jump to navigation

NOTE: The spam filter is being unusually aggressive. If you comment does not immediately appear, it has simply been placed in moderation and I will approve it as quickly as possible. Thank you for your patience.

"Murphy was an optimist!"

Let’s Talk Tea April 15, 2009 1:58 pm

Posted by Doug McCaughan in : Activism, Politics, Touchy Subjects, United States
, trackback

I was going to sit this one out but there has been so much misinformation on the Tea Parties that I feel compelled to make some commentary. Let’s discuss these things:

  1. I love protests even if I disagree with you
  2. Do you really know what the hell teabagging is?
  3. Bob Krumm is wrong.
  4. The Boston Tea Party was not about eliminating or reducing taxes.

I love protests!

First off, I love a good fight. I love a good cause. And I’ll step up for my beliefs. I am an activist and happy to live in America where I have that right. I respect your right to fight for your beliefs even when I disagree with you and if I choose to protest your protest I am not saying you don’t have the right to express your views, I am just offering an opposing view (which also happens to be a freedom of speech).

Do you remember all the protests under George W Bush? Probably not because when they happened, the protesters were cordoned off away from the main activity and the press was limited in their ability to report.

Free speech zones were used in Boston at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. The free speech zones organized by the authorities in Boston were boxed in by concrete walls, invisible to the Fleet Center where the convention was held and criticized harshly as a “protest pen” … Reporters are often barred by local officials from displaying these protesters on camera or speaking to them within the zone.[Source, Wikipedia, Free speech zone]

Granted, free speech zones are not a new development. They have existed since the 1960s but were most heavily used by George W Bush’s administration.

For the record, I will not be participating in today’s Tea Parties nor will I be counter protesting. Quite frankly, I find it rather amusing that so many people are eagerly running around declaring they’ll be participating in a mass orgy of strangers plopping their nuts on each other’s faces. And that brings me to my next question.

Do you really know the definition of teabagging?

Last week I beat around the bush about the meaning of teabagging. I am betting that many of the protesters have missed the double entrendé. I think it is time to be direct.

Teabagging is a slang term for the act of a man placing his scrotum in the mouth or on or around the face (including the top of the head) of another person, often in a repeated in-and-out motion as in irrumatio. The practice vaguely resembles dipping a tea bag into a cup of tea. [Source, Wikipedia, Teabagging]

This is a vile, demeaning image and not a term that should be thrown around in mixed company and splattered all over the news in such a way that children are compelled to learn and teach their peers its meaning.

I was very vocal about my disagreement with George W Bush and my belief that his administration was causing long term damage to this country. My words and thoughts are immortalized in this online publishing. Although I was harsh on GW, I do not think I did anything to disparage the office of the presidency. And I will strike that out the moment someone reminds me with a link to something I wrote. We are a democracy and even though our favorite candidate does not always get into office, that person IS still the president of our country and deserves certain respects. I do not think it speaks highly of someone to say you want to put your balls on the face of the president. I do not think that speaks highly of your country!

Bob Krumm is wrong.

Bob Krumm wrote "There is no high-profile Farrakhan-type organizer or a well-funded Brady Campaign organization behind today’s protests" but Lee Fang has documented that corporate lobbyists are the driving force behind the Tea Parties as a Anti-Obama mechanism specifically Freedom Works (the GOP version of MoveOn) and Americans for Prosperity.

Despite these attempts to make the "movement" appear organic, the principle organizers of the local events are actually the lobbyist-run think tanks Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works. The two groups are heavily staffed and well funded, and are providing all the logistical and public relations work necessary for planning coast-to-coast protests. [Source, Think Progress, Spontaneous Uprising? Corporate Lobbyists Helping To Orchestrate Radical Anti-Obama Tea Party Protests]

Jane Hamsher at The Huffington Post has more explanation and commentary about the lobbyists. Momocrats has this video (note the testicular image behind the reporter) which flat out says "Not a spontaneous uprising. The people who came up with it are a familiar circle of Republicans including Newt Gingrich and Dick Armey."

They oppose Mr. Obama’s tax rates which will be lower for most of them and they oppose Mr. Obama’s tax increases for the rich whose taxes will skyrocket to about 10% less than it was under Reagan. [Source, Youtube, David Shuster GOP Going Nuts For Teabagging, But They Need A Dick Armey]

The Boston Tea Party was not about eliminating or reducing taxes.

I’m hearing people, even relatives, spout of various reasons for the Tea Parties. No one seems to be on the same base. Momocrats is also trying to figure it out. Mostly I have heard people say they do not want their taxes increased and have tried to draw a parallel to The Boston Tea Party. As the video above pointed out, The Boston Tea Party was about representation and rights.

The protest movement that culminated with the Boston Tea Party was not a dispute about high taxes. The price of legally imported tea was actually reduced by the Tea Act of 1773. Protestors were instead concerned with a variety of other issues. The familiar "no taxation without representation" argument, along with the question of the extent of Parliament’s authority in the colonies, remained prominent. Some regarded the purpose of the tax program—to make leading officials independent of colonial influence—as a dangerous infringement of colonial rights. This was especially true in Massachusetts, the only colony where the Townshend program had been fully implemented. [Source, Wikipedia, Boston Tea Party]

I also hear mutterings about Obama in his short time in office being responsible for today’s tax rates. As the video points out, this just isn’t the case.

The taxation rates that they will all be protesting are the George W Bush Republican taxation rates. [Source, Youtube, David Shuster GOP Going Nuts For Teabagging, But They Need A Dick Armey]

I think it is important to remember that TARP was a 2008 program that "allows the United States Department of the Treasury to purchase or insure up to $700 billion of "troubled" assets." That’s the mortgage bailout. The economic situation the United States faces did not start on January 20, 2009.

As you talk about the successes of your Tea Parties, please be aware that the goal of the Tea Parties is not to reduce or change taxes but to try to find a chink in the Obama armor as a means of getting the GOP back into control of the presidency in 2012.

Update: See also: Interesting discussion at Reddit- Where were the anti-tax tea parties when George Bush was wasting Billions in Iraq, on the Prescription Drug Bill, and providing handouts to Oil Companies? and Don’t Drink the Tea; Taxes Benefit Everyone.

Comments after advertisement

Comments»

1. LissaKay - April 15, 2009

The only ones using the extremely vulgar term “tea bagging” are those who are mocking the Tea PARTIES. You might want to spend just a little time in looking into just what is being protested by these gatherings … (And the DNC was even worse about corralling protesters than the RNC ever was. That’s not even taking into consideration the propensity of Anti-RNC protesters to misbehave in disruptive, destructive and violent ways) and by who, which is people who care that this country is being taxed and spent into economic collapse.

Do you really want your children giving up 50% or more of their future earnings in income taxes to pay off this horrendous spending spree that the government has taken off on? Why do you think that I should have to pay for anyone else’s health care or mortgage? Why should responsible, hard-working tax payers be burdened with bailing out irresponsible mortgage holders, and companies that brought about their own financial woes?

You spend an awful lot of blogging time griping about the draconian methods of micro-management in the schools, and the kids’ lack of freedom and autonomy there. Imagine that level of management over your entire life, from what kind of work you do, to what foods you eat, to when and where you get your medical care, to how you spend what income you are allowed to keep. That is what happens when you hand over responsibility for your life and upkeep to the government – they take control of it. No thanks – I like being a free and autonomous person, free to live my life as I see fit.

Obama has spent more in less than 3 months than Bush, Clinton and Bush I together spent during their entire presidential tenure. What do we have to show for it? Well, last week, I got an extra $15 in my paycheck. Of course, I will have to pay that back one year from now, along with the next $15 x 25 paychecks come next tax day. Already we have businesses failing left and right because of the credit crisis that was a direct cause of the sub-prime mortgage crash, which again, was a Democrat policy started by Carter and expanded upon by Clinton. When Bush, McCain and others in the GOP warned Congress that they needed to reign in and monitor Fannie and Freddie more closely, they were poo-poo’d and called racists and elitists by the very Democrats that had their own hands deep in FM and FM’s pockets.

You can deny reality all you want, or twist and turn it to suit your need to continue to support this president, who is truly proving to be either completely incompetent for the job, or hell bent on destroying this country – or worse, both. But the truth is, bottom line, Bush truly and deeply loved and cared about this country – mistakes and missteps notwithstanding – and he fought for her freedom more than any other president. You may not feel those freedoms are worth protecting but they are what this country was founded on. Go read Obama’s proposed Cybersecurity Act of 2009, pay particular attention to Sec. 18 (2) and Sec. 14 (b)(1), then tell us again how much respect Obama has for our freedoms.

The answer is none. It’s all about power and control, his or whoever is controlling him. We nothing more than pawns in their immoral little game. I just hope that when you wake up to this truth that it is not too late.

2. Morgan - April 15, 2009

I don’t know how you can stand this woman. Is she related to you?

Reaganomics? Anybody?

I’d pay good money to see someone wipe their sweaty hairy scrotum on these backwoods rightwing nutjobs.

I have a great image of my head now of Michael Moore wiping his nutbutter all over Ann Coulter’s face.

3. LissaKay - April 15, 2009

And here we have a typical example of the level discourse we have come to expect from leftists. Nice job, Morgan. Do you kiss your mother with that mouth? Or better yet, did your mother have any children that lived?

4. Doug McCaughan - April 15, 2009

LissaKay is a friend. We don’t agree on politics but I’ve helped her move and her husband has helped me put drywall up in the house. We’ve seen movies together, eaten meals together, chatted at blogfests, and shared laughs at an improv comedy show. She also is credited with being the first onliner to identify Cathy in real life.

ooh! I’m going to have to schedule a therapy appoint to get that image of Moore and Coulter out of my head!

5. Morgan - April 15, 2009

Just because I can speak crudely doesn’t discount everything about me. My mother is a college graduate as well and can insult conservatives probably better than I can. In fact my grandmother would find my wording equally amusing because she loathes conservatives as much as I do.

Did my mother have any children that lived? Are you saying I’m dead? WTF are you talking about? I’m a zombie!! BRAAAINS!

I had some other points originally but I deleted them because I realized really there is no point in arguing with someone like you and actually I avoid contact with pretty much everyone of your viewpoint if I can. I generally avoid debating christians, conservatives, psychics, astrologers, scientologists, young earth creationists, flat earthers and other people who live in an alternate reality.

So I thought I’d cut right to the point and express my loathing. It felt good.

It was good for me. I mean, I feel very satisfied.

In my opinion you can’t have a battle of wits with the handicapped.

Have a good night! Thanks for the laughs!

6. Morgan - April 15, 2009

Doug, you and Cathy are much more tolerant than I. I always say I can tolerate anyone but the intolerant and I realize that by not tolerating the intolerant (rascists, homophobes etc) I am a bit intolerant and thus, what I don’t like, but I can accept that. I mean its ok to hate as long as you only hate, say, the Nazi’s right?

The only conservative-ish people I have in my life are one libertarian boss and my ex inlaws who are mormon religious conservatives. I avoid discussing anything but the one person we have in common – my son, because I know otherwise it will just get really UGLY. Luckily most all of my family are liberal democrats, even if a couple of them have gotten a little baptist in their old age. In my head, I just can’t put it out of my head that these people think A B and C when I think those things are fundamentally WRONG and generally serious issues.

To me it would really feel like hanging out with Nazi’s when all my buddies and family are Jewish. But I realize that half our country leans right and they are Americans with all the rights and priveleges I have and they are my neighbors and I try to think, surely we are all on the same side here, but really, I don’t think we are anywhere close.

7. Morgan - April 15, 2009

LOL, Doug I do apologize for getting ugly on your blog. I just have my days were I get super frustrated that my lovely state has been over run by Fundies.

I should probably just stop reading all the hate-speech on WBIR.com.

8. LissaKay - April 15, 2009

Soulless too, I see, eaten away by all that rage and hatred inside you. Is that a legacy of your mother and grandmother too? Talk about child abuse!

But I am somewhat impressed with anyone that can rationally come to the conclusion that there is no God. That takes a huge amount of blind faith, you know, considering the overwhelming proof otherwise. No wonder you avoid debating Christians, you have nothing to bring to the debate. But that impressiveness is far outweighed by the pity I feel for anyone that lives a life so devoid of any moral compass at all and who have nothing to believe in. I would pray that God have mercy on your soul, but since you do not have one, that would be quite useless, wouldn’t it?

9. LissaKay - April 15, 2009

Wow, Morgan, you really like to assume a lot of things about me that are clearly not in evidence at all. I am far from racist or homophobic, and the only thing I hate is evil. If you weren’t so busy being intolerant of Christ and His followers based on incorrect assumptions, you might see that we are actually very loving and caring people. In fact, I now regret the snark I levelled at you above. The attack you launched on me prompted me to respond in kind. That was wrong of me. And I do see that you are very much in need of many prayers.

10. Morgan - April 16, 2009

I must say you just seem to be *teeming* with god’s love. You are just so glowing with love and peace and acceptance for other humans I just want to be around you. One of the main reasons I started questioning the church was the ignorance of so many of its members. Perhaps I am wrong and you are one of the tolerant and semi-christ like christians but I have only met, perhaps 5 people in my life that I thought really loved their neighbor and in my opinion lived what I was taught that christ wanted. But from your pretentious and self-righteous writing I know you are the exact kind of christian I dislike. I went to mass with my grandmother on saturday (you’ll probably say they aren’t christians) and thought I think they are wrong on some issues like abortion and euthanisia, I think they are right on some issues such as war and charity. I respect liberal christians who do good things for others, who aren’t preachy like you, and accept that they operate 100% on faith.

God is unproveable. There is no real evidence for him or against him. There is no proof or disproof that there isn’t an invisible pink unicorn sitting next to me. “I am an atheist in the same manner that I am an anicornist.” I believe in things that do have evidence or I can witness the effect of.

“I’ll pray for you, ” its just so condescending it makes me ill. I do have anger in me, towards evil as well, which I feel only exists in the hearts of man, not in the supernatural realm. I am soulless, and I believe you are too, but that doesn’t mean either of us don’t have merit as living breathing human beings.

I have never laid a hand on anyone in violence, nor has a hand ever been laid on me in anger. If you want anger, violence and pettiness, talk to your Old Testament god.

I don’t want need your pity or your prayers and as far as a moral compass, well my very christian sister tells me I am more moral that the majority of christians she knows.. I like to do tangible things to help out humanity and ease their suffering. Instead of feeling good and patting myself on the back by praying to a wizard in the sky, I prefer to donate or volunteer for charities that might actually make a difference in someones life. And I try to treat my loved ones well in THIS life and not just hope for something in the afterlife.

I do apologize if you aren’t racist or homophobic but I have found that many conservatives who claim not to be really are, so I really have no way of knowing.

The only things that make me angry in this world are religious conservatives because I think they are tangible proof of evil in the hearts of men. I’m pretty sure christ never existed, but if he did, I’m SURE he was a liberal and certainly wouldn’t buy into this capitalist system that screws 98 percent of the population. I go through each day trying to avoid rightwingers and talking to them as little as possible.

I mean, you think you are safe going to a fellow Obama supporters blog. 😉

11. Doug McCaughan - April 16, 2009

Morgan- “I do apologize for getting ugly on your blog.”
No need to apologize. I enjoy seeing all types of comments. Good debate comes from dissenting opinions and only the passionate truly standup for their beliefs. It’s hard to be passionate and not get emotional.

LissaKay- “all that rage and hatred”
I keep looking for this rage and hatred in left leaning people that you have referenced time and time again and I have trouble seeing it. Even in Morgan’s comments above I don’t see rage or hatred but passion, passion in her belief that you are wrong. And you can be passionate in your belief that she is wrong without rage or hatred. Your successive comments are each provoking to one another but that is also not rage or hatred but provocativeness will lead to tempers regardless of political leaning. Provocativeness does make conversation interesting though!

I will admit that I can find and cite fear, rage, and hatred that comes in both blue and red. Frankly, I see fear and hate from the right far more than the left.

“Do you really want your children giving up 50% or more of their future earnings in income taxes to pay off this horrendous spending spree”
Can you cite this? Where does this 50% come from? The bailout money is not being paid for by the taxpayers. It’s an investment, a loan, not a gift to the companies being bailed out.

The proposed $700 billion isn’t a donation, a grant, or a gift — it’s an investment. The money will be used to purchase assets from banks at a steep discount to nominal value, and then sold down the road once the smoke clears. The proceeds from those sales will … say it with me … go back to the Treasury and pay off the debt issued for the bailout. [Source, The Motley Fool, The Bailout: Myths, Half-Truths, and Inconsistencies]

That said, as the article mentions, we the taxpayers are likely to profit from the bailout, not lose.

“Obama has spent more in less than 3 months than Bush, Clinton and Bush I together”
That was going to happen regardless of who won the office of the presidency. Our government does not start with a clean slate every 4-8 years. The same clowns that have been deciding policy (foreign and domestic) have been in control since the early 70s. The president certainly has great influence but somethings have momentum that you cannot snap your fingers and change.

And yes, Jesus was a hippie. (and a Cynic)

12. Morgan - April 16, 2009

I was thinking in Mass, “Man this jesus guy sounds like a total liberal socialist humanist! We can’t be having that!!” The same things people hate Obama for seem to be the same things the character jesus would have supported.

What you said about being passionate reminded me of a quote:

“The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference. The opposite of art is not ugliness, it’s indifference. The opposite of faith is not heresy, it’s indifference. And the opposite of life is not death, it’s indifference.”

Elie Wiesel

13. Morgan - April 16, 2009

Oops I used the wrong term. Humanist implies not believing in supernatural entities which the biblical character obviously did buy into.
Anyways, I’m so grateful my family was never judgemental or self-righteous. They only stressed the golden rule which is something everyone can support I do believe.

14. dkanasazi - April 16, 2009

The quote up above that supports this “The bailout money is not being paid for by the taxpayers. It’s an investment, a loan, not a gift to the companies being bailed out.” that supporting quote looks to be referring to the money that the Bush administrator got, correct? I think people are getting up in arms by the need to pay that back plus the inflation we are going to face because of the even bigger amount of money that the Obama administration had printed with zero backing, basically fluff money. While still a “loan” of sorts, well if the companies do not still go bankrupt, it is injecting money with zero backing into the economy in hopes of stimulating it but in return is going to create some massive inflation as it also devalues the US dollar even more. As the US dollar devalues even more we are going to see more and more pushes to move things being traded with that dollar to other currencies. That is not going to help the US economy any, if you want to research it look into what oil crude is traded in and can look back 10+ years at studies that show what would happen and why it would happen to the US if that were to start getting traded in say the euro instead.

15. Donna - April 16, 2009

LissaKay is correct, Morgan. It was the Lamestream Media – Maddow in particular – who dredged that term up out of their collective dung holes. I personally had never heard of the term, but I rather like the term Tea Party. It denotes class – none of which you have.

16. Victor Agreda Jr - April 16, 2009

Follow the money. This started a long time ago and it’s not going to get better overnight. I do wish people would give the current president 50% of the support they gave Bush Jr. after 9/11… We’re in a crisis, yet we expect it to just “get fixed” via gov’t intervention or no intervention. Unicorns and rainbows don’t frequent the financial district, I’m afraid.

Anyhoo, I share Doug’s love of debate as long as it sticks to the facts — unicorns aside. No matter what driving force was behind the protests, I’m glad to live in a country where people are allowed to do that.

17. Morgan - April 16, 2009

I heard on the radio, perhaps NPR that certain conservative groups were sending teabags to DC such as this group http://www.patriotdepot.com/teabag.aspx. Some with “no strings attached.”

It doesn’t take the “lamestream media” to turn an item into an action. Carpetbags into carpetbagging for example. See it is quite easy, and in the case of the teabagging, it just to happened to have a humorous connotation that I’m POSITIVE the conservatives would have jumped on if they’d been on the opposite side.

I have no class…oooh ok, because we’ve met right, and you know me. Well I’ll just say some random things that have no basis in reality but will amuse me.

I have more class than:

..you have braincells…
…you have teeth that are originally yours…
..you have semi-automatic weapons stashed in your backwoods arsenal…
..you have statues of african americans eating watermelon…
…confederate flags…
…precious moments statues…
…plaques with Footprints and a cheezy picture…
…looney tunes paraphenalia..
…cars on blocks…
…copies of the King James Bible…
..unwanted, neglected and abused children brought into this world by pro-lifers…

Sorry Doug I had some time to kill at work and needed something to amuse myself with. I made lots of stereotype-based generalities, but I figure, as long as we are making sh*t up, I’ll go hog wide.

I’m just so happy Obama got elected. I’m happy these people have their websites and their teabagging. Now they know how we felt the last 8 years. I don’t think Obama is perfect but so far I am pleased he is trying. I’m still pleased I sent him money and voted for him. There are plenty of people that hate him but all that matters is that there are more that love him and that makes me sleep better at night that we are heading more and more towards a more perfect union. Even if he turns out to be an uneffective president because of attempting bipartisanship to appease all these haters, I’m still so happy that a majority got together and said, “we are tired of fear.” No matter how much they try, they can’t take away my refound patriotism.

I think we are experiencing the last sad gasps of a dying breed, the religious conservative. Its kind of like in the movies when the bad guy you think is dead reaches out and grabs your ankle and you finish him off.

18. Rich Hailey - April 17, 2009

Morgan:

I don’t know how you can stand this woman. Is she related to you?
Reaganomics? Anybody?
I’d pay good money to see someone wipe their sweaty hairy scrotum on these backwoods rightwing nutjobs.

doug:

Even in Morgan’s comments above I don’t see rage or hatred but passion, passion in her belief that you are wrong.

Doug, I would like to suggest that if someone said that your wife should be sexually assaulted because of her beliefs, then you might see some rage and hatred there. I won’t test that theory because at one time I liked and respected you and Cathy.

Sadly, that is no longer the case. With your continued use of the deeply offensive “teabagging” slander, and the fact that you are ok with the above comment by Morgan, it is clear that I have seriously misjudged you.

And that’s too bad.

I don’t want to offend you by saying that I’ll pray for you and your family, but for whatever it’s worth, I will.

1 Cor 1:18

19. Morgan - April 17, 2009

Darn, I’m kinda sad I am going out into the field today to work in the beautiful spring weather and miss all this fun

I think the bible condones slavery and human trafficking and everything that that would entail, sexual assault, etc.

Exodus 21: 7

So if its “gods word” then whats the problem?

I however, do not condone sexual assault and was making an off-color joke. However as much as Ann Coulter hates women she probably DOES agree with them being assaulted.

None of my liberal friends would ever lose respect for me or toss aside my friendship over a JOKE. Many of my friends would joke about teabagging me and I would take no offense, and I’d laugh, because laughter is the best thing in this life and I wish you all had more of it.

20. Morgan - April 17, 2009

I am also about 99 percent sure teabagging is a consentual act.

Teeth + scrotum + unwilling partner = ouch

M

21. repsac3 - April 17, 2009

LissaKay sez: “The only ones using the extremely vulgar term “tea bagging” are those who are mocking the Tea PARTIES.”

The first people I heard using the term in conjunction with this thing was some wingnut group who wanted to “teabag the White House” and/or “teabag Congress,” by sending the tea brand of one’s choice to these buildings/elected representatives via the US mail (a service largely paid for by taxpayer dollars, predictably…) It looked to me like those commentators and comedians on the left were reacting to the term folks on the right were already using. (Even on the day of the protests, I’m pretty sure I saw video of some FoxNews guy (Eric Shawn, was it?) using the term “teabagging protest” to describe the gathering about which he was reporting…)

(and as an aside…) How many of these protests would’ve been seriously curtailed if these anti-tax folks took their convictions rto heart enough to’ve avoided using taxpayer funded parks to hold ’em, and taxpayer funded streets to get to ’em, while having taxpayer funded police keeping them safe while they were at ’em, moaning about their taxes being lowered by Obama, and EVERYONE’S taxes being lower than they were under Saint Ronald?

Elections have consequences, my rightward leaning friends… You were voted out because the American people preferred not to continue down the path you were taking us. Not being in power is supposed to suck, and I’ve no doubt it does. But until you can offer positive solutions that amount to more than “Let ’em all fail… I got mine,” people prolly aren’t going to rally to your cause.

22. Doug McCaughan - April 17, 2009

I would like to suggest that if someone said that your wife should be sexually assaulted because of her beliefs

Rich- Touché. Had I read such a comment as directed toward Cathy, I would be irate. Some 1283 words passed between that comment and the time that I responded. I did not read her comment as directed toward Lissa but as general snark toward the right. Snarky is rude and disrespectful but not hate and rage. I can see her comment being interpreted as hateful and rage filled. If you include the Moore/Coulter part of her quote it seems intended to be more snarky, less hate and rage. Only Morgan knows. Unfortunately the typed word is a poor conveyor of emotion as the interpretation is dependent upon the reader’s state of mind at the time of reading. You know me well enough to know that I did not mean to offend Lissa; I still like and respect the both of you. I sincerely apologize for offending you both.

I see the words “rage and hate” thrown around in these politic discussions far too much and that tactic of debate upsets me. It is designed to enrage which then proves the point…like entrapment. I think it is far too easy to point at someone passionately arguing their side of a topic and wag a finger decrying them as hate filled. To point at someone and call them hateful and full of rage is attacking their being whether accurate or not. It’s personal. It adds nothing to the debate. In an argument we need to attack provable points, not feelings. I own my feelings. Nothing someone says is going to change my feelings but if my point of view is altered then perhaps my feelings will change. My point view gets altered by seeing evidence of provable points. For instance, in comment #14, dkanasazi says that the tea party is less about the initial $700billion investment and more about the additional monies printed with no backing. That is a provable, arguable point that potentially changes my feelings on the topic of the Tea Parties. Instead the commenter could have simply asked, “why do you hate America?”, a question I heard so much in the past 8 years I thought my ears would bleed. Such a question is instigating, provoking, and unprovable.

With your continued use of the deeply offensive “teabagging” slander

Continued use? I’ve mentioned it twice. The first time was because I was seeing the term used by both the right and left and bloggers and mainstream media and I really wanted to jump and up and down and in my best Inigo Montoya cry out, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” The second was in this post to point out that I find it very offensive. I just don’t see where I have promoted or advocated its use.

23. Rich Hailey - April 17, 2009

Morgan, your comment was not funny, and highly offensive. It was directly targeted at my wife, and was mean and hateful. As you said repeatedly, you loath Christians and conservatives, and you were very happy to express that loathing.

That’s not a joke, no matter how much you try to dress it up after the fact. You even apologized twice to Doug for getting ugly on his blog. At least have the honesty and integrity to admit that you meant what you said.

Based on your writings, I have no respect to lose for you. You boast about your tolerance as you continually display your intolerance, which makes you a hypocrite as well as self deceived. The irony is that as I politely excuse myself from a situation where I am no longer comfortable, similarly to your avoidance of those who you loathe so deeply, you try to use that to mock me, revealing a certain amount of self loathing in the process.

I won’t offend you with my pity, or my prayers; I’ll just go my way.

Doug, this isn’t a fencing match or a debate. I wasn’t looking for an apology, although I accept yours as sincere. The problem is that Morgan wasn’t making a joke, and wasn’t just snarking as the bulk of her writings in this thread make absolutely clear. She loathes people like me and my wife by her own admission, and you are OK with that, and find her style of expressing that loathing to be acceptable.

I don’t.

Wishing violence on anyone is hateful. This is America, and free speech is one of the cornerstones of our greatness. She has every right to say how she feels, and you have every right to accept it.

And I have every right not to expose myself to it.

24. Morgan - April 17, 2009

I was pretty content to let this go and not take it terribly seriously, after all I could care less about what people I will never be around think of me. However, after reading your replies and blog, I feel like I should take it seriously which I really have not been up until this point. I work with a group of the most liberal and crude bunch you could possibly imagine and most of my friends are very liberal and have crude senses of humor. It just doesn’t bother me. Insults don’t bother me. Rude jokes don’t bother me. Sophomoric humor runs rampant around my friends and I enjoy every bit of it and take none of it seriously.

I will however, resort to immature insulting when I feel like someone I like and who I think is a good person is being insulted and being spoken to in a condescending matter. I was irritated with the ACLU having to ask TN schools to remove blocks on websites that could possibly allow a GLBT child to not feel so alone and persecuted, and by that, perhaps prevent their suicide, depression or hurt feelings.

I was upset by the response on WBIR and genuinely thought LissaKay was being rather a ____ to Doug (sorry thats how I felt). If you read her very first comment she is absolutely rude,condescending and self-righteous and it made me angry. That is NOT how I would treat my friends.If any of my friends spoke to me like that, they would quickly find themselves sans friend.

I will respond more sometime this weekend. Currently I’m exhausted from being up late helping my SO pack for his 2 weeks of National Guard drills. I now have to go join my evOl liberal family to celebrate my grandmothers 77th birthday (all those years spent as an yellow dog democrat <3)

25. LissaKay - April 18, 2009

Morgan, honestly. Don’t bother to respond … you’re just wasting your time and efforts (and clogging up Doug’s blog with all this ugliness) if you think you are having any kind of an effect on us, our faith or anyone else’s faith. You hate Christians. We get that. You hate a lot of things, and have a lot of anger going on. We would love to help you find a way out of that darkness, but it is fairly plain that you wish to hang on to that, for now at least.

Doug is a big boy and doesn’t need you to “defend” him. We know each other well enough that if he had a problem with anything I said, he will address it with me. We agree to disagree. We also respect each other’s beliefs and our respective right to hold on to them.

So go on and enjoy your weekend. We will be enjoying ours, surrounded by hundreds of other Christians, praising Jesus and loving Him and each other. There will be no crude jokes, angry lashing out at anyone or hating. Just loads of happy, loving, spirit-filled people joined in fellowship for the Glory of God. You have no idea how much we wish you (and everyone!) could experience just a tenth of this joy, and to know this awesome freedom.

Peace.

26. Morgan - April 18, 2009

No LissaKay I don’t think I have any effect on your faith and that is why I didn’t bother to rationally debate you, and decided to simply insult you. There is no point. I don’t try to convert people like you, I only try to help other doubters come out of the closet and realize its ok not to buy into nonsense.

You would like to think I hate Christians. You’d like to feel like a persecuted victim. I don’t actually HATE anyone though I do use the word hate alot. I hate green peppers. I hate the gym. I hate Knoxville traffic. I hate litterbugs. Do I seriously want anything bad to happen to these people? No. I may say I wish someone covered a litterer’s yard with ciggarette butts but that does not translate into “I want them assaulted.” A major truth is you like to twist the news and what people say like you claim Doug does, but I actually saw it in action with you. I read your blog that mentions I want you raped. Whats the point in rationally debating someone so deluded?

I don’t hate Christians at all, nor muslims, hindus, or anyone else. Most religions have *some* good points. I “hate” stupid Christians. I hate *stupid* muslims. “hate” stupid people. My entire family and quite a lot of my friends are Christians and I love them with all my heart. Its just that they aren’t stupid or willfully ignorant Christians, do you see the difference? I dislike Christians who I feel do a lame job of being Christ-like, such as yourself. You may write that you are full of joy and gods love, but if churches are full of people like you, I don’t want to be anywhere near them. I don’t think the character christ was a capitalist and wanted the 2% to live high on the hog while the other 98 % suffered and toiled. I don’t think he would have liked people dying because of lack of healthcare or losing their homes due to unchecked greed and/or medical bills. I don’t think he would have cared for the disgusting and unchecked consumerism Americans live by and how we enjoy a standard of life at expense of the 3rd world. I don’t think he’d like how we send innocent women and men to die for nothing in a war based on lies.

I felt this way when I was a christian as well and its part of many reasons I left. All the more moral and compassionate and educated people weren’t in churches.

You are right, Doug can defend himself but I had ignored your comments previously and something about your post just upset me and I thought I’d enter my 2 cents. Free speech and all right?

I didn’t know you were really friends and agreed to disagree. I have a libertarian friend at work who I don’t totally agree with but I don’t speak to him like he’s misled misinformed disingenious ignoramus. Seriously, go read your words, they don’t seem like the words of a “happy, loving, spirit-filled” person.

Just by saying what you did in your last sentence is so insulting, can you not see it? Its essentially saying, “look what I have and you don’t and look how what I have is 10 million times better than yours.” Thats not the christianity people I respect, its being self-righteous and obnoxious even though you think it looks like you are saying “I want all the world to experience peace and love.” You are just bragging and boasting and that is all.

You don’t know me or my heart. Here’s some scriptures I know, since it seems to be your language:

“Judge not, that ye be not judged” and “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor”

Perhaps you’ll say I translated them wrong and they do not mean what I think they mean, but, well, that seems to be your way.

I am not a hate-filled or enraged person. I have good days and bad days like anyone else. I get mad at people like any other human being but I am also probably the most forgiving person you will ever meet. I try to treat others as they would like to be treated, but if you do not treat my friends and family with respect , I will make it clear that you are wrong.

I have gotten good at offending people I think are stupid and harmful people. Like Doug said, at least I’m passionate about my beliefs, just as you are.

A lot of people say ignorance is bliss, but really its mental slavery.

So far this weekend, I’ve gotten to spend time with my awesome liberal family. We spend a lot of time laughing and smiling. I will probably go to earthfest and walk around and learn things about what I can do to make the planet a better place instead of just hoping “god” bails us out after destroying it. There will be people of all faiths, races, genders and sexualities there and we’ll all be nice to each other and learn ways to proactively work for change instead of bowing to a wizard in the sky and hoping he feels like answering it that day and then giving credit to the wizard and not the more likely source of the desired outcome – humans, science or chance.

“Be the change you wish to see in the world.” Ghandi

Its easier said than done I know. I *TRY* to be tolerant of stupid people but its very hard for me, I’m not perfect and never claimed to be. Like I said, to me, its like trying to be loving and tolerant of the Nazi’s. My way of tolerating them is just to avoid them altogether. I am used to only conversing with liberals and if I had known you were his friend and not a troll, perhaps I would have used different wording in my first post but after your responses, I was just irritated and didn’t hold back.

I think what I was taught about Jesus in church and sunday school and by my family perhaps was wrong. I think maybe the picked the good things out of the bible and left the bad things because they could align those things with their consciences. Because they talked about love, acceptance, non-violence and compassion, so when I see people like you I think “what a horrible christian.”

I however, have gone back and read pieces of the bible that would have you stone sinners, kill your own son, sell your daughter into slavery, beat your children, etc etc. Your god is not terribly moral and not someone I think is worth worshipping. After reading the things your god did to others, I can see why you are the way you are.

Another good one by Ghandi:

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

27. Dan - May 28, 2009

3. LissaKay – April 15, 2009
And here we have a typical example of the level discourse we have come to expect from leftists. Nice job, Morgan. Do you kiss your mother with that mouth? Or better yet, did your mother have any children that lived?

So, we disparage the level of discourse, and then ask ‘did your mother have any children that lived?’? The cognitive dissonance, not to mention downright hypocrisy, makes my head a-splode.


trackback