• 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

Tucker Case said:
Big deal. I would think that people making a stand wouldn't be such ******s about name-calling and would instead ignore the asinine attempts to insult them.
Click to expand...
Basically it was a roundabout way for you to call them teabaggers. Disingenuous.
 
Saboteur said:
Well your can but you have to prove that this was at a liberal rally and the sign was made by a liberal organization.
Click to expand...





why? No one in the tea party refered to themselves as "teabaggers", therefore, I can apply the same filter to you and your ilk. no?
 
Tucker Case said:
That's disingenuous, the tea party is an offshoot of conservative, not all of conservatism.

What you are showing is an offshoot of liberalism. If you want to label those within that offshoot as anti-American troop killers, feel free. Those people pictured have purposely associated themselves with that label, and the label is warranted. But labelling all liberals as anti-American troop killers is disingenuous, because not all liberals are associating themselves with those concepts.

However, since the tea partiers have purposely associated themselves with tea bags from the very start, they have embraced this association. The application of the term teabagger is fully warranted because of this.

However, calling all conservatives teabaggers is unwarranted, as not all conservatives have associated themselves with these groups.
Click to expand...




Wrong tuck, you had a few kooks in the movement make a stupid sign, now you have a group of, pardon my french obnoxious assholes baiting this entire forum calling me a "teabagger" and baiting us with the obnoxious teabagger comment.




This was an anti war protest. by this logic I could at least label ALL anti-war types as anti-american troop killers, no?
 
American said:
Basically it was a roundabout way for you to call them teabaggers. Disingenuous.
Click to expand...

That's nonsense. If I wanted to call them teabaggers, I would just do so. I'm saying they act like ******s when they whine about it. That;s what I'm saying, and it's not a roundabout accusation at all.

And I even agree with the basic principles they are touting, although I think their approach to promoting these ideas sucks balls (pun fully intended).
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Wrong tuck, you had a few kooks in the movement make a stupid sign, now you have a group of, pardon my french obnoxious assholes baiting this entire forum calling me a "teabagger" and baiting us with the obnoxious teabagger comment.




This was an anti war protest. by this logic I could at least label ALL anti-war types as anti-american troop killers, no?
Click to expand...

No, because the people associated with the tea party are not all anti-taxation types. Man of us abhor associating ourselves with this movement becuase of the sheer numbers of kooks within the tea party.

There are loads of them who are doing the same degree of assholish labeling of others as there are assholes labeling them.

They are inflammatory morons that hinder the ultimate goals of small government far more than they assist them.

If everyone within the tea party who was interested in ideas over rhetoric purged these fools from the tea party, they might get support from people like me. Instead, they put these fools at the forefront and alienate people like me.
 
Tucker Case said:
That's nonsense. If I wanted to call them teabaggers, I would just do so. I'm saying they act like ******s when they whine about it. That;s what I'm saying, and it's not a roundabout accusation at all.

And I even agree with the basic principles they are touting, although I think their approach to promoting these ideas sucks balls (pun fully intended).
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter how they act, or what you think of them. It's politics of personal distruction, isn't it?
 
Tucker Case said:
No, because the people associated with the tea party are not all anti-taxation types. Man of us abhor associating ourselves with this movement becuase of the sheer numbers of kooks within the tea party.

There are loads of them who are doing the same degree of assholish labeling of others as there are assholes labeling them.

They are inflammatory morons that hinder the ultimate goals of small government far more than they assist them.

If everyone within the tea party who was interested in ideas over rhetoric purged these fools from the tea party, they might get support from people like me. Instead, they put these fools at the forefront and alienate people like me.
Click to expand...






Who are these "tea party people" what's thier phone number?
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Who are these "tea party people" what's thier phone number?
Click to expand...

Tea Party Nation

National Tea Party Convention - Home

I think the way they approach things is antithetical to promoting conservative ideology. They are rallying those who already agree while alienating those who don't already agree. It's entirely caused by their rhetoric and the way they have embraced the worst things associated with conservative movements.

