It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Racist Google Attacks Tea Party White Males

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Professor Tomorrow
 


MSM tonight was likening the current Tea Party energy to the same that was in the air durring the Clinton/OK City Bombing era. I couldnt believe the plainess of it. They must be desperate. But then they must keep thier own sheep in line here and full of fear.

The only thing going on in that Clinton time frame was an NRA surge as people didnt know where else to go. People were afraid to speak out due to not wanting to be tagged a McVeay. And the fear was real as were reprisals.




posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 




You know, I don't ever hear anything positive about the tea party...unless it's coming FROM the tea party. I wonder why that is?


That is because they don't go around blowing their own horn. There is plenty positive about them, as evidenced by their rapid growth and their influence on elections, such as Scott Brown. But you can't expect the MSM to say anything good about them, now can you?

A better question for you to ask, is, who and why are spreading the negatives about the Tea Partiers.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aggie Man
You know, I don't ever hear anything positive about the tea party...unless it's coming FROM the tea party. I wonder why that is?


Asking a question like that means you are lost or dishonest. You dont consider yourself a well rounded objective thinker do you?



[edit on 16-4-2010 by Logarock]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by Aggie Man
 




You know, I don't ever hear anything positive about the tea party...unless it's coming FROM the tea party. I wonder why that is?


That is because they don't go around blowing their own horn. There is plenty positive about them, as evidenced by their rapid growth and their influence on elections, such as Scott Brown. But you can't expect the MSM to say anything good about them, now can you?

A better question for you to ask, is, who and why are spreading the negatives about the Tea Partiers.

What he`s saying is that they DO go around blowing their own horn.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 12:02 AM
link   
reply to post by hippomchippo
 



What he`s saying is that they DO go around blowing their own horn.


No he isn't. But if he is, he's wrong. Almost all the press they get is from the tainted, distorted MSM, who are scared to death of them.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 12:03 AM
link   
OP

I really do not see this as an attack

IMO Google is selling month old bread, none of us should be ashamed of reality, it is what it is.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 12:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Logarock
 


Old-think is rapidly going out of style. Isn't it interesting watching these paradigm-blind anachronisms trying this hard to make themselves seem like they are still relevant? I sure think so.

Hello? MSM? The twentieth century called. They want their rhetorical tool-chest back.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by hippomchippo
 



What he`s saying is that they DO go around blowing their own horn.


No he isn't. But if he is, he's wrong. Almost all the press they get is from the tainted, distorted MSM, who are scared to death of them.

He said I only hear something positive coming from the tea party itself, what do you think that means?



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by hippomchippo
 


I think we should stop talking about this. It doesn't seem to be relevant to the conversation.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by mishigas
reply to post by hippomchippo
 



What he`s saying is that they DO go around blowing their own horn.


No he isn't. But if he is, he's wrong. Almost all the press they get is from the tainted, distorted MSM, who are scared to death of them.


I'm not saying either. I don't think they go around blowing their own horn; however, the only folks that have anything positive to say about the TPM are those that are in the TPM.

And, no it's not distorted by the press. I attended one of these events as an observer, just out of curiosity. These are a bunch of wrongly bias, overly boisterous blowhards. At least that was my impression, free and clear of any media bias.

For one thing, these buffoons can't even get their facts straight, let alone spell their misinformation correctly on a protest poster. Am I generalizing? Yes!

But please take no offense, as I'm sure the TPM will show their true power come election day.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Do you watch television? Do you partake in traditional media? Because, if either of these things are true, you must understand that your base assumptions have been colored at an unconscious level by those sources (depending on how critically you examine them.)

Notice your post is riddled with value judgments: "wrongly bias," "overly boisterous," "buffoons." That sort of thing really damages your credibility.

[edit on 17-4-2010 by Professor Tomorrow]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Professor Tomorrow
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


Do you watch television? Do you partake in traditional media? Because, if either of these things are true, you must understand that your base assumptions have been colored at an unconscious level by those sources (depending on how critically you examine them.)

Notice your post is riddled with value judgments: "wrongly bias," "overly boisterous," "buffoons." That sort of thing really damages your credibility.

[edit on 17-4-2010 by Professor Tomorrow]


I highly doubt I had any credibility in your eyes anyhow. It's my informed opinion, much like you have yours. What, Am I suppose to sugarcoat my observations?

Oh, on the MSM question. I avoid it all together.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


You're not impugning your credibility with me. Credibility has to do with your arguments and the way you put forth your points. If you use logical fallacies and baseless personal judgments to support your premises, anyone who is at all serious about thinking will disregard your opinion completely because you broke some of the very basic rules of discourse.

Just an FYI.



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Professor Tomorrow
 


"wrongly bias" = bias due to misinformation (i.e. accusing Obama of raising taxes, when, in fact, taxes went down for 95%+ Americans)

"overly boisterous" = toting around guns at their rallies, accusing Obama of trying to take away their guns. All the while, he has made no such attempt. Also accusing him of taking away their religion


buffoons = ill-educated, which they certainly appear (to me) to be.

Sorry you don't like my word choice or tactics; however, give it a couple of years on this forum and see if you still feel the same.


By the way, welcome to ATS!


P.S. is there such thing as an impersonal judgment?


[edit on 17-4-2010 by Aggie Man]



posted on Apr, 17 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


There is a critically realistic way to deal with the information we're exposed to, but we need to agree on what that is before we can go forward. I noticed that you just cited some common memes, such as the 95% of Americans one.

Now, consider this:

CBS NEWS




An astonishing 43.4 percent of Americans now pay zero or negative federal income taxes. The number of single or jointly-filing "taxpayers" - the word must be applied sparingly - who pay no taxes or receive government handouts has reached 65.6 million, out of a total of 151 million.


Which means, demonstrably, that Obama couldn't have cut taxes for 95% of Americans, because only 43.8% were paying taxes in 2009. He might mean something different, but the way that figure is trotted out makes it appear that he means 95% of everyone benefits from his policies.

I'm just using this as an example of the way politicians play fast and loose with things like this.

Using a little evidence, it might appear as though Obama has helped 95% of Americans. Including more evidence, however, shows a different picture.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join