Mugato: EWreckedSean: I never understood this argument. Because the Tea Party took off under Obama, it's therefore invalid? New movements start all the time.

Their claims of being about fiscal responsibility ? Yes, it's somewhat suspect that they basically sat idle while Bush turned a surplus into a record deficit, got us into two unGodly costly wars that he kept off the books, started the corporate bailouts, said simply that everything would and I quote, "cost what it costs" (actual quote).

Obama's elected. We're out of one of those costly wars, taxes are lower than they ever were under Bush but here comes the Tea Party! We came unarmed, THIS TIME!

So yes, it's a little bit suspect.

There was a lot of up roar from the right about Bush's spending habits. It got much worse once deficits jumped from a few hundred billion to $1.6 trillion and the economy collapsed. Economic issues were a much bigger deal after the 2008 hit everybody's pockets. Where's the shocker?

Mugato: EWreckedSean: There was a lot of up roar from the right about Bush's spending habits. It got much worse once deficits jumped from a few hundred billion to $1.6 trillion and the economy collapsed. Economic issues were a much bigger deal after the 2008 hit everybody's pockets. Where's the shocker?

Not from the Tea Party. Not in the level as precise as the timing of Obama's inauguration. You know that.

Again, it's almost like something happened to the economy that would bring economics to the forefront.

violentsalvation: If you take any offense with what this asshole said you will dump the tea party immediately.. Because THIS is what they are.

That is just not true, and the article spells it out.

There is the social conservative side of the Tea Party that hates gays and immigrants and non-white Christians.

Then there is the fiscal conservative side that tells us Obama is a marxist/socialist/communist out to destroy America.

Two TOTALLY separate wings!

Over the past couple of years I've begun to wonder if I'm going senile. Many years ago, I'm sure I remember reading about something called the Tea Party. I took note because I found the notion of a political rally that didn't welcome politicians interesting. I even remember my interest being piqued further by someone in the movement's insistence that who I slept with wasn't anybody's got-damned business. Fast forward to the 2008 election and I learn that this group is simply a new incarnation of the Klan. Had I misinterpreted the earlier message or was I mistakenly attributing the views of another group to the Tea Party?

WE WILL NOT BE HAXXORED BY PIGGIES

liam76: bobbette: So, the Tea Party is literally celebrating the career of a man whose advocacy has not just led to legislation that would make homosexuality punishable by death in Uganda, but has resulted in the targeted violence and murder of Ugandan gay activists.

Lively is a farking scumbag, but anti gay sentiment and attacks on gays in Uganda were going on long before he took his ministry to Africa.

Of course. However, just about every source I've read or heard from, journalist, NGO, refugee, etc., has asserted that violence and hatred increased drastically after Lively and other hate activists started their advocacy in Uganda. And really, wherever you see Lively operate there are consequences. He incites hate. And it results in violence and repression.

It's funny that some people are soooo concerned that the headline on fark may not be accurate, and focus on that part of the story, instead of the other 98% of the story. You know, the speaker being a twat being the reason the gay group was there in the first place. The cops manhandling someone. But yup, the headline being accurate is the only part that matters, yes sir!

And so the question "at what point will a Republican admit his own side did something wrong rather than defend! defend! defend!" remains unanswered.

BeesNuts: And it lends itself to the impression that the TEA Party is using taxes and economics as an excuse to be angry at the democRAT black president.

There's no need to beat around the bush here.

Mugato: EWreckedSean: I never understood this argument. Because the Tea Party took off under Obama, it's therefore invalid? New movements start all the time.

Their claims of being about fiscal responsibility ? Yes, it's somewhat suspect that they basically sat idle while Bush turned a surplus into a record deficit, got us into two unGodly costly wars that he kept off the books, started the corporate bailouts, said simply that everything would and I quote, "cost what it costs" (actual quote).

Obama's elected. We're out of one of those costly wars, taxes are lower than they ever were under Bush but here comes the Tea Party! We came unarmed, THIS TIME!

So yes, it's a little bit suspect.

The tea party movement jumped the shark in 2010. But even before than, it really started to degrade as it grew in popularity in 2009. What had been a fairly narrow message about fiscal responsibility became a much wider and muddled general conservative movement. Then of course it was in large part taken over by the social conservatives.

And some of us were screaming at the top of our lungs about the irresponsibility of the Bush tax policies. It's just that we were either ignored or openly laughed at and mocked. That was before we were proven right of course.

Here is just one voice that was mocked, Peter Schiff clips, starting in 2006: Link (new window)

*finally reads TFA*

Sorry, Huffington Post, but "reportedly"!=someone said "faggots."

Doesn't really help our side to engage in hearsay when you're that visible on the media totem pole.

Yeah I went there.

truthseeker2083: It's funny that some people are soooo concerned that the headline on fark may not be accurate, and focus on that part of the story, instead of the other 98% of the story. You know, the speaker being a twat being the reason the gay group was there in the first place. The cops manhandling someone. But yup, the headline being accurate is the only part that matters, yes sir!

Ironic name you have there.

Oh ignore the lies! That are right in the headline. On Fark. And On Huff Po.

rynthetyn: wellreadneck:
The RON PAUL kiddies were having tea parties, could that be what you were thinking of?

Possible,but I doubt it. I distinctly remember no politicians being welcome. I'm sure it was before 'those' people began to gravitate to Dr. Paul.

whidbey: *finally reads TFA*

Sorry, Huffington Post, but "reportedly"!=someone said "faggots."

Doesn't really help our side to engage in hearsay when you're that visible on the media totem pole.

Yeah I went there.

Oh Jesus, Whidby and I agree on something.

halfof33: truthseeker2083: It's funny that some people are soooo concerned that the headline on fark may not be accurate, and focus on that part of the story, instead of the other 98% of the story. You know, the speaker being a twat being the reason the gay group was there in the first place. The cops manhandling someone. But yup, the headline being accurate is the only part that matters, yes sir!

Ironic name you have there.

Oh ignore the lies! That are right in the headline. On Fark. And On Huff Po.

The truth is.... the headline may be wrong. May not be. I have read the thread, and everyone else is talking about the speaker being a douche and why he is. You are harping on and on about one word he may or may not have said like it invalidates everyone else's criticism of him. It doesn't. He's a douche even if he didn't say it. My point was that out of all the headlines on fark that are wrong, this is the one you harp on to 'prove' that this guy isn't a douche. He is.

Not the first time the media went with something to make it worse. Headline should have been 'Anti-gay douche speaks at tax day rally because..... Jebus!1!' But you keep on thinking the headline being wrong validates him and the vile things he believes.

wellreadneck: Dr. Paul.

Just stop it.

Mugato: EWreckedSean: Again, it's almost like something happened to the economy that would bring economics to the forefront.

Yes, I listed them like three times and they all happened well within the Bush administration.

Jesus, I can't express myself anymore clearly. Interpretive dance can't be conveyed through a message board or I would do it.

They didn't happen well within the Bush administration. they happened at the very end of Bush administration, and you saw a rise of the Tea Party at the very beginning of Obama.

truthseeker2083: Not the first time the media went with something to make it worse. Headline should have been 'Anti-gay douche speaks at tax day rally because..... Jebus!1!' But you keep on thinking the headline being wrong validates him and the vile things he believes.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda.

Unfortunately, as Whidby pointed out, that ain't what Huff Po decided they wanted to run with, now is it?

Now the headline should have read

"Gullible Propaganda Machine gives up, starts republishing twitter posts verbatim. Your dog wants a fact checker and steak. Just kidding, just wants steak. Hilarity ensues. Subby's mom unavailable for comment"

whidbey: wellreadneck: Dr. Paul.

Just stop it.

Sorry. Congressman Paul.

halfof33: truthseeker2083: Not the first time the media went with something to make it worse. Headline should have been 'Anti-gay douche speaks at tax day rally because..... Jebus!1!' But you keep on thinking the headline being wrong validates him and the vile things he believes.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda.

Unfortunately, as Whidby pointed out, that ain't what Huff Po decided they wanted to run with, now is it?