Movements like this, run as they are, ****ing kill me a bit inside because they undermine intellectually legitimate movements with their rampant emotionally-charged drivel.
 
American said:
It doesn't matter how they act, or what you think of them. It's politics of personal distruction, isn't it?
Click to expand...

That's precisely how the tea party acts, though. I don't mind seeing the same tactics they regularly employ used on them.
 
Tucker Case said:
Tea Party Nation

National Tea Party Convention - Home

I think the way they approach things is antithetical to promoting conservative ideology. They are rallying those who already agree while alienating those who don't already agree. It's entirely caused by their rhetoric and the way they have embraced the worst things associated with conservative movements.

Movements like this, run as they are, ****ing kill me a bit inside because they undermine intellectually legitimate movements with their rampant emotionally-charged drivel.
Click to expand...
What way they approach things? What rhetoric? Rampant emotionally charged drivel? Sounds to me like you are describing the media coverage of the Tea Party, not the actual Tea Party stances and positions.:doh
 
Tucker Case said:
Tea Party Nation

National Tea Party Convention - Home

I think the way they approach things is antithetical to promoting conservative ideology. They are rallying those who already agree while alienating those who don't already agree. It's entirely caused by their rhetoric and the way they have embraced the worst things associated with conservative movements.

Movements like this, run as they are, ****ing kill me a bit inside because they undermine intellectually legitimate movements with their rampant emotionally-charged drivel.
Click to expand...






I don't recognize either of these as the "leaders" of the grass roots tea party movement. I see these people thus far as opportunists.
 
Tucker Case said:
Movements like this, run as they are, ****ing kill me a bit inside because they undermine intellectually legitimate movements with their rampant emotionally-charged drivel.
Click to expand...

What in your view is a legitimate movement and what constitutes "legitimate"?
 
Ockham said:
What in your view is a legitimate movement and what constitutes "legitimate"?
Click to expand...
The ones who reach out to independents by acting liberal sometimes to look balanced.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
This is a lie.
Click to expand...

Oops sorry, my bad, I got you confused with Scarecrow Akbar. Seriously I do apologize.

adding a little PDS to your obnoxious style?
Click to expand...

No, Palin is just the latest to jump on the band wagon.

Whatever man. What is your issue with small government and individual liberty?
Click to expand...

Well when I think of "small government" I actually think of less representatives not just fewer government programs, beaurocrats and less spending. I mean, if there need to be job cuts they should start in state government then go up to federal. My state, Minnesota, has something like the second most representatives. The governor keeps cutting programs from the state budget and refuses to raise taxes. This is a lose lose situation if you ask me. In my opinion what needs to be cut is the representatives pay and or some of their positions not the social programs that actually make a difference in peoples lives.

Anyway, Regan expanded the government, Bush Sr. expanded the government, Clinton expanded the government, Bush Jr. expanded the government and now, Obama is expanding the government. I hardly believe that the next president if it is not Obama won't expand the government. I mean how can anybody claim that they will when what really needs to be done is to eliminate representatives... I mean look at these fools, it's the actual people in office that are the waste of money. And honestly I don't think it's even possible to lay off half of congress on the grounds that their jobs are unnecessary.

The TPN (Tea Party Nation) wants to send them (congress) pink slips but some other schmuck is just going to take their place. It doesn't change the fact that there are too many cooks (or kooks) in the kitchen.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So the libtards running a comic book company are employing traditional Progressive political ploys like "smear and lie" and the libtards on this forum like it.

Not too surprising.

Then again, since I'm an adult, I don't read comic books and would never have known about Marvel's idiocy if I wasn't told.

I'm not surprised that so many socialists and liberals read comics still.
Click to expand...

You should read them. You are one of Marvel's evil characters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarecrow_(Marvel_Comics)
 
Actually, lets use Tuck's example.

The Democrat Parties symbol is a Donkey.

A donkey is known as an ass, an a male donkey a jackass.

