That would be the opposite of "conservative media".
That's vague, jay and doesn't answer the question. Specifically, what do you consider the "liberal media"?
You see, lots of conservatives think organizations like "CNN" or "NBC news" or "NPR" are the liberal media. I am trying to understand where you are on that before I spend too much energy on ranting about something that may not be the case. You are not helping.
So that proves everyone who supports the movement is also racist?
Is that what you think I said? I sure hope not.
I think it shows that it is a fair generalization to say teabaggers are statistically more racist than normal people.
That article is little more than a propaganda hit piece and if you buy into it I have to seriously question your critical thinking skills. I expect more from you.
Question all you want. The article has data collected from multiple polls. You reject it only because it disagrees with your mental model of the world. It is a nice belief defense mechanism you have there. Anything that contradicts what you already believe is a "hit piece". That is what keeps people ignorant, jay. Defense mechanisms that prevent them from even considering the idea that they might be wrong. Do you want to stay ignorant?
So? So, you are full of shit. You said they didn't need violence. My point is everything about them had an undercurrent of violence. Their language, their tactics, their slogans - all couched in violent terms. You don't seem to be denying that now. Do you take back your claim?
They broke no laws and not one single death or injury resulted from that action.
Not the point and completely irrelevant.
And how is that any worse or any different than the current calls for violence from supporters of the OWS movement?
I reject your premise. I've not seen anyone in the OWS movement call for violence. The only talk of violence I have heard has been from conservative commentators fabricating accusations out of thin air or on conservative blogs. I'm not going to search for it either. That's your job.
And there is plenty to read about OWS as well...what's your point?
Are you stupid, jay? Because you sound pretty stupid, with your "So?s" and "what's your point?s". I thought my point was pretty clear: Your point about the teabaggers being nonviolent was wrong. I think I pretty well established it. And whether the OWS is violent - and I've not yet seen any evidence of it - has no bearing on that.
As if the OWS movement just spontaneously sprung up overnight. You don't think that do you? This movement was meticulously planned and carefully orchestrated.
The teabagger movement was paid for by billionaires to support the interests of billionaires, coordinated through PR firms. It was well documented. What you have said above does not equate to what I am talking about. What I think, jay, is that OWS is not sponsored by rich people. I think it is not coordinated by PR firms. I think the leaders and organizers are not on the payroll of front 502c3 organizations that are fronts for billionaires' political interests. I think they are not a coordinated part of a left wing election strategy. If you disagree, well, the onus is on you to show it.