it is no longer alive as an idea for the betterment of humanity, but for the changing of the guard in Washington.

It's funny how the poster-boy for the Libertarian movement is a long-time Washington suit. Ron Paul is an extremely intelligent man, with good morals and even better politics, so he knows that the only legitimate way for him to make any difference is to become part of the authority machine; if you cannot beat them join them.

The original Boston Tea Party makes this current movement look nothing more than a bunch of frustrated citizens taking the pebbles that the King would give them. It incessantly mocks the very nature and course of the Boston Tea Party.

This ideal that you can keep the ideological benefits of the BTP and Libertarianism, while still commercializing the movement to haggle for Government authority is absolutely abhorrent and contradictory to history.
Of those two critiques, the commercializing of the Founding Fathers disgusts me. Rational reactionary rhetoric should grant the Founding Fathers the respect to be dead in peace, but no progeny has dug them up and hoisted them onto a political banner as if they were puppets.

Get real.
 
Zyphlin said:
I don't think Marvel should HAVE to apologize, and I think its ridiculous anyone in any movement feels like they should. Not because I think the Tea Parties should be "tougher", but because its their right to depict it however they want. They're an entertainment venue that is a private company and its not depicting anyone in particular. However I think its probably a smart business move to do so, since unlike depicting Nazi's as big giant villians, depicting an entire movement common in the US as extremist lunatics is likely not good for sales.



I will ask you as I have asked others, all of which unable to produce something yet.

Can you find an example of official Tea Party documentation (A website, news letter, etc) or significant tea party organizer or even a large group of Tea Parties that have called themselves "Tea-Baggers".

Every bit of research I've done on the subject has found the only people actually LABELING them as such started with liberal commentators doing so.

You made the accusation, please, back it up.
Click to expand...

Well I first heard the term on Fox News...

Score One for the Tea Baggers - Neil Cavuto | Your World - FOXNews.com

Only now are they trying to blame the liberals for the term...

'Tea-Baggers' Take Massachusetts for Brown - Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld - FOXNews.com
 
Saboteur said:
Well I first heard the term on Fox News...

Score One for the Tea Baggers - Neil Cavuto | Your World - FOXNews.com

Only now are they trying to blame the liberals for the term...

'Tea-Baggers' Take Massachusetts for Brown - Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld - FOXNews.com
Click to expand...

Ah, so your only example is from Fox News, a month or so after the term started being used, that seems to be using it specifically in a mocking way of those that used it through the context of the story starting with things like:

Score one for the tea baggers. Those silly folks with their silly protests and their often silly signs and silly outfits and silly rants. Who's silly now?

The folks laughing at them? Or, in California, the elected leaders who now clearly have to answer to them?
Click to expand...

Seems to be ridiculing and riffing off the fact that people started labeling them, in an attempt to belittle the movement, as "Tea baggers".

Well done, you truly showed me.

:roll:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Who are the only obnoxious people who are using the term?



Are you tryin to convince people that you can't figger this one out on your own?
Click to expand...

I am obnoxious, and I don't use the term. What exactly does that mean?

Can some one explain to me why this is even a story? A fictional work portrays a fictional situation based somewhat on real events. This is unusual how?
 
Arch Enemy said:
Terrorists. Anarchists who bombed the stock market. The Seattle and Oregon anarchists who smashed windows, although ending up getting billy-clubbed and gassed, as it were.

Libertarianism is maximizing man's freedom. This can only occur at the cost of centralized power. Radical Democracy has already eaten the Libertarian movement for dinner, and it is no longer alive as an idea for the betterment of humanity, but for the changing of the guard in Washington.



It's funny how the poster-boy for the Libertarian movement is a long-time Washington suit. Ron Paul is an extremely intelligent man, with good morals and even better politics, so he knows that the only legitimate way for him to make any difference is to become part of the authority machine; if you cannot beat them join them.

The original Boston Tea Party makes this current movement look nothing more than a bunch of frustrated citizens taking the pebbles that the King would give them. It incessantly mocks the very nature and course of the Boston Tea Party.

This ideal that you can keep the ideological benefits of the BTP and Libertarianism, while still commercializing the movement to haggle for Government authority is absolutely abhorrent and contradictory to history.
Of those two critiques, the commercializing of the Founding Fathers disgusts me. Rational reactionary rhetoric should grant the Founding Fathers the respect to be dead in peace, but no progeny has dug them up and hoisted them onto a political banner as if they were puppets.

Get real.
Click to expand...