Naturally, since TECHNICALLY it is true that Democrats = Donkey's by their own choice of a symbol (and thus the symbol they CHOOSE to identify with by being Democrats) and Donkey's = Asses, then TECHNICALLY it shouldn't be an insult to call every self proclaimed Democrat on this board an Ass, and specifically call all the males jackasses.

Yet is anyone going to claim, while perhaps technically correct, that that's not meant for any reason other than to be insulting? That its not childish? That its not juvinile. If no Democrat ever purposefully and seriously refered to themselves as "Asses" in regards to their party would it be an implied lie to say "Hey, the Democrats shouldn't have called themselves Asses if they didn't want to be called it"?

Yes, many in the Tea Party movement sent tea bags to congress, and others have made the rather juvenile and childish signs like "Tea Bag the Libs". Literally, one could call those who send tea bags to someone "tea baggers". However no one is saying it in a literal sense. With Sabotuer or DisneyDude or any of these others doing it say it they're not saying it in a literal sense, but in a completely insulting and degrading sense...much like calling any Democrat an Ass.

Now, I'm not going to ask you Tuck if you think that's acceptable. I know your style and your views well enough to know there's a difference between what you think is fine if people want to do it (because people shouldn't get offended by someone doing something childish) and being able to admit somethings meant to be insulting or is juvenile.

So what I will ask Tucker is that would calling male democrats "Jackasses" whenever describing them be, most likely, purely insultive and a juvenile attempt at making fun of them despite it being TECHNICALLY true based on a sign they choose to identify with.

And if so, how is that different than the Tea Partiers?
 
Zyphlin said:
Actually, lets use Tuck's example.

The Democrat Parties symbol is a Donkey.

A donkey is known as an ass, an a male donkey a jackass.

Naturally, since TECHNICALLY it is true that Democrats = Donkey's by their own choice of a symbol (and thus the symbol they CHOOSE to identify with by being Democrats) and Donkey's = Asses, then TECHNICALLY it shouldn't be an insult to call every self proclaimed Democrat on this board an Ass, and specifically call all the males jackasses.

Yet is anyone going to claim, while perhaps technically correct, that that's not meant for any reason other than to be insulting? That its not childish? That its not juvinile. If no Democrat ever purposefully and seriously refered to themselves as "Asses" in regards to their party would it be an implied lie to say "Hey, the Democrats shouldn't have called themselves Asses if they didn't want to be called it"?

Yes, many in the Tea Party movement sent tea bags to congress, and others have made the rather juvenile and childish signs like "Tea Bag the Libs". Literally, one could call those who send tea bags to someone "tea baggers". However no one is saying it in a literal sense. With Sabotuer or DisneyDude or any of these others doing it say it they're not saying it in a literal sense, but in a completely insulting and degrading sense...much like calling any Democrat an Ass.

Now, I'm not going to ask you Tuck if you think that's acceptable. I know your style and your views well enough to know there's a difference between what you think is fine if people want to do it (because people shouldn't get offended by someone doing something childish) and being able to admit somethings meant to be insulting or is juvenile.

So what I will ask Tucker is that would calling male democrats "Jackasses" whenever describing them be, most likely, purely insultive and a juvenile attempt at making fun of them despite it being TECHNICALLY true based on a sign they choose to identify with.

And if so, how is that different than the Tea Partiers?
Click to expand...






This post ends the "teabagger" controversy, once and for all.... ;)
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Jesus rode on an ass on palm sunday.
Click to expand...

In those days, people typically did not wear underpants, so he may have been teabagging the animal as well.

Edit: Forgot about loin cloths, nevermind.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
Actually, lets use Tuck's example.

The Democrat Parties symbol is a Donkey.

A donkey is known as an ass, an a male donkey a jackass.

Naturally, since TECHNICALLY it is true that Democrats = Donkey's by their own choice of a symbol (and thus the symbol they CHOOSE to identify with by being Democrats) and Donkey's = Asses, then TECHNICALLY it shouldn't be an insult to call every self proclaimed Democrat on this board an Ass, and specifically call all the males jackasses.

