Tea-Baggers and Arch Conservatives are just like al Kaida in that they don't consider lieing

[JohnWxy]

dishonest if it's done in the interest of forwarding their respective "causes".


Just as al Kaida members believe otherwise sinful acts such as not wearing traditional raiment and appearing as secular 'Westerners' is permissible, as long as it is done in the interest of killing 'infidels'. Likewise saying anything, no matter how untruthful it is, is not really lieing, if it's said in the interest of not getting caught by Western authorities and thus serves their "cause".

I don't know if many people realize this, but Arch Conservatives and Tea-Baggers really make the same special adjustment in their minds for lieing about anything they are doing that advances their holy war against "intellectualism" (education, science), "socialism", "secularism" or any of the rest of the perceived causes of their frustrations. IF they feel it's necessary to obscure the hypocrisy of their so-called political 'positions', they will lie and not consider it lieing.


"Tea party" photo shows huge crowd — at different event

Glen BEck did the same thing in 'reporting' on one of his Beck-Boobie rallies and was exposed by Jon Stewart.

A poll taken by Quinnipiac College reported that those identifying themselves as aligned with the Tea-Baggers were tallied as being 13% represented by minorities. THe good people at Quinnipiac apparently assumed everyone was answering truthfully, when a cursory review of pictures of the vocal Tea-bagger rallies clearly shows NO MINORITIES are to be found in their ignorant number.
Obviously, a number of Tea-baggers polled said they were minorities to give the "movement" the appearance of not being an almost entirely White phenomenon - which throws some doubt on credibility of the self-proclaimed "populist" phenomenon.

When arch Conservatives or Tea-baggers feel the hypocrisy of any of their enterprises is about to be exposed they don't really feel it's lieing - to lie to a non-believer (infidel) - in this case, one of the intellectual, secular, socialist, evil-Democratic enemy.

Such is the mutable 'morality' of the ignorant, the goof-ball or the fanatic.

[virgogal]

1. How on earth can you tell from looking at a picture that there

are no minorities in it?

[JohnWxy]

2. "A" "picture"? I base that on rather more time watching tapes on tv showing tea-baggers AND

the observations of others (I wouldn't go on my own impresssions alone) :

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/02/minorities-tea-party">Minorities In the Tea Party?

http://rawstory.com/2010/02/olbermann-decries-lack-diversity-tea-parties-videode/


of course, I forget which humorist is was, who imagined the possibility of a blind, black Klux Klux Clanner.

So who knows, blind doesn't have to mean literally (visually) blind.


regarding publishing pictures of other events and claiming they were pictures of certain of their rally's that was no accident. Like I said they do not consider lieing to infidels lieing.

[thelordofhell]

3. Dave Chappelle did the blind KKK bit

And if a "movement" is reporting that at least 1 out of 10 members are of a minority, you should be able to see it in a picture. Maybe the minorities are "behind the scenes" people :sarcasm:

[virgogal]

4. "Pictures" is the word you used in your OP so I responded accordingly.

[JohnWxy]

5. actually to quote myself: "a cursory review of pictures of the vocal Tea-bagger rallies"

I did say 'pictures' (note plural form) but I was really referring generically to images as in videos and still shots (often produced from videos). But, I guess my wording could have been better. (actually, you can examine a video more thoroughly by stopping it and looking at it as a series of still shots. This enables you to examine the many individuals in the shot more thoroughly. This is particularly true of a video giving a scanning shot)

Sometimes in the interest of brevity we sacrifice precision and completeness (I know how loath people are to read a post greater than three or four paragraphs in length. I admit to sometimes giving in to the 'imperative' of keeping the post short which means you run the risk of sacrificing thorougness.