Isn't Ron Paul a Republican?



furthemore, its a simple concept, we believe we can provide for ourselves, we believe we are better suited at self determination than the idiots we vote into power, and that we are as free men, entitled to freedom as did the founding fathers.


You have a problem with this?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Isn't Ron Paul a Republican?



furthemore, its a simple concept, we believe we can provide for ourselves, we believe we are better suited at self determination than the idiots we vote into power, and that we are as free men, entitled to freedom as did the founding fathers.


You have a problem with this?
Click to expand...

Ron Paul jumps back and forth. '88 he ran for the Presidency as Libertarian, and then in 2008 as a Republican; Gotta try it all, ye know.

I agree with this simple concept. Yet the party empowers politicians. They are ridding themselves of one bad egg for another bad egg. The issue that these neo-Libertarians see, and their solution to the issue does not add up.
 
Arch Enemy said:
Ron Paul jumps back and forth. '88 he ran for the Presidency as Libertarian, and then in 2008 as a Republican; Gotta try it all, ye know.

I agree with this simple concept. Yet the party empowers politicians. They are ridding themselves of one bad egg for another bad egg. The issue that these neo-Libertarians see, and their solution to the issue does not add up.
Click to expand...





oh don't get me wrong. thier last canidate turned my stomache..... barr? Who was he foolin? :lamo
 
Redress said:
I am obnoxious, and I don't use the term. What exactly does that mean?

Can some one explain to me why this is even a story? A fictional work portrays a fictional situation based somewhat on real events. This is unusual how?
Click to expand...

See the link I just posted. It's an interview with the real sign at a real 'tea party' that inspired the sign in the comic.
 
Zyphlin said:
Ah, so your only example is from Fox News, a month or so after the term started being used, that seems to be using it specifically in a mocking way of those that used it through the context of the story starting with things like:



Seems to be ridiculing and riffing off the fact that people started labeling them, in an attempt to belittle the movement, as "Tea baggers".

Well done, you truly showed me.

:roll:
Click to expand...

Well you didn't do enough 'research' the link I posted proves that the tea party coined the term themselves.
 
Arch Enemy said:
Terrorists. Anarchists who bombed the stock market. The Seattle and Oregon anarchists who smashed windows, although ending up getting billy-clubbed and gassed, as it were.

Libertarianism is maximizing man's freedom. This can only occur at the cost of centralized power. Radical Democracy has already eaten the Libertarian movement for dinner, and it is no longer alive as an idea for the betterment of humanity, but for the changing of the guard in Washington.
Click to expand...

Hello?

Why are you making the all-too typical mistake of confusing libertarianism with anarchy and anarchists?

Libertarians have ALWAYS recognized the essential role government plays in protecting freedom.

Arch Enemy said:
It's funny how the poster-boy for the Libertarian movement is a long-time Washington suit. Ron Paul is an extremely intelligent man, with good morals and even better politics, so he knows that the only legitimate way for him to make any difference is to become part of the authority machine; if you cannot beat them join them.
Click to expand...

Ron Paul refuses to understand the proper uses of physical force in a free society. Hence his libertarianism is tainted with pacificism.

Arch Enemy said:
The original Boston Tea Party makes this current movement look nothing more than a bunch of frustrated citizens taking the pebbles that the King would give them.[/qoute]

Yeah, the original patriots were protesting a tax equalling less then 1% and the government imposition of power on a free people.

Today's Tea Party people are protesting taxes exceeding 50%, and things like the Messiah's plan to make it a crime to not have health insurance.

Shouldn't they be frustrated when they're supposed representatives they send to Washington flatly refuse to serve the interests of the people they represent?

Arch Enemy said:
This ideal that you can keep the ideological benefits of the BTP and Libertarianism, while still commercializing the movement to haggle for Government authority is absolutely abhorrent and contradictory to history.
Click to expand...

?

Whatever.

Arch Enemy said:
Of those two critiques, the commercializing of the Founding Fathers disgusts me. Rational reactionary rhetoric should grant the Founding Fathers the respect to be dead in peace, but no progeny has dug them up and hoisted them onto a political banner as if they were puppets.
Click to expand...

You mean, because your side is so busy destroying the nation the Founding Fathers founded, you don't want to hear about them.
Click to expand...
 
In fact the link to the truth of the term tea bag in association with the tea party is so good I've made it my signature. :lol:
 
Heads up---many of you should have stuck with "Archie"--just sayin:cool::2wave:
 
I don't understand what they are apologizing for. Did anyone actually pay attention to the story? CA and the Falcon were investigating a group of white supremacists. They believe that some members of this group are in attendance at this protests and are there to sniff them out.

