The Teabag brownshirts are at it yet again. Consistant with their history of beating up reporters, intimidating opponents with threats of violence, calling the pigs on peaceful protestors; and other acts of thuggery; two of their number have been caught circulating 'watch lists' of constituents who've asked tough questions (i.e., came too close to the truth) at so-called 'town hall' meetings.
These watch lists include information pulled from facebook pages; including names, pictures, and other personal information---and circulating these lists among their fellow-brownshirts.
The Congressmen guilty of these crimes are Tim Griffin and Dan Webster, Teabag representatives from Arkansas and Florida, respectively.
Griffin was once called by Robert Novak 'a promising protege of karl Rove' and was a former operative in the 'swiftboating' campaign ads against John Kerry in 2004. He's had an equally shady history as one of Junior's federal prosectors and a corporate lobbyist.
Webster has had an equally colorful career. A high-ranking political official of the Religious Right, Webster raked in millions of corporate dollars in a bid to defeated targeted congressman Alan Grayson.
Do you think I just invent these stories? It was in the Huffington Post, among other places.
I'm not sure why it seems to be an unwritten rule on Libertarian fora, that whenever the neocon agenda is questioned, there has to be a bibliography of sources included. Meanwhile, anything that comes out of Murdoch's Propaganda Ministry passes without question.
I haven't noticed any such bias. There's no absolute obligation to provide sources of course, but anything controversial that's posted without evidence -- a link, not just a mention of a site that has tons of other stuff on it -- is simply less likely to be seen as credible. If you see unsourced material posted that you think comes out of "Murdoch's Propaganda Ministry" (whatever that might be), I encourage you to request evidence.
Maybe you do, but I don't see the Tea Party (calling them names is kind of petty, imho) as being proponents of the "neocon agenda". in fact that claim seems to me like something else that deserves to be questioned, because from what I've heard, The Tea Party has focused very little on international affairs. I'm not sure whether you think there is a domestic "neocon agenda" too, but that would seem to represent an expansion of the usual meaning of the term "neo-conservative".
Ron Paul, who's been called the godfather of the Tea Party movement and who is often referred to along with Michele Bachmann as a GOP presidential candidate with Tea Party support, is sharply at odds with the "neocon agenda" as I understand it.
Oh, not so, Eric!! What is posted herewith better have proper sources if anyone is to take a second look! So, for some show and tell. I was talking with a friend who said her kid was devastated because after he served in Afghanistan, he is seeing the light that things are not as they were presented to him. My reaction to my friend was "Duh!?", which did not go over too big. Is it not obvious that political objectives can get ugly? I, personally, fight the ugly with reason, persuasion, and good will. No?
This hasn't happened so much here, but is a problem I've had on a lot of other so-called 'libertarian' forums. I'll try to be better about referencing where I heard of and researched certain information. I should point out that I do some checking before I post these things, because they are usually stories suppressed by the Murdochcratic Media Monopoly. But I'm not going spend hours compiling indexes for people of what they can find themselves with a 2-minute Google Search.
As far as 'civility' goes; I think the time for that has passed. I don't believe for one minute that the corporate/statist elites have the slighest qualms about being incivil---even to the point of outright murder---towards anyone who gets in their way.