MediaMatters:"Fox spent weeks promoting apparent tea party scam."

[Baculus]

Frederick's considered a small town?

I live in Mount Airy. :-) If you go to the Upper Deck, it is possible I have even talked with you in the past!

[twa]

Frederick's considered a small town?

Less than 60k pop?...yeah

[jnhay]

I live in Mount Airy. :-) If you go to the Upper Deck, it is possible I have even talked with you in the past!

Ditto, but it sounded like he was referring to Frederick (the city you live next to). Mount Airy, on the other hand, is a small town IMO

Less than 60k pop?...yeah

Okay, I guess I just don't think of 60k when I think of a "small" town, but really it doesn't matter anyway haha.

[Baculus]

It is.

This whole "astroturf" nonsense is a lame attempt to silence legit criticsm of the President. Quite frankly its been insulting

Complete and utter rubbish. We hear criticism of the President every single day, on TV, radio, in print and on the Internet. This suggestion that, somehow, criticism of the President is being "silenced" is ridiculously absurd.

It is terribly, terribly disappointing that you have even made this absurd suggestion, which is entirely removed from reality.

Seriously -- did some of you even read this article? Or do you just jerk your knees before you post your indignant replies?

[SkinsHokieFan]

It is terribly, terribly disappointing that you have even made this absurd suggestion, which is entirely removed from reality.

No Bac, everyone sees through your transparent agenda. Any criticsm of the President you have attempted to discredit and mock, and quite frankly its ridiculous and idiotic

You have been on this "astroturf" agenda since Krugman came up with the term. But based on your posting history, I shouldn't be surprised by your views on this

[Hubbs]

Okay, fine. We'll agree to disagree, but your completely ignoring the fact that many moderates and independents have jumped from the Obama-bandwagon. I think the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races (a GOP sweep in the top 3 positions for VA) speak for themselves.

There are those of us who don't equate the original feelings behind the whole Tea Party thing with a "GOP sweep."

[Baculus]

Okay, fine. We'll agree to disagree, but your completely ignoring the fact that many moderates and independents have jumped from the Obama-bandwagon.

I never even discussed this issue, so how am I "ignoring" it?

If anyone is going to benefit from any disillusioned moderates, it is possible third party candidates. But I don't see many moderates flocking to the Republican party, when the Republicans want to PURGE their party of moderates.

You're simply acting as if moderates are going to vote GOP. Why would they? Because of the Republican "death panel" accusations? Because Michele Bachmann said that the census is going to be used to "put Americans into work camps"? Because Glenn Beck tells them the country is about to collapse? Because the GOP claims that Obama is a Marxist Muslim who cares more about the "rights of terrorists" than national security?

Seriously -- you are banking on the GOPs fear-mongering playbook to somehow bring them back to Republican party, just a few scant years after they were in charge of the country.

If you think moderates are going to veer to the hard right-wing, I think you are wrong.

I think the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races (a GOP sweep in the top 3 positions for VA) speak for themselves.

How? Both NJ and VA have voted Republican in the past. This isn't anything new. Compare this to the house seat in NY which was lost to a Democrat after being held for decades by the GOP.

Virginia had voted Democrat a year earlier by a fairly large percentage. McDonnell won in Fairfax, for crying out loud! Any GOP success in NOVA should surely tell you something. But, just keep pretending that doesn't matter.

I never said it does not matter, but the McDonnell victory is not a representation of the entire nation. Also, how a state votes in the Presidential election is not always indicative of how they vote in Congressional elections.

Your last point also sounds a bit contradictory and play right into the point I was making. The Democrats have overplayed their power and are ignoring the wishes of the people to further their own political agenda. Fortunately, history will repeat itself again.

Explain further how it is contradictory.

The Democrats haven't overplayed their power, because they have barely passed any meaningful legislation. You know what is overplaying your power? Getting the country involved in two wars and giving tax cuts which benefit the wealthy -- THAT is overplaying one's power.

It's people like you who make a big fuss over ANY Democratic efforts which creates this atmosphere that "Democrats have overplayed their power." It is the same atmosphere that's been created during the health care debate, or during the cap and trade debate.

And the Democrats aren't ignoring the wishes of "the people." Obama was elected President on a platform of health care reform, of environmental reform, among other planks, from THE PEOPLE. That is why he is President. The problem is that people such as yourself act as if the millions of people who voted for Obama aren't "the American people."

I forget: Obama and the people who voted for him aren't "real Americans" and don't count. Right?

Do I think it's right that some people are profiting from the misfortunes and anger of others. Not on your life. But do I for one second believe that all of the tea parties were not genuine? Not at all.

*Sigh*

NO ONE EVER SAID THEY WERE.

[Hubbs]

You have been on this "astroturf" agenda since Krugman came up with the term. But based on your posting history, I shouldn't be surprised by your views on this

I think Paul Krugman would be very surprised to hear that he came up with the (political) term "Astroturf."

[SkinsHokieFan]

I think Paul Krugman would be very surprised to hear that he came up with the (political) term "Astroturf."

It was the first time I had heard it, from Krugman.