There was no implication that everyone at an anti-tax rally was part of this group. CA even said "this whole 'hate the government' vibe isn't limited to the Watchdogs," implying that the Watchdogs weren't the only ones at this rally.

Why are people so offended that there might be some bad guys hanging out at the protest?

If CA and the Falcon were investigating a bunch of Militant anarchists that they suspected were at a theatre, would Marvel have to issue an apology to all the offended thespians?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Hello?

Why are you making the all-too typical mistake of confusing libertarianism with anarchy and anarchists?

Libertarians have ALWAYS recognized the essential role government plays in protecting freedom.



Ron Paul refuses to understand the proper uses of physical force in a free society. Hence his libertarianism is tainted with pacificism.

Arch Enemy said:
The original Boston Tea Party makes this current movement look nothing more than a bunch of frustrated citizens taking the pebbles that the King would give them.[/qoute]

Yeah, the original patriots were protesting a tax equalling less then 1% and the government imposition of power on a free people.

Today's Tea Party people are protesting taxes exceeding 50%, and things like the Messiah's plan to make it a crime to not have health insurance.

Shouldn't they be frustrated when they're supposed representatives they send to Washington flatly refuse to serve the interests of the people they represent?



?

Whatever.



You mean, because your side is so busy destroying the nation the Founding Fathers founded, you don't want to hear about them.
Click to expand...

Lets talk about this then shall we.

Your first error is your playful imagination. You somehow suggest that the realistic expectations of Anarchism is what the authors like Goldstein and Bakunin depict as the revolution of the middle, lower, and pragmatic rich classes in dethroning the current regime. These authors, many of who write extensively of the French revolution, fail to comprehend that once an authority figure is dethroned the power that dethrones becomes the power that rules.
This is essentially a big problem in the ideals of Anarchism because the result obliterates the theory behind the action.
The realistic depiction of Anarchism is not toward a state of anarchy, as evidence suggests that disorder actually causes order.

Anarchism, then, is best described (by more contemporary thinkers) as an ideologue that gives creed to the constant, fundamental, change of authority through the means of power.

Libertarians and the founding thinkers (Locke, JJR, etc.) suggest that because the state has authority from the will of the consent that the people have the power to dethrone despots. Note that the people are given the power to dethrone the Prince thru power given by natural circumstances.

The problem with this Neo-Libertarianism is that it suggests that call for the change of authority must come from the changing of the superficial aspects of authority and not at the structure that is holding it up.

I am not arguing that the tea party and neo-libertarian movements are beneficiaries of anarchism, because I am arguing the opposite that the neo-libertarian movements are a modified version of the status quo.

These movements are doing less restructuring of the government interference in the lives of citizens and more filling out the "Feedback" forms for it. No matter how much you try to apply the Founding Father's beliefs to your movements you do not compare because you are not applying power (which in classical libertarian terms would be discursive) to authority. You are becoming absorbed by it. Someone is going to run for office with "Libertarian, <3 Founding Fathers, Small Government" tattooed on his ass and you are going to vote for him with the expectations that reforming the Government starts from the pedestal of the Presidency and congress.
Click to expand...
 
This is essentially a big problem in the ideals of Anarchism because the result obliterates the theory behind the action.
The realistic depiction of Anarchism is not toward a state of anarchy, as evidence suggests that disorder actually causes order.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and the problem with washing dishes is that evidence suggests that if the dishes are clean, people will eat off of them. The end result of washing dishes is more dirty dishes to clean.

When folk try to control you, you fight them. When you win, someone else will take their place and try to control you. So you fight them too. It makes sense to me.
 
Saboteur said:
And here's more for Zyphlin and Reverand Hellhound;

Countdown with Keith Olbermann Countdown with Keith Olbermann

Looks like the Tea partiers themselves are the ones to blame....

You can comence with calling Olbermann a liberal but the picture in the interview says it all. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Not sure why you're lumping me in there. Where in the world did I say that the signs in the Marvel comic weren't accurate to what was being put up.

Furthermore, where have I said people in the movement haven't been saying "Tea Bag the Libs" or "Tea Bag the Congress" or whatever else.

I've simply stated I've seen absolutely no evidence of any large group, or significant individual within the tea party movement, refer to themselves as "Tea Baggers" save when doing it to use irony at liberals using the term to define TEA PARTY members.

Saboteur said:
Well you didn't do enough 'research' the link I posted proves that the tea party coined the term themselves.
Click to expand...

