\"Tea Party\" loony, I mean leader Michelle Bachmann, was recently challenged to a public debate by a 16 year old girl.

A 16-year-old high school student has challenged Rep. Michele Bachmann (R.-Mn.) to a public debate because the student, Amy Myers, thinks Rep. Bachmann doesn’t know what she’s talking about and is harming women.

“It’s just been the general statements she’s been making,” says Ms. Myers, adding that she found large numbers of inaccuracies in Rep. Bachmann’s statements about history, and “I know all the answers to the majority of the statements, and I’m sixteen.”

This of course set the vile hate mongers on the right(esp. the freepers who have a history of attacking young women) loose.

The Facebook page also attracted a fair number of personal attacks on Ms. Myers on Right Wing message boards like Free Republic, but her father, Wayne Myers, says that hasn’t impressed his daughter “They were calling her the C-name, they were calling her a lesbian, and she was actually laughing about it” he says.

Then the right wing hate cabal was not satisfied calling the 16 year old vile names, so they thought they would take it up a notch.

Now the right has taken it to the extreme that her father is worried about the family\'s safety.

After it started getting media attention last weekend, commenters on tea party websites have threatened to publish her home address and some have threatened violence.

The 16-year-old from Cherry Hill says several commenters have called her a “whore.”

Her father, Wayne, says he’s concerned for his daughter’s safety.

And they say the hate is on the left? The koch brothers funded hate machine has even boiled over to threatening her school and threatening to rape the 16 year old girl. Who exactly are the terrorists in this country?

Keep it classy “tea party” and Michelle Bachmann!

Tagged with:

19 Responses to “tea party” Love

  1. forgotmyscreenname says:

    Yeah Jeff, there’s never ever been any hate from the left for children who stand up for their beliefs: http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/120298184.html

    Also, I hear there’s a kindergartener in Topeka who wants to debate President Obama. Think he’s up for it?

    • Zuma Bound says:

      Can’t you just admit that what happened in this instance was wrong without feeling a defensive, wingnut need to deflect?!

      Why is it always “tit for tat” with you guys?

      In any event, the juvenile wingnut snark with which you concluded your comment says a lot about you.

      You’d be better served, Forgot[YourCommonSenseDecencyAndCivility], worrying about the beat-down that the President is going to put on any candidate that the Republicans put forward, both in the election AND in any debate they might have.

      Now that I think about it, maybe you have been worrying about it, and that’s where all the juvenile snark is coming from.

      • forgotmyscreenname says:

        Zuma, my point was not “tit for tat” to say that either one is ok. But Jeff came off a bit holier than thou when it came to “vile hate mongers on the right.” My point in mentioning incidents that happen on the left is knowing that guys like Jeff won’t mention them. So Zuma I agree with you that there are plenty of jerks to go around on both sides of the aisle, so let’s all just acknowledge that without saying one side is more hateful than the other.

        • Jeff Simpson says:

          and the point I have made before is that when you say its even 50/50 it diminishes the seriousness of whats happening and its no where near 50/50. Sure some people yelled at this kid, but most probably didnt know who she was or that she was even talking. Also did they then follow her home and threaten her home life or her school?

          • forgotmyscreenname says:

            See what I mean Zuma?

            How about Rep. Hintz telling a fellow legislator “you’re F***ing dead!”

            If we are only limiting boorish behavior to young people, how about that Dem worker using his own kids as political props? Great parenting.

            Or here’s another example: “Emilie Steavpack, a UW student, said she first went in to the rotunda but was accosted and slapped by an anti-Walker protester. She moved out to the Capitol steps and was called names and shouted at.” http://www.jsonline.com/multimedia/photos/116411054.html#id_46728864

            Or finally how about the countless stories of teachers using classroom time to fill impressionable young minds with union lies and garbage. Especially those students who dare challenge their teachers and are shouted down or maligned.

            • Jeff Simpson says:

              Forgot let me answer each of those individually.

              1. Hintz apologized immediately, and will have to answer for those remarks when he runs for re-election.

              2. No Dem worker used their own kids for props anywhere. If you mean Melissa Sargent then you are sadly mistaken. not even close on this one, so its a mute point.

              3. Well heck if she said she was slapped I believe hem since it was hard to find a police officer around the capitol during those days I am sure she would have reported them if there had been one around. Reminds me of the fox news reporter getting “hit”

              Anytime anything even close to violence came about, the crowd instantly started chanting “peace peace peace”, I doubt they would have stood by while someone slapped a young woman.

              4. Examples please? Especially examples of
              – union lies and garbage
              -students getting shouted down by teachers.

              I will address those when you give me specific examples.

            • Zuma Bound says:

              Okay, Forgotmyscreenname, my eyes are starting to glaze over.

              The anecdotal, as well as the unsubstantiated, evidence you cite wouldn’t be persuasive in a court of law for obvious reasons. I don’t find it persuasive because there are so many ways that it could have been tainted or even invented.

              It also smacks of the “tit for tat” approach which I think is inherently suspect.

              So, I’m back to my original point which was that everyone needs to acknowledge that the other side isn’t full of sh*t about everything all of the time, and that everyone needs to be able to acknowledge demonstrated cases of abusive behavior.

              In the case that Jeff put before us, that would require someone like you to specifically acknowledge that the manner in which the Myers family has been treated is horrendous, and to do so upfront, before saying anything else. Without such an acknowledgment, your initial comment, for example, could reasonably be, and was, construed to be nothing more than unapologetic, partisan-based “tit for tat”.

              If it will help you make such an acknowledgment, I will acknowledge that IF Emilie Steavpack was treated in the manner she alleges, and without any physical provocation on her part, that that treatment was wrong, albeit hardly as consequential or as unconscionable as the manner in which Wayne Myer’s daughter was treated.

              That said, I don’t think that the rest of the “evidence” of misconduct by the Left that you cited came even close to the same level of egregiousness in terms of aggressive and life-threatening behavior. I’m actually not sure how the rest of your everything-but-the-kitchen-sink array of “evidence”, other than that which pertained to Emilie Steavpack, was germane in any way to the Myer’s matter in that respect.

              Moreover, regardless of how you feel about the rest of what he had to say in his post, Jeff makes a valid point with respect to the extent to which the respective sides of the political divide engage in behavior such as that experienced by the Myers family. The Right engages in it to a far greater extent than does the left. The extensive scope and reach of conservative talk radio is something that I thinks contributes mightily to that.

              Anyway, I am willing to acknowledge, as you did, that there are jerks on both sides. I do, however, think that it is important for you to reflect on that fact that Right-Wingnuts seem to engage in problemmatic behavior far more often than do people on the Left.

              As Dr. Phil is famous for saying, “You cannot change what you cannot acknowledge.”

              In any event, and as I said previously, just below, it would have been helpful for you to have acknowledged the bilateral nature of the problem before you jumped off into “the Left does it, too” rhetoric. I may have still said something about “false equivalencies” and such, but I probably wouldn’t have been as quick to use the “W” word on you.

              You’re not wrong in the things that you had to say. You’re just not as right as you think you are.

              Jeff has a point. I hope that you think about it some more.

              • forgotmyscreenname says:

                Zuma, I like how my examples are anecdotal, but not Jeff’s. My point is “tat for tat” to you, but again not Jeff’s. You say you acknowledge the point about jerks on both sides, but then say one side does it more. So you’re not exactly being objective. I also think it is ridiculous to say “their side is worse” when the country is bascially split into two very broad viewpoints. How would it even be possible for one side to collectively exhibit worse behavior? Even among the Cap protesters there was a wide spectum even when they were all on the same side — I was more disgusted to see some of the tactics by college students, hippies, and thug-types than the middle-aged workers who showed up with their families.

                Jeff, you ask for examples of teachers misusing classtime to complain about the collective bargaining bill? Well it’s not exactly the kind of thing that shows up in the newspapers. I have heard plenty of evidence to that regard where a teacher used a whole class period to talk about Walker and the union bill instead of teaching math or science.

                But here is one example of a fine union teacher that did make the papers:


                • Jeff Simpson says:

                  What I am saying forgot is that there are jerks on both sides but the right wing takes things way to the extreme much more so than the left.

                  Interesting example and yes that teacher should be disciplined. He set a horrible example. That being said, that is way different than discussing the bill or current events in class.

                  Since we are punishing Rob Schneider for his behavior…what should we do to Scott Fitgerald? http://bloggingblue.com/2011/03/18/what-are-we/ I wonder if Nygren was upset with Senate Majority leader Fitzgerald?

                • Zuma Bound says:

                  “Zuma, I like how my examples are anecdotal, but not Jeff’s.”

                  ZB: There was evidence provided by Jeff in connection with the Myers’ case. You didn’t provide any. Accordingly, I called them “anecdotal.”

                  “My point is ‘tat for tat’ to you, but again not Jeff’s.”

                  ZB: Here’s the thing, Forgotmyscreenname, Jeff talked about an objectively valid case. Your objections to the “tone” of his post notwithstanding, the minute that you responded with “examples” of misconduct on the other part of the political equation, you were, objectively speaking, engaging in a “tit for tat” rightwing defense of the reprehensible manner in which Myers’ daughter was treated.

                  “You say you acknowledge the point about jerks on both sides, but then say one side does it more. So you’re not exactly being objective.”

                  ZB: It’s a judgment call, Forgotmyscreenname. I was a Republican until 2008. One of the reasons that I switched politial affiliations and embraced progressive politics was my determination, arrived at after A LOT of soul searching, that the tactics, not to mention the policies and political philosophy of the Right, lacked the kind of integrity that I saw on the Left.

                  I am still a progressive because I have seen absolutely nothing in the intervening years to change my mind.

                  You can call that “subjective”, but, to be honest, I think that I am being a lot more objective about things than you are.

                  Please know that I didn’t say what I said about this lightly, and I trust that we can simply agree to disagree about the subject at this point.

                  But, do me a favor, and think about what I am saying. It is not, as I suspect that you think it is, just some mindless and hackneyed partisan knee-jerk reaction on my part.

                  “I also think it is ridiculous to say ‘their side is worse’ when the country is bascially split into two very broad viewpoints. How would it even be possible for one side to collectively exhibit worse behavior?”

                  ZB: Well, Forgotmyscreenname, all I can say is that, in my experience, it is possible.

                  I also imagine that it would be as painful for you to admit that now, not that I expect you to, as it was for me in 2008, but I did exactly that. I “bit the bullet”, acknowledged that the Right had a problem, and I fundamentally changed my political outlook, and, then, I changed parties.

        • Zuma Bound says:

          That’s fine, Forgotmyscreenname. But, next time, in the interest of clarity, preface your remarks with that acknowledgment.

    • Forgot,

      Was it ever confirmed that the guy in the video clip was actually a union member, like Patrick McIlheran claims? Why didn’t the cameraman go over and ask the guy some questions like his name, if he’s a union member, which union, where he lives, etc? He’s on tape for a full minute and he doesn’t appear to be camerra shy. Surely there was time for a short interview?

      Also, the guy looks like he went to the rally alone. He’s not surrounded by members of a particular union and he doesn’t seem to have any friends with him either, though he does glance at the cameraman twice. Hmmmm.

      It all strikes me as a bit odd.

  2. Jeff Simpson says:

    now that you mention it Steve it also strikes me as a bit odd.

    • Zuma Bound says:

      At the time, rather than get too “conspiratorial” about it, I just conceded that wrongful conduct is wrongful conduct whether or not I happen to be on the same side of the ideological divide as the “wrongdoer”, and I decried the conduct alluded to by Forgotmyscreenname.

      That’s what is so troubling about his mindlessly and sarcastically “jumping in with both feet” with that, “Well, the left is just as bad” false equivalency BS, leaping right over the need to acknowledge wrongful conduct by the Freepers, etc.

      Progressives seem to be able to admit to their mistakes or, for the sake of integrity, to be able to admit that one of their own has screwed up. I don’t see a reciprocal tendency on the part of the rightwing.

      Little wonder that there is no “civil” in “civil discourse” anymore.

  3. Jeff Simpson says:

    Have the “freepers” ever contributed anything to society?

    • Zuma Bound says:


      “Freepers”? No.

      The “etc” [everybody else on the Right]? Ummm, occasionally. (*wink*)

  4. Zuma,

    I don’t think I’m getting conspiratorial at all. Was it ever confirmed that the guy in the video clip is a union member? It’s a reasonable question.


    • Zuma Bound says:

      Sorry, SC, just a figure of speech, and a poor choice of words on my part.

      That said, I did talk about the same kind of “false flag” problems to which you are alluding in my response to Forgotmyscreenname as I questioned the credibility of the “evidence” that he presented about misconduct by the Left.

      As you rightly point out, who knows whose side the guy was actually on? I don’t think that anyone really does know, but that didn’t really keep the wingnuts from assuming the guy was a Union guy, rather than a pro-Walker plant, did it?

      Anyway, what I was trying to do initially when I used the word, “conspiratorial”, was make the point that, despite the fact that I’m a progressive, my initial reaction to the report of “a Union guy”/counter-protester acting a certain way hadn’t been a knee-jerk partisan one. I wasn’t so much characterizing what anyone else actually said, did or thought about such things as I was attempting to underscore that my own initial reaction hadn’t been partisan in nature.

      The way I put it may have been inartful, but it was part of an effort on my part to get Forgotmyscreenname to realize that it doesn’t always have to be a pitched battle between Right and Left in which everyone assumes that the other side is always acting in bad faith and as a mindless partisan with mindlessly partisan motivations to protect “the team” at all costs.

      You are not, and were not, being “conspiratorial” in any actual sense. You were, and are, acting in good faith, asking a reasonable and good faith question that deserves an answer.

      I think, as it appears that you do, as well, that it is incumbent upon the people like Forgotmyscreenname and Notalib, who raise the specter of wrongful conduct on the part of the “Union guy”, to prove that he was, in fact, a Union guy before they bash the Left and/or Unions based upon anything that he might have done.

      If he was a “plant”, not only does it undercut their argument about misconduct on the Left, it says a great deal about “below the belt” tactics on the part of the Right.

      I hold you in the highest regard, brother. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

  5. No worries, Zuma B. My beef isn’t with you, it’s with Patrick McIlheran, who claims to know the guy in the video clip is a union guy.

    C’mon, McIlheran, tell us how you know the guy is a union member. It’s a reasonabale question. You must have information the rest of us don’t. If you’re right, so be it, but let’s clear it up. Who is the guy in the video clip?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.