[quote]Spartiates wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
denv23 wrote:
Those of you that deny the fact that 99% of these people are regular, hard working, middle Americans have your heads in your asses.
The reason this offends me so greatly is because it is so glaringly obvious these are not average, random American people.
Estimates for this group were around 100K.
Out of that 100K, there was not one minority person.
While these are regular, middle, Americans is not arguable. Whether they are representative of the population in general and whether they are not Fox, Beck, Limbaugh educated babbling morons is debatable.
They were protesting taxes…THEIR TAXES WERE JUST REDUCED.
They were protesting Govt. spending…THEY ARE 8 YEARS TOO LATE.
They are fed up with big govt…THEY ARE 6 YEARS TOO LATE.
The crowd represents right wing whack jobs and it is not a representation of the American people. They protest because they simply cannot stand Obama.
Right on.
Sloth wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
Out of that 100K, there was not one minority person.
As a conservative, I wouldn’t be surprised if that was case. Conservatism is pretty much a white political ideology. And, as whites become a minority-majority, you’ll see fewer conservatives getting into office. The left wins on demographics alone.
Why do you think your brand of conservative has limited appeal? I think that might lead you to start asking what it is that the modern “right wing” is really about these days. I mean, a small, un-intrusive, constitutional government doesn’t seem like a white guy thing to me. I would say it’s because that’s not what the right is about anymore. It’s about a socio-cultural agenda, it’s about “values”, a look, feel and taste from a magical idealized time in American history (that I can’t seem to locate, sometime between 1947 and 1953 maybe?) where America was safe, powerful, moral, innocent and white-bread.
And that’s why the teabaggers don’t really make sense, if it were about money, then they should have been out there protesting in 01, if it were about the Constitution, the same. Reagen was the first real out of control spender, but somehow he’s still considered a conservative…
Aragorn wrote:
Petedacook wrote:
Mufasa wrote:
I’m sure there are plenty of people who stop at Mickey D’s for a sausage buiscuit before their PETA rally…just like I’m SURE that there are a significant number of people at these “Tea Parties” and rallies whom have been at the tit of Government their whole lives.
Dick Armey is as much of a hypocrite as Pelosi…and these “Family Values” hire as many hookers and support Brazillan Mistresses as Barney Frank has had “boy toys” over the years.
Mufasa
The problem that I find is that the people on the right are fine with their hypocrisy. They actually enjoy using it to their advantage.
They are against single payer health care reform, but if their house catches on fire they are calling the fire department. If their is broken into, they call the police. They need a book…to the library they go.
The hypocrisy so rampant it is beyond the capacity of the English language to properly define it within this post. How about a picture of typical hypocrisy that is being expressed by the bible thumping right currently in the debate over gay marriage.
What the hell are you on about?? You are smoking crack. You confuse anarchists and super libertarian fringe crazies with conservatives. It is not hypocrisy to call the fire department if you feel that the existence of the fire department is justified.
I have no idea what you are talking about with gay marriage either. The bible thumpers may or may not be crazy, but they clearly believe that gay marriage is not justified according to their scripture. That view point does have some support if you are using the bible as your guide. Hence, it is an internally consistent view. It might be crazy to you and me, but it isn’t hypocrisy.
Again, these same “Keep the Gubberment out of my life” self-proclaimed conservatives thing that they are justified (and not crazy) because their magical book of old Jewish stories says it’s wrong… really? That has a place in government? That’s real Conservative principles of the government staying out of my personal life?
There is no internal consistency. Since the Right was hijacked by the moral majority it’s become a philosophical mess.[/quote]
You’re mixing my subjects. I was not talking about the Right as a party in terms of gay marriage–I was talking about the bible-thumping christians Pete referenced. If you hold the Bible as an authority for your morals and ethics, then you look at its text through exegesis for guidance. There is support for the position that gay marriage is wrong in the Bible. Hence, the bible-thumpers are internally consistent in their views on the matter, and should not be criticized for hypocrisy based on that position. There’s plenty of bullshit to go around.
There is also, incidentally, an internal debate among “bible thumpers” about whether gay marriage is wrong or not. So the notion of textual support and internal consistency for the anti-gay marriage view should not necessarily be viewed as compulsory if one is a christian, and hence there is also no hypocrisy in admitting you don’t know your view on the subject as a christian.
As for the “keep the gubbmint outta my life” conservatives being hypocritical about calling the fire department, that’s plainly wrong. Conservatives have never been against local government. They have most always been against growing federal government, outside certain bounds. These acceptable bounds vary in accordance with historical and legislative perspectives, but no conservative has ever said the federal government should not exist anyway. That is the anarcho-libertarians. Once again, Pete–and now you–paint the entire right side of the political spectrum with one broad brush, yet you complain when other people paint your left side of the spectrum with one broad brush. This is clearly wrong in both cases.
