• 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!

Tea Partiers Portest at the White House: "Hang that lying Kenyan"

sangha said:
Drew Walker
Super-‘Patriot’ Who Hates Liberal ‘F*ggots’ Got Himself a Visit From the Secret Service After Threatening President (Video) | Americans Against the Tea Party

blainecooper53, blainecooper53 blainecooper53 on USTREAM.

Untitled-3.jpg




https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1505632319703485&set=vb.100007701942769&type=2&theater
Click to expand...






lol, almost as racist as those leftist hollywood leaks. ;)
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Which is also the same amount of evidence you've introduced to debunk this thread.
Click to expand...

I don't have to prove who these people weren't. You have to prove who they are. And you didn't. That's why your thread failed.

Logic 101. I suggest you learn about it. You make claims - you have to back them up.
 
Re: Tea Party shows true colors

countryboy said:
Sorry, gonna hafta call bull**** on that one. I have never seen any evidence of bigotry at any Tea Party rally. One of the first rallies I attended had a black funk band for entertainment. Yeah, that's real bigotry, eh? :roll:
Click to expand...

Sorry, gonna hafta call bull **** on that one. In Oklahoma I've seen plenty of bigotry from the TPs- course not when any black was within earshot of course... smile in public, racist as hell in private... 'no one here is ever gonna vote for no Jesse Jackson looking guy.' 'If Obummer gets in office the blacks will get their revenge by taking over the justice system with black judges.' 'I'll never vote for a damn Ni****!'

Perhaps you need to get out more... there is a rather blatant you-tube speech where a rally speaker talks about CON America protecting it's special DNA....

Have a good day and like every other country boy, we are out standing in our fields... :peace
 
sangha said:
Drew Walker
Super-‘Patriot’ Who Hates Liberal ‘F*ggots’ Got Himself a Visit From the Secret Service After Threatening President (Video) | Americans Against the Tea Party

blainecooper53, blainecooper53 blainecooper53 on USTREAM.

Untitled-3.jpg




https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1505632319703485&set=vb.100007701942769&type=2&theater
Click to expand...


Again, where is this man's affiliation with the Tea Party. [other than a site dedicated to being anti-TP]

I get it..."Tea Party" is just a code word for anyone who disagrees with the left in this country...right?
 
DifferentDrummr said:
In a supposed anti-immigration rally (attended by only 2 dozen or so), there were cries of "Hang the lying Kenyan traitor!" among other calls for good ol' fashioned lynchings.

Story

Click to expand...


I watched the whole thing. Didn't look like any Tea Party rally I'd ever seen. How do you know it was Tea Party related?
 
sawdust said:
I watched the whole thing. Didn't look like any Tea Party rally I'd ever seen. How do you know it was Tea Party related?
Click to expand...

He doesn't, he made it up. No evidence has been produced thus far.
 
tres borrachos said:
I don't have to prove who these people weren't. You have to prove who they are. And you didn't. That's why your thread failed.

Logic 101. I suggest you learn about it. You make claims - you have to back them up.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. I didn't make the claim. The sources I linked to did. Don't agree with them? Go ahead and prove them wrong.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Wrong again. I didn't make the claim. The sources I linked to did. Don't agree with them? Go ahead and prove them wrong.
Click to expand...

The problem with the "claim" is you did not bother to read your own links. The poster of this video is Brian Tashman of Right Wing Watch. Not Talking Points Memo. In his reporting for Right Wing Watch Brian Tashman identifies these as "right wing protestors" not Tea Party members. He does so both on YouTube where he posted the video and on the RWW website, where he (not Ahiza Garcia of TPM) reported the "story".
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/overheard-anti-obama-rally-hang-him-weve-got-rope]Overheard At Anti-Obama Rally: 'Hang Him! We've Got Rope' | Right Wing Watch

You posted a link to Talking Points Memo, which in turn linked to Right Wing Watch's video which is very clear in not identifying these people as anything but "right wing" protestors. Despite the fact that TPM is not the author of either the posted video or the original "story" TPM decided to add the claim that these are Tea Party members. Despite their being no evidence of that and the fact that the report that is the source of the video only claims these are "right wing protestors." I'd say ultra right wing protesting nut jobs, but the undeniable fact of the matter is you are talking out your posterior, and doing so dishonestly too.

This is all pretty academic, simplistic really. In fact it is pretty slimy of Ahiza Garcia of TPM to alter the information reported by Tashman and RWW. But this kind of questionable ethics is nothing new for TPM. The fact is that all of this is obvious, except to you. Cleopatra, the Queen of Denial much?
 
Horace said:
You posted a link to Talking Points Memo, which in turn linked to Right Wing Watch's video which is very clear in not identifying these people as anything but "right wing" protestors. Despite the fact that TPM is not the author of either the posted video or the original "story" TPM decided to add the claim that these are Tea Party members. Despite ... the fact that the report that is the source of the video only claims these are "right wing protestors."
Click to expand...

Amazing; someone made an actual argument.

On this point I agree: Ahiza Garcia is guilty of extremely sloppy reporting (at best) in failing to explain how these protestors were connected with the Tea Party, or if they were. But you're strongly implying that the protestors were not connected with the Tea Party, and you're definitely "doing so dishonestly."

Consider this analogy. Just because a corrupt cop plants evidence at a crime scene, the suspect can still be guilty. Similarly, just because there's no evidence to indicate that a particular guy is a Tea Party member doesn't mean that he isn't. This kind of nuance is something that a disturbing number of posters here simply don't grasp. I hope you're not one of them.

Also, you hurt your case by trying to make this into a personal vendetta.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Amazing; someone made an actual argument.

On this point I agree: Ahiza Garcia is guilty of extremely sloppy reporting (at best) in failing to explain how these protestors were connected with the Tea Party, or if they were. But you're strongly implying that the protestors were not connected with the Tea Party, and you're definitely "doing so dishonestly."

Consider this analogy. Just because a corrupt cop plants evidence at a crime scene, the suspect can still be guilty. Similarly, just because there's no evidence to indicate that a particular guy is a Tea Party member doesn't mean that he isn't. This kind of nuance is something that a disturbing number of posters here simply don't grasp. I hope you're not one of them.

Also, you hurt your case by trying to make this into a personal vendetta.
Click to expand...
The only thing amazing here is that you bothered pretending nobody debunked your thread and your arguments, more than once over the last few days. As to your analogies and feelings of vendetta based persecution and the way you are now trying to play off the same posters that already debunked you/your thread? As being simply unable to grasp the so called nuances of this mess of logic and common sense you made? That's some paranoid and unintentional comedy. Nobody is missing the nuances of that. Well nobody but you.:shock:
 
Horace said:
The only thing amazing here is that you bothered pretending nobody debunked your thread and your arguments, more than once over the last few days. As to your analogies and feelings of vendetta based persecution and the way you are now trying to play off the same posters that already debunked you/your thread? As being simply unable to grasp the so called nuances of this mess of logic and common sense you made? That's some paranoid and unintentional comedy. Nobody is missing the nuances of that. Well nobody but you.:shock:
Click to expand...

That's it: join the sheep. It's much easier than thinking, isn't it? Definitely easier than addressing the arguments.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
That's it: join the sheep. It's much easier than thinking, isn't it? Definitely easier than addressing the arguments.
Click to expand...
Your arguments have not only been addressed but debunked. That you keep arguing anyway is not exactly unexpected given your non stop spinning so far. Like I asked, Cleopatra Queen of Denial much? Your enthusiastic answer is yes! Which was obvious on the first page. :roll:
 
Horace said:
Your arguments have not only been addressed but debunked. That you keep arguing anyway is not exactly unexpected given your non stop spinning so far. Like I asked, Cleopatra Queen of Denial much? Your enthusiastic answer is yes! Which was obvious on the first page. :roll:
Click to expand...

Saddam loved to declare victory and go home every time he lost a war. So if I'm Cleopatra, you're Saddam.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Saddam loved to declare victory and go home every time he lost a war. So if I'm Cleopatra, you're Saddam.
Click to expand...
You have no argument anymore, yet you still argue. You just never see that on internet debate forums. What next, you are rubber and I am glue? Or something a bit more nuanced? :lamo
 
Horace said:
You have no argument anymore, yet you still argue. You just never see that on internet debate forums. What next, you are rubber and I am glue? Or something a bit more nuanced? :lamo
Click to expand...

As you might have figured out, I give as good as I get. When all you offer me is idiocy, I reply in kind. :2razz:
 
DifferentDrummr said:
As you might have figured out, I give as good as I get. When all you offer me is idiocy, I reply in kind. :2razz:
Click to expand...
The only thing I can see that you have given is a dead on arrival thread that was debunked early on. And a lot of juvenile comments and postures, which again, you just never see on internet debate forums. Since you have nothing intelligent to articulate but will doubtless continue to try to strain at doing so anyway? Well there is a wall covered in wet paint and somebody has to watch it dry.
 
DifferentDrummr said:
Amazing; someone made an actual argument.

On this point I agree: Ahiza Garcia is guilty of extremely sloppy reporting (at best) in failing to explain how these protestors were connected with the Tea Party, or if they were. But you're strongly implying that the protestors were not connected with the Tea Party, and you're definitely "doing so dishonestly."

Consider this analogy. Just because a corrupt cop plants evidence at a crime scene, the suspect can still be guilty. Similarly, just because there's no evidence to indicate that a particular guy is a Tea Party member doesn't mean that he isn't. This kind of nuance is something that a disturbing number of posters here simply don't grasp. I hope you're not one of them.

Also, you hurt your case by trying to make this into a personal vendetta.
Click to expand...