Now the headline should have read

"Gullible Propaganda Machine gives up, starts republishing twitter posts verbatim. Your dog wants a fact checker and steak. Just kidding, just wants steak. Hilarity ensues. Subby's mom unavailable for comment"

I just said it could be wrong. May be right. You are correct, coulda, shoulda, woulda... However, in the rest of the thread, other people as well have said that and began talking about this guy being a douche. Most of the comments were about that, not if the headlines were accurate. None of the headlines on fark are accurate. Hell, half of headlines from the news everywhere else aren't accurate. Why us it that that is what you focused on in this thread when most of the discussion was about douchy mcdouche? Why aren't you just as outraged in all the other threads where the headline is wrong? Is it to defend this vile man? That's what it seems like.

halfof33: Bontesla:
You're in a forest arguing the existing of one tree. Shall we pick another in order for you to deem the rage acceptable?

Well, sure! If you can find one that mentions the fake tree right in the first line of the headline on Fark and Huff Po.

Overzealous lying blogger, nothing to see here.

Again, you're arguing against a single tree ( the slur) when the general thread discussion (when on topic) is about the forest (the trend of biggotry expressed).

Bontesla: halfof33: Bontesla:
You're in a forest arguing the existing of one tree. Shall we pick another in order for you to deem the rage acceptable?

Well, sure! If you can find one that mentions the fake tree right in the first line of the headline on Fark and Huff Po.

Overzealous lying blogger, nothing to see here.

Again, you're arguing against a single tree ( the slur) when the general thread discussion (when on topic) is about the forest (the trend of biggotry expressed).

half0f33 is a troll. You know that, right?

That said, HuffPro is teetering on yellow journalism with its "reportedly" angle on this. Yes, the cops were assholes, yes the Tea Party is an embarrassing collection of butthurt idiots, but where is the actual proof or recording that the word "faggot" was used?

This is a real-life game of "Telephone" and it's not really amusing to me.

whidbey:
half0f33 is a troll. You know that, right?

That said, HuffPro is teetering on yellow journalism with its "reportedly" angle on this. Yes, the cops were assholes, yes the Tea Party is an embarrassing collection of butthurt idiots, but where is the actual proof or recording that the word "faggot" was used?

This is a real-life game of "Telephone" and it's not really amusing to me.

Aww, we were getting along so well.

Whidbey is otherwise a troll. You know that right?

whidbey: Bontesla: halfof33: Bontesla:
You're in a forest arguing the existing of one tree. Shall we pick another in order for you to deem the rage acceptable?

Well, sure! If you can find one that mentions the fake tree right in the first line of the headline on Fark and Huff Po.

Overzealous lying blogger, nothing to see here.

Again, you're arguing against a single tree ( the slur) when the general thread discussion (when on topic) is about the forest (the trend of biggotry expressed).

half0f33 is a troll. You know that, right?

That said, HuffPro is teetering on yellow journalism with its "reportedly" angle on this. Yes, the cops were assholes, yes the Tea Party is an embarrassing collection of butthurt idiots, but where is the actual proof or recording that the word "faggot" was used?

This is a real-life game of "Telephone" and it's not really amusing to me.

I do believe halflife is a troll - but that's not the point either.

HuffPo isn't the point either.

Bontesla: whidbey: Bontesla: halfof33: Bontesla:
You're in a forest arguing the existing of one tree. Shall we pick another in order for you to deem the rage acceptable?

Well, sure! If you can find one that mentions the fake tree right in the first line of the headline on Fark and Huff Po.

Overzealous lying blogger, nothing to see here.

Again, you're arguing against a single tree ( the slur) when the general thread discussion (when on topic) is about the forest (the trend of biggotry expressed).

half0f33 is a troll. You know that, right?

That said, HuffPro is teetering on yellow journalism with its "reportedly" angle on this. Yes, the cops were assholes, yes the Tea Party is an embarrassing collection of butthurt idiots, but where is the actual proof or recording that the word "faggot" was used?

This is a real-life game of "Telephone" and it's not really amusing to me.

I do believe halflife is a troll - but that's not the point either.

HuffPo isn't the point either.

You are correct. The point is that he is going on and on about it not being correct to take away from the rest of the thread where people have said he may not have said that but is still a vile douche. He seems to think that pointing out the headline is sensationalized pulls away from that fact. It does not. Why isn't he in any other threads protesting the lack of accuracy in the headline? My guess is to defend that PoS without having to specifically defend him. 'Headline is wrong, all other arguments are invalid!1'

truthseeker2083: You are correct. The point is that he is going on and on about it not being correct to take away from the rest of the thread where people have said he may not have said that but is still a vile douche. He seems to think that pointing out the headline is sensationalized pulls away from that fact. It does not. Why isn't he in any other threads protesting the lack of accuracy in the headline? My guess is to defend that PoS without having to specifically defend him. 'Headline is wrong, all other arguments are invalid!1'

Wait, you have other Huff Po headlines that are inaccurate? Where?

Give me a link, I'd be happy to participate in those threads too!

I mean you do have another thread in which you accuse me of not participating that involves a false headline from the Huff Po, right?

I mean your whole "guess" is based on that! Link me BRO!

Bontesla: HuffPo isn't the point either.

I'm not going to argue with you.

It's just that I used to get kind of pissed when friends of mine who are less than left-leaning used to slag on the HuffPo for being biased and not really news, and this is a fine example that I have trouble countering.

If the Tea Party dipsh*t actually used the word "faggots," I want to see the documentation, not some sensationalistic story based on hearsay.

halfof33: truthseeker2083: You are correct. The point is that he is going on and on about it not being correct to take away from the rest of the thread where people have said he may not have said that but is still a vile douche. He seems to think that pointing out the headline is sensationalized pulls away from that fact. It does not. Why isn't he in any other threads protesting the lack of accuracy in the headline? My guess is to defend that PoS without having to specifically defend him. 'Headline is wrong, all other arguments are invalid!1'

Wait, you have other Huff Po headlines that are inaccurate? Where?

Give me a link, I'd be happy to participate in those threads too!

I mean you do have another thread in which you accuse me of not participating that involves a false headline from the Huff Po, right?

I mean your whole "guess" is based on that! Link me BRO!

It took you a long time to try to spin out of that. No, I don't have any handy, all you have to do is scroll through the main page to find other headlines that don't match the article. Read through the threads from the past day and I'd bet there are multiple headlines that aren't accurate. The whole point was that that is what you were focused on, when the rest of the thread was about what a vile PoS he is.

Btw, I never said just huffpo, I said fark and half of all others. I'm not trying to be 100% correct on the number of headlines or threads, but using that to make a point. You know what I meant and so does everyone else reading this. Why focus on that in a thread (where other people as well have said it may not have happened) on what a vile man he is on every other day? He may have not said that. I agree that the headlines should not reflect a rumor as true.

See, I just admitted, again, that I agree with you about the headline, so, do you agree with me and most of the thread about how vile this man is, or will you straight up say that you defend him and his history?

halfof33: BeesNuts: I see you're not interested in actually talking so much as winning. Good work.

Should I apologize for being concerned with truth and whether or not the headline is accurate?

Well I won't be.

Let's try it this way:
The concept illustrated in the headline above appears to be entirely fictitious! This word has never, in the history of the TEA party, been uttered. Not once. Or so I assume.

With that assumption in mind, why is Scott Lively was one of the speakers at a Tax Day Rally for the Taxed Enough Already Party while we all enjoy some of the lowest levels of taxation in the American History?

whidbey: Bontesla: HuffPo isn't the point either.

I'm not going to argue with you.

It's just that I used to get kind of pissed when friends of mine who are less than left-leaning used to slag on the HuffPo for being biased and not really news, and this is a fine example that I have trouble countering.

If the Tea Party dipsh*t actually used the word "faggots," I want to see the documentation, not some sensationalistic story based on hearsay.

I heard that he said "fascists" and that the crowd booed him.

Two people then shouted "for more years, no more tears".
The crowd didn't respond with means that they indirectly approved of 0bama's re-election.

truthseeker2083: Bontesla: whidbey: Bontesla: halfof33: Bontesla:
You're in a forest arguing the existing of one tree. Shall we pick another in order for you to deem the rage acceptable?

Well, sure! If you can find one that mentions the fake tree right in the first line of the headline on Fark and Huff Po.

Overzealous lying blogger, nothing to see here.

Again, you're arguing against a single tree ( the slur) when the general thread discussion (when on topic) is about the forest (the trend of biggotry expressed).

half0f33 is a troll. You know that, right?

That said, HuffPro is teetering on yellow journalism with its "reportedly" angle on this. Yes, the cops were assholes, yes the Tea Party is an embarrassing collection of butthurt idiots, but where is the actual proof or recording that the word "faggot" was used?

This is a real-life game of "Telephone" and it's not really amusing to me.