I'm glad to hear its not a 2009 phenomenon

[Baculus]

No Bac, everyone sees through your transparent agenda. Any criticsm of the President you have attempted to discredit and mock, and quite frankly its ridiculous and idiotic

Prove it. Prove that I have "attempted to discredit and mock" any "criticism of the President."

I HAVE certainly mocked the "Obama is a communist-Marxist Muslim who wants to destroy the country" angle. I have certainly discredited the misrepresentation of, for example, the language of bills such as H.R. 3200.

I am calling you out on this. I will debate you anywhere, any time on this. Show me the evidence and prove it. SHOW me how criticism of the President is being silenced.

You cannot, because you are full of it. You are disingenuous.

The sad thing is, while you made the accusation that "criticism of Obama is being silenced," YOU are attempting to "discredit and mock" MY opposition to the views of others. More so, over an article which discusses the money-making objectives of some astroturfers.

Bloody hypocrite.

"HOW DARE YOU SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT!"

Yes, NOW I am mocking you.

You have been on this "astroturf" agenda since Krugman came up with the term. But based on your posting history, I shouldn't be surprised by your views on this

Whatever. I have been talking about "astroturfing" when it became obvious that SOME GROUPS ARE ASTROTURF.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Prove it. Prove that I have "attempted to discredit and mock" any "criticism of the President."

I HAVE certainly mocked the "Obama is a communist-Marxist Muslim who wants to destroy the country" angle. I have certainly discredited the misrepresentation of, for example, the language of bills such as H.R. 3200.

I am calling you out on this. I will debate you anywhere, any time on this. Show me the evidence and prove it. SHOW me how criticism of the President is being silenced.

You cannot, because you are full of it. You are disingenuous.

The sad thing is, while you made the accusation that "criticism of Obama is being silenced," YOU are attempting to "discredit and mock" MY opposition to the views of others. More so, over an article which discusses the money-making objectives of some astroturfers.

Bloody hypocrite.

"HOW DARE YOU SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT!"

Yes, NOW I am mocking you.

Whatever. I have been talking about "astroturfing" when it became obvious that SOME GROUPS ARE ASTROTURF.

Don't be insulted that I don't get this done tonight, because I am going out to eat with the lady

However, just a quick search of your posts gave me plenty to link. Tomorrow I'll have quite a bit of material for you.

And I hate to do this, because in the end it gets us nowhere, but I am amused of your metamorphisis from 9/11 truther/faux libertarian, into an FDR new deal era "any spending is good spending!" Democrat

[Baculus]

The GOP attempts to coopt it out of self defense and in hopes of harnessing it and deflecting it from it's targets..

Certainly true.

They ain't just pissed at the Dems:evilg:

Sure. There is definitely some anger at Republicans.

The Libertarian agenda is not the focus of the Tea Party either and attempts to use it for their whole agenda is no different than the GOP's.

You have to remember that libertarians originally started the "tea party" movement several years ago, in 2007. This is when they opposed policies of both parties -- now, some Republicans are most certainly trying to invest into this anger.

God I love Chaos:)

added

Bac ...you are priceless

I like to think so as well. ;-)

[Baculus]

Don't be insulted that I don't get this done tonight, because I am going out to eat with the lady

However, just a quick search of your posts gave me plenty to link. Tomorrow I'll have quite a bit of material for you.

Material. Whatever.

You aren't going to silence MY opinion, and I will most certainly continue to criticize where and when I see fit. Don't like it? Tough cookies.

And I hate to do this, because in the end it gets us nowhere, but I am amused of your metamorphisis from 9/11 truther/faux libertarian, into an FDR new deal era "any spending is good spending!" Democrat

I am STILL a libertarian -- I said a long time ago I went from a right-leaning to a left-leaning one. Just because I don't agree with Glenn Beck or the Republican party, or just because I am hoping Obama has some success doesn't mean anything. I don't follow narrow platforms to please anyone else.

And I NEVER said "any spending is good spending!" If that is a demonstration of your "evidence" against me, then you aren't going to succeed too well.

That is the problem with the "Tea Party" movement -- you think everyone has to believe in your "platform."

BTW, I see you have changed the focus of this entire thread . . . to me. Instead of discussing the topic at hand, you are attacking the messenger.

It's sad. And a bit cowardly, if you ask me.

[GoSkins561]

Baculus, I thought you bellied up at Cozy Corner?

[Baculus]

Baculus, I thought you bellied up at Cozy Corner?

I haven't for a little while now. :-) Actually, these days, I barely go out. It's a shame! (Are you familiar with Krugs up in Frederick?)

[Burgold]

It is.

This whole "astroturf" nonsense is a lame attempt to silence legit criticsm of the President. Quite frankly its been insulting

SHF,

You are usually one of the more sincere political posters... usually

You got to admit that all the "news" reports multiplying the numbers of people in a tea party rallies by 2, 3, 20 times or using footage that was not related to it or using news airtime to try to get people to come to these rallies seems... well... more than a touch dishonest.

There was a lot of hokum and manipulation behind the whole tea party rhetoric (esp. at the higher levels) and if it turns out that it was just a GOP inspired/funded stunt and not a true grass roots movement I don't think many will be surprised, but many should feel upset.

[Seabee1973]

SHF,

You are usually one of the more sincere political posters... usually

You got to admit that all the "news" reports multiplying the numbers of people in a tea party rallies by 2, 3, 20 times or using footage that was not related to it or using news airtime to try to get people to come to these rallies seems... well... more than a touch dishonest.

There was a lot of hokum and manipulation behind the whole tea party rhetoric (esp. at the higher levels) and if it turns out that it was just a GOP inspired/funded stunt and not a true grass roots movement I don't think many will be surprised, but many should feel upset.

So where you against ABC and their 24 hour white house sleep over?

[Burgold]

I think the difference (if there is one) is that there have been "fireside" chats with the President since the early days of radio and the "getting to know you thing" is pretty common place. Clearly, ABC wanted to do this as a quasi-news story and the White House agreed to do it as a PR event. Everyone knew that this was going to be a fuzzy story and it was never broadcast as a breaking news event.

The tea parties were supposed to be a bunch of fed up regular Joes and Sarahs who just couldn't take the government largess anymore and were going to demand that they be heard! If it turns out that Joe and Sarah happened to be working for the GOP and it was basically just a political stunt it goes from something very American to something very cynical (which I guess is also very American)

[Baculus]

So where you against ABC and their 24 hour white house sleep over?

Where you against Fox News, when they were crowing about "unprecedented access, and their "24 hour white house sleep over"? Seriously -- no media should be THAT embedded with the Presidency, but since the days of JFK, when Jacqueline Kennedy gave a tour of "Camelot," there has been a close media connection with the White House, for good or bad.

It is really inventive, though, to act as if ABC's relationship with the Obama White House is a new development in media.

Again, though, You have not addressed the issue at hand: "Fox spent weeks promoting apparent tea party scam." Defenders "of the faith" have shifted the argument to "attacking the liberals" instead of offering a reasonable defense to the content of the article I originally posted.

It is puzzling, though not unexpected.

[Bang]

Diversionary arguments being "not unexpected" is an understatement. It's the gameplan, or at least one would figure it was with the frequency and consistency in which anything other than glowing praise of Fox are addressed by their supporters.

Ninja code follows:

Back on page one in my second post in this thread I placed a "ninja" prediction beneath my usual "~Bang" signature. As demonstrated, it's as regular as the sunrise.

It makes it practically impossible to have any form of discussion on the topic of Fox and their propaganda. But then again, misdirection and stonewalling is the favored tactic. The fact that it happens so quickly and so regularly should be very telling, but I doubt those who need to listen will bother to hear. As I see it, only TWA addressed anything close to the topic.. while avoiding the Fox is a Shill end of it .. RexTomb and his use of the usual threats are pretty comical, and Seabee flat out ignores anything about the accusation leveled (again) at Fox to drag the "liberal media" angle into it.

Hey! Look over there! Its

~Bang

[Special K]

This thread is funny. I particularly like the exchange between Bac and SHF, lol.

As to the topic, this is news? I thought all of this was already pretty widely known...like, at least common sense-wise.

Obviously there are several agendas at play at these tea parties, but I don't doubt there are many, many people legitimately pissed off at what Obama's administration and the congress are doing.

[Larry]

Obviously there are several agendas at play at these tea parties, but I don't doubt there are many, many people legitimately pissed off at what Obama's administration and the congress are doing.

Agreed that "politics makes strange bedfellows". (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

OTOH, how many of these people who are "legitimately pissed off at what Obama's administration and the congress are doing", were "legitimately pissed off" five years ago, when the government was doing the same thing?

As opposed to how many of them are "pissed off that Obama isn't Republican, and will complain no matter what he does"?

[ACW]

Agreed that "politics makes strange bedfellows". (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)

OTOH, how many of these people who are "legitimately pissed off at what Obama's administration and the congress are doing", were "legitimately pissed off" five years ago, when the government was doing the same thing?

As opposed to how many of them are "pissed off that Obama isn't Republican, and will complain no matter what he does"?

:excited: ME!

[Special K]

OTOH, how many of these people who are "legitimately pissed off at what Obama's administration and the congress are doing", were "legitimately pissed off" five years ago, when the government was doing the same thing?

As opposed to how many of them are "pissed off that Obama isn't Republican, and will complain no matter what he does"?

Well, there are certainly a lot of the latter.

However, we did see many of the Republicans get voted the heck out of office in '08...I think that demonstrated that a lot of people, even conservatives, were pissed off at what was going on in Washington 5 years ago and since.

We've seen a surge in independent and libertarian voters recently; I think that too is indicative of people just being plain pissed off at nearly everyone in Washington who's recklessly spending, adding their stupid little pork projects to bills, and acting like a bunch of pompous jackasses in general.

There are certainly those who are going to decry everything Obama does because he's not attached to their political party, but there are a lot of people who are legitimately pissed at a LOT of stuff that's gone on in Washington, and not just stuff that's gone on during the Obama admin.

[stevenaa]

I am STILL a libertarian [\QUOTE]

That was good for a laugh. You can say you are until you are blue in the face, but your posts certainly don't bear that out.