Earlier in this thread, I posted an extended video of the protest which shows a group of protesters identifying themselves as teabaggers
 
sangha said:
Earlier in this thread, I posted an extended video of the protest which shows a group of protesters identifying themselves as teabaggers
Click to expand...
Just for the sake of veracity, I went back and looked at the post you are now mis remembering. What you really did was point to a extended video that according to you, contains a "noted" Tea Party member named Drew. When asked "noted" by who aside from the anti TP website you linked to? You took a nap. A bit later you woke up and then referenced the same video and link again. Only that time your claim had grown to say that the same video now contained a "number of noted" Tea Party members. Now your recollection of your original post has grown to include a "group" of Tea Party members. Not "noted" ones now. Now it is a "group" of Tea Party members, identifying themselves as Tea Party members.

This is what I get for bothering to indulge a sangha claim or comment. Should have figured my first encounter would be symbolic of all the future ones. A waste of time for everyone but the trolleriffic. My bad.:doh
 
Horace said:
Just for the sake of veracity, I went back and looked at the post you are now mis remembering. What you really did was point to a extended video that according to you, contains a "noted" Tea Party member named Drew. When asked "noted" by who aside from the anti TP website you linked to? You took a nap. A bit later you woke up and then referenced the same video and link again. Only that time your claim had grown to say that the same video now contained a "number of noted" Tea Party members. Now your recollection of your original post has grown to include a "group" of Tea Party members. Not "noted" ones now. Now it is a "group" of Tea Party members, identifying themselves as Tea Party members.

This is what I get for bothering to indulge a sangha claim or comment. Should have figured my first encounter would be symbolic of all the future ones. A waste of time for everyone but the trolleriffic. My bad.:doh
Click to expand...

I forgot the wingnut rule that says once you use the word "noted", you have to use it in every post or else you're lying.
 
sangha said:
I forgot the wingnut rule that says once you use the word "noted", you have to use it in every post or else you're lying.
Click to expand...
Here is a better, more helpful rule. Instead of ducking a direct question? Just answer it. You won't have to come back later and pretend that being asked to explain your stance or answer a question posed by something you claimed at a debate forum is calling you a liar. You won't have to make up "wing nut rules" either. Especially when you are doing a pretty good wingnut act yourself. Of course the fact that your story has grown and grown and you are still ducking and dodging? Tends to make a strong case for rank dishonesty and a rather lazy one at that.

Who cares why you will say why your story has changed a few times now? The answer is pretty obvious, OK well not to you. Of course you could not even answer the first question the first version of your claim brought up. All I can guess is you think doubling or tripling down and adding to your claim is the way to go here. OK. Good luck with that.
 
Last edited:
Horace said:
Here is a better, more helpful rule. Instead of ducking a direct question? Just answer it. You won't have to come back later and pretend that being asked to explain your stance or answer a question posed by something you claimed at a debate forum is calling you a liar. You won't have to make up "wing nut rules" either. Especially when you are doing a pretty good wingnut act yourself. Of course the fact that your story has grown and grown and you are still ducking and dodging? Tends to make a strong case for rank dishonesty and a rather lazy one at that.

Who cares why you will say why your story has changed a few times now? The answer is pretty obvious, OK well not to you. Of course you could not even answer the first question the first version of your claim brought up. All I can guess is you think doubling or tripling down and adding to your claim is the way to go here. OK. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

Answer the first question?

You didn't ask me any questions

PS - Are you always so hysterical? I haven't seen this much drama-queening since Cher cracked a fingernail
 
Luckily for us, there actually is no USA. It only exists in the symbolic world of our minds, so there cannot actually be a traitor the symbolic world, as it is ephemeral. I congratulate these down-home earthy American folks for nevertheless playing out their fantasy role as a Tea Party. I myself and quite relieved that while physically I live in the USA, mentally my symbolic world is that of a foriegner, so I cannot be injected with the bad energy of the American right wing, who seek to force everyone into their own symbolic world with hangman symbolism.
 
sangha said:
Answer the first question?

You didn't ask me any questions

PS - Are you always so hysterical? I haven't seen this much drama-queening since Cher cracked a fingernail
Click to expand...
LOL. As I said two post back, this is what I get for bothering to indulge a sangha claim or comment. Should have figured my first encounter would be symbolic of all the future ones. A waste of time for everyone but the trolleriffic. My bad.

This does look awfully familiar. Almost as if there is a very small tool set that is in use here. Hmmm, where have I seen this before? Could it be in the only other thread I have spoken to you in? Wow, that is it! I mean this is really almost...........cut and paste time now, huh sangha? What next, you will go on for some time about how "right" you are and have been all along and tear spoiled coffee? Again?
http://www.debatepolitics.com/philosophical-discussions/193049-joel-olsteen-just-money-20.html#post1064125513

You do have one point sangha. In addition to erratic and irrational, your post truly are hysterical!
ouch1.jpg
 
sangha said:
Answer the first question?

You didn't ask me any questions

PS - Are you always so hysterical? I haven't seen this much drama-queening since Cher cracked a fingernail
Click to expand...

What's the drama-queening part? I seem to have missed it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom