Not white? Sorry, you can't be student council presidentFollow

Haha, the first image that popped into my head when I read that was this.

Dem1:I wonder why we got invited to this Republic meeting.
Dem2:I have no clue.
General Akbar:*busts through a door* IT'S A TRAP!

Hahahaha... yeah, I love it how the fucking Republican Party Leadership starts talking about doing this but it's only "liberal bloggers" who should be discussed. Do you even think about the shit you write or are you in such a frenzy to defend your precious party that you'll just spew whatever comes to mind?

Erm, that is the name of the party. "Democrat Party" is not the name of the Democratic Party. Neither is "Democrat Socialist Party" for that matter.

What big deal? Pointing it out and laughing at you as you frantically try to say "It's no big deal! Only liberal bloggers!! OMG TEABAGGERTEABAGGERTEABAGGER!!!"?

As has been pointed out to you before, "Freepers" is their term for themselves. Nice try though!

"It means nothing!! NOTHING! ONLY LIBERAL BLOGGERS WOULD CARE!!!"

Riiiiiggghhttttt.... :D

Edited, Aug 31st 2010 10:47pm by Jophiel

The Republican Leadership did not. A small sub group of the RNC, called the RNCC proposed the rule. Steele refused to even address it immediately, and promised to put it on the agenda to discuss at some future scheduled meeting, where it was presumably dropped for being a really really dumb idea.

Seriously. It was a small group of RNC members. Not the leadership at all. The only people who remotely took it seriously were apparently liberal bloggers who have nothing better to do than scan every single minor GOP organization in the country to see if they can find anything silly and then pretend that the whole GOP is behind it.

Which is more or less exactly what you are doing. No one even noticed or cared about that Joph. It went no where. The GOP leadership rejected it pretty soundly. I'm not even aware that it made it to the agenda. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.


There is no comparison between this and the use of the label "teabagger". Not even close.



Considering you got your facts wrong, that's more then a bit weak. I'm not going to defend the RNCC (whoever the hell they are). I will defend the larger organization which appears to have rightly rejected the proposal. So what do you have? Nothing. You're upset because the GOP *didn't* do something you don't like?

That's a stretch, even for you!



Yes. But members of the Democratic Party are called "Democrats". So calling the party the "Democrat Party" is hardly an insult. It's certainly not anywhere close to calling members of the Tea Party movement "teabaggers".


And when members of the media start calling the Democratic Party the "Democrat Socialist Party" and insisting that this is really what they call themselves because they're socialists, then you can remotely compare that as well. But that didn't happen. Even the GOP didn't think it was a good idea. So I'm unsure what you think you're complaining about.




And? You said I defended them. I didn't. And the second it was pointed out to me that this was a deliberate mislabeling of your party, I stopped using the term. Not because I think it's particularly offensive, and not because I ever myself used it in an offensive way, but because I believe in being respectful to other people. If Democrats don't like their party being called the "Democrat Party", I wont call it that. Feel free to look over my posts for the last several months. You'll find that ever since you pointed that out to me, I have always referred to your party by the correct name (or "Dems" for short, which I assume is ok).


It would be nice if others could show the same consideration. At what point did you become ok with deliberate mislabeling of other people and groups as a cheap way to attack them? You seem to dislike when this is done (to a very mild degree) to your own party, but I've yet to see you once do anything other than laugh when someone calls the Tea Party members "teabaggers".


The double standard you're presenting is amazing, Joph. Very Christian of you! Do unto others as you hate for them to do unto you. Ignore the plank in your eye while pointing and laughing at the speck in the other guy's. Like I said earlier, I'll take the moral high ground here. You're free to wallow in the muck if you want, or you could join me in condemning *every* mislabeling of this sort. I have no problem doing it. Do you? Or does your moral compass stop at correcting people you agree with politically when they do something you know is wrong?

Edited, Aug 31st 2010 10:22pm by gbaji

They are not "leaders of the RNC". In the same way that Black Caucus does not lead the Democratic party. And in the same way that the Blue-dog Democrats don't lead the Democratic party. They are members of the party committee. They are one of many sources of ideas which may eventually result in policies that the party might just adopt. In this case, they proposed something really dumb, and it went no where within the party.



By party representatives in their respective states and districts. So what? They weren't elected by the whole RNC to lead the RNC. Which means that they are not "leaders of the RNC", and thus their opinions, while they may be taken under consideration, don't carry some kind of mystical power.



Um. No. I recognize that within the RNC are a whole number of sub groups and those groups have members, and guess what? I'm not going to agree with every single one of them. The reason the national party has so many members and groups is so that the party is representative of those ideas which the majority of those sub groups agree on. Clearly, this wasn't an idea they agreed on, so it was dropped. Thus, the RNC as a whole does not hold responsibility for it.



Openly admitted it? I'm sure he gave a public response which was tepid and didn't offend anybody, but are you really even remotely unsure that his immediate response to that proposal was "WTF is this?".


Are you still trying to compare this to the constant and repeated labeling of the Tea Party as "teabaggers"? An idea which was floated and rejected by the RNC somehow has more weight than a label being used right now, every single day, by liberal pundits and politicians? What crazy world do you live in?



I will plainly and without qualification state that the group within the RNC which generated that proposal was childish and immature. I'm not going to attack the whole RNC since the whole RNC didn't come up with it, and soundly rejected it when it was proposed to them.


Will you plainly and without qualification state that anyone who labels the Tea Party members as "teabaggers" is being childish and immature? That would only be fair.




I'm not defending or downplaying. I have stated that the proposal was stupid. I've said that the people who proposed it acted stupidly (childish and immature even!). What I will not do is spread that blame to other people who didn't propose it and who rejected it when it was proposed to them. In the same way that I'm not demanding that you condemn every single liberal organization and the entire Democratic party because some liberals and some news organizations continue to label the Tea Party "teabaggers". I'm only asking that you condemn those who actually do that labeling.


Cause that's fair and reasonable, right?

Edited, Aug 31st 2010 11:45pm by gbaji