I do believe halflife is a troll - but that's not the point either.

HuffPo isn't the point either.

You are correct. The point is that he is going on and on about it not being correct to take away from the rest of the thread where people have said he may not have said that but is still a vile douche. He seems to think that pointing out the headline is sensationalized pulls away from that fact. It does not. Why isn't he in any other threads protesting the lack of accuracy in the headline? My guess is to defend that PoS without having to specifically defend him. 'Headline is wrong, all other arguments are invalid!1'

Not to go off topic: my husband introduced me to Richard and Kahlan in 2007. Great name.

someonelse: BeesNuts: The concept illustrated in the headline above appears to be entirely fictitious! This word has never, in the history of the TEA party, been uttered. Not once. Or so I assume.

With that assumption in mind, why was Scott Lively one of the speakers at a Tax Day Rally for the Taxed Enough Already Party while we all enjoy some of the lowest levels of taxation in the American History?

See, your question makes the squabble over whether anyone actually said "f@ggot" look petty and stupid, so I'm thinking it will be ignored.

It really is a good question.

Bontesla: truthseeker2083: Bontesla: whidbey: Bontesla: halfof33: Bontesla:
You're in a forest arguing the existing of one tree. Shall we pick another in order for you to deem the rage acceptable?

Well, sure! If you can find one that mentions the fake tree right in the first line of the headline on Fark and Huff Po.

Overzealous lying blogger, nothing to see here.

Again, you're arguing against a single tree ( the slur) when the general thread discussion (when on topic) is about the forest (the trend of biggotry expressed).

half0f33 is a troll. You know that, right?

That said, HuffPro is teetering on yellow journalism with its "reportedly" angle on this. Yes, the cops were assholes, yes the Tea Party is an embarrassing collection of butthurt idiots, but where is the actual proof or recording that the word "faggot" was used?

This is a real-life game of "Telephone" and it's not really amusing to me.

I do believe halflife is a troll - but that's not the point either.

HuffPo isn't the point either.

You are correct. The point is that he is going on and on about it not being correct to take away from the rest of the thread where people have said he may not have said that but is still a vile douche. He seems to think that pointing out the headline is sensationalized pulls away from that fact. It does not. Why isn't he in any other threads protesting the lack of accuracy in the headline? My guess is to defend that PoS without having to specifically defend him. 'Headline is wrong, all other arguments are invalid!1'

Not to go off topic: my husband introduced me to Richard and Kahlan in 2007. Great name.

That's funny. I just made that name up and had to google what you were talking about. Now I think I should read those books...

whidbey: Bontesla: HuffPo isn't the point either.

I'm not going to argue with you.

It's just that I used to get kind of pissed when friends of mine who are less than left-leaning used to slag on the HuffPo for being biased and not really news, and this is a fine example that I have trouble countering.

If the Tea Party dipsh*t actually used the word "faggots," I want to see the documentation, not some sensationalistic story based on hearsay.

This isn't the first time they've sensationalized stories and I wish there was an overal effort to fact check every news story by every media outlet.

I don't have a good answer. . . And even if I did . . . It wouldn't help.

Even if this was properly sourced - the argument would be that this is an isolated incident or an isolated fringe group of the TP. Maybe the argument would be that they did not clearly understand the speaker. That's why I don't have much interest in the validity of this headline. It isn't the poin and I find it irritating when a media outlet puts forward something to distract from the point.

I think The Daily Show summarized it the best when reflecting on the Supreme Court protests over the healthcare bill. . . When one sign is arguing for access to insurance and another side is accusing the government of a tyrannical socialist attack on God-given freedoms . . . What conversation can you expect?

serial_crusher: Two groups of assholes acting like assholes to each other. Nothing new.

Pathetic attempt to excuse the behavior. Also nothing new.

truthseeker2083: Bontesla: truthseeker2083: Bontesla: whidbey: Bontesla: halfof33: Bontesla:
You're in a forest arguing the existing of one tree. Shall we pick another in order for you to deem the rage acceptable?

Well, sure! If you can find one that mentions the fake tree right in the first line of the headline on Fark and Huff Po.

Overzealous lying blogger, nothing to see here.

Again, you're arguing against a single tree ( the slur) when the general thread discussion (when on topic) is about the forest (the trend of biggotry expressed).

half0f33 is a troll. You know that, right?

That said, HuffPro is teetering on yellow journalism with its "reportedly" angle on this. Yes, the cops were assholes, yes the Tea Party is an embarrassing collection of butthurt idiots, but where is the actual proof or recording that the word "faggot" was used?

This is a real-life game of "Telephone" and it's not really amusing to me.

I do believe halflife is a troll - but that's not the point either.

HuffPo isn't the point either.

You are correct. The point is that he is going on and on about it not being correct to take away from the rest of the thread where people have said he may not have said that but is still a vile douche. He seems to think that pointing out the headline is sensationalized pulls away from that fact. It does not. Why isn't he in any other threads protesting the lack of accuracy in the headline? My guess is to defend that PoS without having to specifically defend him. 'Headline is wrong, all other arguments are invalid!1'

Not to go off topic: my husband introduced me to Richard and Kahlan in 2007. Great name.

That's funny. I just made that name up and had to google what you were talking about. Now I think I should read those books...

You can't be serious. Really?

Meh. I'd skip the books. The author is very talented but has the depth of a paper sack. He's a Rand fan - a bootstrappy guy that gets preachy too often.

Walker: "I'm allowed to choke you. I'm a cop. And there's not a GOT DAMN thing you can do about it"
[i.huffpost.com image 500x333]

This makes me sick. It's one thing when the racist mouthbreathers start being bigoted. But police? WTF?

/On the other hand, pigs, keep this up. My generation's looking around and asking, "Do we want a free and equal society, or facism?"
//The answer won't be in your favor.

Bontesla: truthseeker2083: Bontesla: truthseeker2083: Bontesla: whidbey: Bontesla: halfof33: Bontesla:
You're in a forest arguing the existing of one tree. Shall we pick another in order for you to deem the rage acceptable?

Well, sure! If you can find one that mentions the fake tree right in the first line of the headline on Fark and Huff Po.

Overzealous lying blogger, nothing to see here.

Again, you're arguing against a single tree ( the slur) when the general thread discussion (when on topic) is about the forest (the trend of biggotry expressed).

half0f33 is a troll. You know that, right?

That said, HuffPro is teetering on yellow journalism with its "reportedly" angle on this. Yes, the cops were assholes, yes the Tea Party is an embarrassing collection of butthurt idiots, but where is the actual proof or recording that the word "faggot" was used?

This is a real-life game of "Telephone" and it's not really amusing to me.

I do believe halflife is a troll - but that's not the point either.

HuffPo isn't the point either.

You are correct. The point is that he is going on and on about it not being correct to take away from the rest of the thread where people have said he may not have said that but is still a vile douche. He seems to think that pointing out the headline is sensationalized pulls away from that fact. It does not. Why isn't he in any other threads protesting the lack of accuracy in the headline? My guess is to defend that PoS without having to specifically defend him. 'Headline is wrong, all other arguments are invalid!1'

Not to go off topic: my husband introduced me to Richard and Kahlan in 2007. Great name.

That's funny. I just made that name up and had to google what you were talking about. Now I think I should read those books...

You can't be serious. Really?

Meh. I'd skip the books. The author is very talented but has the depth of a paper sack. He's a Rand fan - a bootstrappy guy that gets preachy too often.

Yup serious. But if that's the case.... meh

tenpoundsofcheese: Do you believe it is the government's job to manage the wealth distribution in the country?

Don't you?

HighOnCraic: someonelse: BeesNuts: The concept illustrated in the headline above appears to be entirely fictitious! This word has never, in the history of the TEA party, been uttered. Not once. Or so I assume.

With that assumption in mind, why was Scott Lively one of the speakers at a Tax Day Rally for the Taxed Enough Already Party while we all enjoy some of the lowest levels of taxation in the American History?

See, your question makes the squabble over whether anyone actually said "f@ggot" look petty and stupid, so I'm thinking it will be ignored.

It really is a good question.

Isn't it just? I sure think so, anyway. But clearly the issue here is DailyKos's lack of corroboration for the comment they made once and acknowledged as unverified.

slc11082: Walker: "I'm allowed to choke you. I'm a cop. And there's not a GOT DAMN thing you can do about it"
[i.huffpost.com image 500x333]

I like the little geeky twink in the red shirt in the background.

Don't project too hard.