Your link proved nothing but Cavuto writing a piece thick with irony and snarkyness aimed at the fact liberals call TEA PARTY members "Tea Baggers"

The only evidence so far anyones provided anytime I've asked it is people on the right using it in a mockingly ironic way (Such as Cavuto laughing at people calling them "Tea Baggers" and suggesting their silly while the tea parties actually succeed) or people on the left calling them "Tea Baggers" because they've stated they need to "Tea Bag" someone, which came about because they sent TEA BAGS to the whiteh ouse.

Your link proved jack.
 
Glinda said:
I knew Jack Kirby. Lived three houses down. I was good friends with his daughters Lisa and Sue when I was a teenager (early 70s).

Jack was a kind, fair, wise man. A fairly liberal guy, from what I observed. He and Roz opened their home and their hearts to pretty much everyone, without prejudice - I met all sorts of interesting and unusual people at their house. Sue was, by that time, semi-openly gay (she never spoke about it, but she didn't exactly hide it, either). Being out was something of a rarity in the early 70s, but Jack and Roz were proud of her and their love was unconditional.

I suspect Jack's crowd images might have included a sprinkling of non-WASP faces, but I feel certain he would have been appalled at the kind of things typically seen at Tea Party rallies (conspiracy theories about Obama's heritage, rants about socialism/fascism/Nazism, images of Obama as an African warrior, as Hitler, as The Joker, etc.), and wouldn't have hesitated to produce something quite similar to this Marvel piece.
Click to expand...

I really don't see what's so bad about the bolded part.
 
Saboteur said:
I think that if your stupid enough to call yourself a 'Tea-Bagger', you deserve it.
Click to expand...

And I think that if you're stupid enough to confuse the words of a whole group with the words of a news network describing that group, then you're probably stupid enough to misplace you're with your.
 
Zyphlin said:
Not sure why you're lumping me in there. Where in the world did I say that the signs in the Marvel comic weren't accurate to what was being put up.

Furthermore, where have I said people in the movement haven't been saying "Tea Bag the Libs" or "Tea Bag the Congress" or whatever else.

I've simply stated I've seen absolutely no evidence of any large group, or significant individual within the tea party movement, refer to themselves as "Tea Baggers" save when doing it to use irony at liberals using the term to define TEA PARTY members.



Your link proved nothing but Cavuto writing a piece thick with irony and snarkyness aimed at the fact liberals call TEA PARTY members "Tea Baggers"

The only evidence so far anyones provided anytime I've asked it is people on the right using it in a mockingly ironic way (Such as Cavuto laughing at people calling them "Tea Baggers" and suggesting their silly while the tea parties actually succeed) or people on the left calling them "Tea Baggers" because they've stated they need to "Tea Bag" someone, which came about because they sent TEA BAGS to the whiteh ouse.

Your link proved jack.
Click to expand...

My link proves that tea partiers left themselves open for ridicule. It's the same thing as tea partiers getting peeved about a comic book.

Now that I've done the little research that I've done I have more respect for the tea party to be honest... At first when I heard the term 'tea baggers' and yes it really was on Fox news, I thought 'these guys can't really be that dumb'. I really thought that they were proudly calling themselves tea baggers since Fox latched on to the term, I mean, it was like every other word out of their mouths seriously.

Now I realize that they (the tea partiers) have someone with a sense of humor in their ranks. It's actually quite funny, to me anyway. And yes I agree with them that the government is spending a lot of money. I haven't really been paying attention to what it's all on exactly except of course the bank bail-outs. Which was President Bush's baby and now it seems like the whole tea party thing is an attempt to rewrite history and blame it all on Obama.

There's one other sign in those photo's, it's of a mom carrying her child and a sign that says "I'm only 2 and I'm already in debt", well I happen to remember things as they actually happened. During the Clinton years Newt Gingrich proposed a bill to put new borns yes new borns in debt to the tune of $14,000.00 owed to the IRS the instant they took their first breath in order to pay for the deficit. So that's basically not a new idea and definitly not a liberal one.

Also I was trying to keep this relevant to the topic. Didn't want to give away any more ammo like, god forbid, a typo.

P.S. I think you misunderstood the second link to Fox News I provided it was actually them (Fox News) ripping on Rachael Maddow and what she has said about the tea party. And I'm sorry, Dav, if I misspelled MS. Maddow's first name. I know now that you automatically win debates here if you make grammerical mistakes...
 
Last edited:
Saboteur said:
Well you didn't do enough 'research' the link I posted proves that the tea party coined the term themselves.
Click to expand...




this is more obnoxious lies by one of the usual suspects...



Please link to where they specifically refer themselves as "teabaggers"....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom