Some of what you said weren't myths but merely wrong, and I think nobody beleives those anymore. Some are just inaccurate. 15. That is true. Obama didn't. Some of what was reported as bad wasn't bad when taken in the context of the sermon as a whole. You should read the whole sermons. Don't do a Sherrod here. 13. There certainly are racist Tea Party members, and plenty of racist candidates supported by the Tea Party members. 8. The health care bill to the best of the bi-partisan's study is in fact Deficit neutral. If you have other information please provide it. 5. History has shown that government spending has spent our way out of recessions and even the Great Depression 4. I've never seen a liberal claim that if you disagree with Obama that means you're racist. I've heard conservatives whine, b**** and moan, that that's the case. Some attacks against Obama are racist, and the conservatives should decry those, and stop their whining about everything else.
And you people can keep saying this. Doesn't mean it's true. Just means that, once again, the corporate elite in this country convinced bunch of idiots to vote against their interests. Happens all the time
I have a lot of them, but to me, the most perpetuated myth, and most closely held by many liberals is this one: 1. If a middle-class or poor person is against taxes being raised on the rich, cap-and-trade, increased union privilege, net neutrality, or the next popular proposed regulation, or if they're for entitlement reform, welfare reform, tax cuts, or whatever, they are voting against their own interest. Raising taxes people that make more than me doesn't put any money in my pocket, or anyone else's. Poor and middle-class individuals have many different interests that may or may not match those of another poor or middle-class person. Just because one middle-class worker is helped because a closed-shop law ensures that he's paid more doesn't mean that it helps all middle-class workers. And just because one poor person is cut from welfare due to welfare reform doesn't mean that all poor people are. OK, I can't list just one: 2. Major corporations are for fewer regulations. Virtually every regulation that is on the books today is there because it was lobbied for by a major corporation. Some have technologies that can clean up an emission source, so they lobby for more strict air quality standards. Some are tired of their HMO's losing customers to cheaper health insurance plans, so they lobby for more coverage to be required in health insurance. Some of these regulations make our lives better, some worse, but all of them benefit some company with a K-street office.
This is cheap. There are certainly racist Democrats. That doesn't mean that it is right to tar Democrats with that brush. Every national group with open membership is going to have members that are an embarrassment to the group. The Tea Party would only be racist if the policies it stands for are racist. If you want to make that argument, then make it, but this racist members stuff is a sad and pathetic tactic. The problem is those attacks which are called racist when there is no mention of race. For a very obvious and widely available example, Janeane Garofalo stated on Olby's show that the Tea Party was entirely based upon hatred of having a "black man in the White House," which while being an nice turn of phrase is certainly not true. This is quite simply evidence that a well known liberal in fact thinks that people who disagree with Obama are racist. She says that it is racism, straight up. Honestly though, neither of these are surprising. Accusations of racism are nothing new, and I am sure that the people making them think they are true. Perhaps they just have a very different view of what racism is than other people. More likely they are just following the very tactics suggested by a prominent liberal on Journolist, just call them racist and they will have to spend all of their time dealing with that.
This is a good one. I like it. I have to point out that me, Deckard, and weslinder are terrible at generating talking points. The genius of the GOP is that each point doesn't even need a single CR. While each of our points is a paragraph that would put the average voter to sleep by line 2.
Please show me one racist candidate that the Democrats support? I can show you Carl Paladino that the Tea Party supports. I can also show you racist positions like those advocated by Tom Tancredo at the Tea Party national convention. He started advocating literacy tests before allowing the vote. Rand Paul's comments that businesses should be able to deny service to minorities based on their race is also racist, and he is a tea party favorite. The lists go on and on. Yes there are racist Democrats, but don't like it's equal. Show me the Democrat that advocates literacy tests for voting. Show me the Democrat with openly racist e-mails like Paladino. Show me the Democrat that says it is OK for private businesses to not serve minority customers. I'm not saying all Tea baggers are racist. Just that the Tea Party openly backs racist candidates which is a problem with racism in their midst.
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5qgKAsfp_lc?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5qgKAsfp_lc?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>
According to some leftist commentators, Hillary Clinton. Do you recall the 3a.m. phone call ad? What were some of Carl Paladino's racist policy positions (or are you talking about emails)? I think literacy tests are a pretty decent idea. I am aware of their racist history, but I don't think requiring that people who are deciding on who should run the country be able to read is necessarily a bad thing, nor is it inherently racist. I would put other limits on who is allowed to vote, like military service or some alternative, but that is another thread. Rand Paul's libertarian idea that the federal government has no place in telling private citizens who they can do or not do business with is not at all racist. The individual business owners who choose to discriminate on the basis of race are racist. Are there any items on the list that are as blatantly racist as weighting entrance criteria on the basis of skin color? That one was a Democrat policy. Pick a Democrat that supports race based policies like affirmative action. I am not saying no "Tea baggers" are racist. Just that any argument that starts with the line "There certainly are racist Tea Party members..." is ill-conceived.
Actually, no. In fact, it's even more ill conceived coming from our side, because it only further alienates voters who's support we need for a progressive agenda, and even if we thought getting their support was a lost cause, insulting them only ensures they are more likely to vote and donate.
I don't have a "side", whatever that means, but my favorite one on this board was when franchiseblade told me that he had documented proof that the estate tax had *never* caused a family farm/ranch to be sold.
there's certainly a lot of misinformation and oversimplification about. I remember in the 2004 election talking to a lot of University aged kids who were absolutely convinced a vote for Bush meant a return of the draft. FB's list looks like the index for Sarah Palins upcoming book. But I suppose when conservatives get their news from Limbaugh and Beck, and liberals get their news from Jon Stewart, we're pretty much screwed.
I don't vote bc I don't read enough about the specifics to consider myself an educated voter. We live in Texas. We will never be the cradle of progress. Election season is always just a load of shallow pandering. I absolutely hate but couldn't stop watching attack ads last week. Horrible display of humanities buttsack.
I think you are confusing me with someone else. That is a position I would agree with. That also sounds like something reasonable position minus the documented proof part. Since 99.6% of families in the nation are in no way affected by the estate tax, and taxing someone on millions of dollars of inheritance seems unlikely to force a family to sell the farm, it makes sense. I may have said I've never seen documented evidence that it caused a family to sell the farm. Which is different than saying I had documented proof that it never happened. Please link me to the post where I said that, and I'll be happy to clarify it or admit I was wrong.