Yet is anyone going to claim, while perhaps technically correct, that that's not meant for any reason other than to be insulting? That its not childish? That its not juvinile. If no Democrat ever purposefully and seriously refered to themselves as "Asses" in regards to their party would it be an implied lie to say "Hey, the Democrats shouldn't have called themselves Asses if they didn't want to be called it"?

Yes, many in the Tea Party movement sent tea bags to congress, and others have made the rather juvenile and childish signs like "Tea Bag the Libs". Literally, one could call those who send tea bags to someone "tea baggers". However no one is saying it in a literal sense. With Sabotuer or DisneyDude or any of these others doing it say it they're not saying it in a literal sense, but in a completely insulting and degrading sense...much like calling any Democrat an Ass.

Now, I'm not going to ask you Tuck if you think that's acceptable. I know your style and your views well enough to know there's a difference between what you think is fine if people want to do it (because people shouldn't get offended by someone doing something childish) and being able to admit somethings meant to be insulting or is juvenile.

So what I will ask Tucker is that would calling male democrats "Jackasses" whenever describing them be, most likely, purely insultive and a juvenile attempt at making fun of them despite it being TECHNICALLY true based on a sign they choose to identify with.

And if so, how is that different than the Tea Partiers?
Click to expand...

I think you nailed it, Zyph.

If we look at the origins of the donkey symbol. It was originally used to describe Andrew Jackson (Jackson/Jackass).

But Thomas Nast was the guy who really caused the Donkey to become the symbol of the Democrats.

Look at one of his drawings:

nast.jpg



Look, a jackass jumping off of a cliff!

Here's the one that caused the Elephant to become the Republican representative:

thomas_nast.jpg


A Jackass dressed as a lion scaring everything away except the "republican vote".

The parties association with the donkey/jackass is exactly what the "teabaggers" should do. They've taken what was originally designed to be an insult and turned it into a badge of pride and a symbol of the party.

The elephant was not meant to be an insult, since Nast was a republican himself.

So the dems are associated with donkeys/jackasses because they didn't whine and cry about the insult, but embraced it and castrated it by embracing it.

You see, what you point out about my views, i.e. that "people shouldn't get offended by someone doing something childish" was exemplified by that democratic party of the past embracing this childish insult.

It's a history lesson that the tea party can learn from. Stop whining about the association and own it. Castrate the insult aspect by not taking offense.
 
Last edited:
Ockham said:
What in your view is a legitimate movement and what constitutes "legitimate"?
Click to expand...

I think that many within the tea party movement are trying to make a legit movement, but the infiltration of opportunists and inflammatory rhetoric that has been associated with the movement have undermined the main goal.

I mean, the fact that Ron Paul is being contested by tea partiers is a sure sign that there has been some degree of hijacking that has happened. Nobody within the republican party represents the concept of small governemnt conservatism more purely than Paul, even if one disagrees with his foreign policy approach, his domestic record has been immaculate according to the average tea partier's purported domestic goals.

That harms the legitimacy of the whole movement in my eyes. It makes it look like nothing more than an opposition platform to the dems instead of a true conservative movement.

And embracing Palin is another de-legitimizing aspect of the platform. I find her approach to be purely opportunistic.

Contrary to what American will say about independents and liberals with regards to my views, I represent a very extreme version of 1790's-style anti-federalism, which is actually a very extreme form of small-government ideology.

The basic premises of the tea party claims is right in line with my way of thinking: small federal government etc.

To me, a legitimate movement will have a stance that is not merely based on mutual opposition to certain concepts.

A legitimate movement has specific goals and specific strategies that it wants to implement in order to achieve those goals.

I haven't seen any specific strategies proposed by tea partiers that would decrease the size of the government. I've seen a lot of anti-Obama rhetoric though.
 
Tucker Case said:
Then we're in agreement on that, rev. But the infiltration of these opportunists have hampered the cause in my opinion.
Click to expand...




As they always do, that, plus the media blitz giving them the limelight a well, has led to certain ilk to utilize the vulgar term at yours truly among others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom