# Teabaggers exposed. No REAL opposition to overreaching government



## Bfgrn (Apr 28, 2010)

Arizona's draconian new immigration law is an abomination -- racist, arbitrary, oppressive, mean-spirited, unjust. About the only hopeful thing that can be said is that the legislation, which Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed Friday, goes so outrageously far that it may well be unconstitutional. 

Brewer, who caved to xenophobic pressures that previous governors had the backbone to resist, should be ashamed of herself. The law requires police to question anyone they "reasonably suspect" of being an undocumented immigrant -- a mandate for racial profiling on a massive scale. Legal immigrants will be required to carry papers proving that they have a right to be in the United States. Those without documentation can be charged with the crime of trespassing and jailed for up to six months.

Activists for Latino and immigrant rights -- and supporters of sane governance -- held weekend rallies denouncing the new law and vowing to do everything they can to overturn it. 

But where was the Tea Party crowd? 
Isn't the whole premise of the Tea Party movement that overreaching government poses a grave threat to individual freedom? It seems to me that a law allowing individuals to be detained and interrogated on a whim -- and requiring legal residents to carry identification documents, as in a police state -- would send the Tea Partyers into apoplexy. Or is there some kind of exception if the people whose freedoms are being taken away happen to have brown skin and might speak Spanish? 
washingtonpost.com


----------



## Si modo (Apr 28, 2010)

I try to listen only to those who don't use rhetoric that a fifth grader would use.


----------



## Bfgrn (Apr 28, 2010)

Si modo said:


> I try to listen only to those who don't use rhetoric that a fifth grader would use.



Way to avoid the issue...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 28, 2010)

This is like saying, Pulling people in swerving cars over for a DWI check is racist, arbitrary, oppressive, mean-spirited, unjust because people without cars can be DWI too.

Fucking retards.


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 28, 2010)

Bfgrn said:


> Arizona's draconian new immigration law is an abomination -- racist, arbitrary, oppressive, mean-spirited, unjust. About the only hopeful thing that can be said is that the legislation, which Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed Friday, goes so outrageously far that it may well be unconstitutional.
> 
> Brewer, who caved to xenophobic pressures that previous governors had the backbone to resist, should be ashamed of herself. The law requires police to question anyone they "reasonably suspect" of being an undocumented immigrant -- a mandate for racial profiling on a massive scale. Legal immigrants will be required to carry papers proving that they have a right to be in the United States. Those without documentation can be charged with the crime of trespassing and jailed for up to six months.
> 
> ...



there is an exception--don't go to Arizona if you don't like it


----------



## rightwinger (Apr 28, 2010)

Bfgrn said:


> Arizona's draconian new immigration law is an abomination -- racist, arbitrary, oppressive, mean-spirited, unjust. About the only hopeful thing that can be said is that the legislation, which Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed Friday, goes so outrageously far that it may well be unconstitutional.
> 
> Brewer, who caved to xenophobic pressures that previous governors had the backbone to resist, should be ashamed of herself. The law requires police to question anyone they "reasonably suspect" of being an undocumented immigrant -- a mandate for racial profiling on a massive scale. Legal immigrants will be required to carry papers proving that they have a right to be in the United States. Those without documentation can be charged with the crime of trespassing and jailed for up to six months.
> 
> ...




The TP claims to be patriots. They scream bloody murder that having to buy health insurance (which all of them already do) is an attack on their freedom

Here we have a direct violation of the fourth amendment. US citizens being stopped and detained to check for proper documentation based on nothing other than their appearance. Where is the TP?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 28, 2010)

LOL 

Enforcing a 230 year old law = anarchy


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 28, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Arizona's draconian new immigration law is an abomination -- racist, arbitrary, oppressive, mean-spirited, unjust. About the only hopeful thing that can be said is that the legislation, which Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed Friday, goes so outrageously far that it may well be unconstitutional.
> ...



But the Federal government  forcing someone to buy health insurance does not violate the 4th Amendment? Really?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 28, 2010)

Democrats look at Illegal Aliens and think, "I can give them your stuff and they'll vote for me!"


----------



## dilloduck (Apr 28, 2010)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Democrats look at Illegal Aliens and think, "I can give them your stuff and they'll vote for me!"



It's more like if you don't actually see them step across the border you can't morally touch them.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 28, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> The TP claims to be patriots. They scream bloody murder that having to buy health insurance (which all of them already do) is an attack on their freedom
> 
> Here we have a direct violation of the fourth amendment. US citizens being stopped and detained to check for proper documentation based on nothing other than their appearance. Where is the TP?


Problem being that nobody is being stopped merely to show ID.

Tell ya what...Next time you get pulled over for having a tail light out and get asked for license, registration and insurance, you scream bloody murder about your civil rights and call the cop a fascist, m'kay?


----------



## midcan5 (Apr 28, 2010)

The tea party is a bunch of republicans and conservatives who cannot get over their loss in the last election. Nothing is consistent about them except a disregard for the process of democracy.  They lost, now they cry foul - where were they when Bush did all the same things they fault Obama with? Can you say hypocrites.


----------



## skookerasbil (Apr 28, 2010)

Bfgrn said:


> Arizona's draconian new immigration law is an abomination -- racist, arbitrary, oppressive, mean-spirited, unjust. About the only hopeful thing that can be said is that the legislation, which Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed Friday, goes so outrageously far that it may well be unconstitutional.
> 
> Brewer, who caved to xenophobic pressures that previous governors had the backbone to resist, should be ashamed of herself. The law requires police to question anyone they "reasonably suspect" of being an undocumented immigrant -- a mandate for racial profiling on a massive scale. Legal immigrants will be required to carry papers proving that they have a right to be in the United States. Those without documentation can be charged with the crime of trespassing and jailed for up to six months.
> 
> ...




s0n............pull that from the Olberman show talking points???


Nobody watches that show.........besides, you miss the point. Unlike anybody on the left, Tea Bag people like laws to be enforced. This administration STOPPED the buliding of the fence, thus, they are violating the most basic role of government: protect its citizens.


fAiL


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 28, 2010)

midcan5 said:


> The tea party is a bunch of republicans and conservatives who cannot get over their loss in the last election. Nothing is consistent about them except a disregard for the process of democracy.  They lost, now they cry foul - where were they when Bush did all the same things they fault Obama with? Can you say hypocrites.



What does that have to do with Illegal Immigration especially after we pushed back against Dubya and Juan MCCain's Illegal Alien Plan in 2007?


----------



## Oddball (Apr 28, 2010)

midcan5 said:


> The tea party is a bunch of republicans and conservatives who cannot get over their loss in the last election. Nothing is consistent about them except a disregard for the process of democracy.  They lost, now they cry foul - where were they when Bush did all the same things they fault Obama with? Can you say hypocrites.


A great many of us were running Chimpola into the ground for his profligate spending, expansion of bureaucracy and stupid foreign wars, midfail.

BTW, when's your matinee idol Boyking bringing the troops home, like he promised, hmmmmm?


----------



## California Girl (Apr 28, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Arizona's draconian new immigration law is an abomination -- racist, arbitrary, oppressive, mean-spirited, unjust. About the only hopeful thing that can be said is that the legislation, which Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed Friday, goes so outrageously far that it may well be unconstitutional.
> ...






1. They scream about being FORCED to buy a product or service. The issue is not about whether they have or do not have health insurance.... the issue, to the TEA Partiers, is that government cannot FORCE individuals to BUY something. Moron.

2. That is not true. The law is not about detaining anyone on suspicion of being an illegal, it gives teeth to the existing law.... that anyone stopped by the police may be asked to provide proof of citizenship. What is wrong with that? Not one fucking thing.


----------



## Barb (Apr 28, 2010)

"Small government" means out of everything except one's bedroom, uterus, marital preference, internet, telephone records, library records (at least that was stopped, no thanks to small govt. folks), comings and goings, and FACE. 

Meanwhile, business is sacrosanct, and the hands off attitude towards the malfeasance of the lending and financial industries are just one example.


----------



## Barb (Apr 28, 2010)

Yeah, that fence was going to do a WORLD of good.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 28, 2010)

Barb said:


> "Small government" means out of everything except one's bedroom, uterus, marital preference, internet, telephone records, library records (at least that was stopped, no thanks to small govt. folks), comings and goings, and FACE.
> 
> Meanwhile, business is sacrosanct, and the hands off attitude towards the malfeasance of the lending and financial industries are just one example.







_*
RAARRRRRRRRR!!!*_


----------



## Barb (Apr 28, 2010)

Dude said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > "Small government" means out of everything except one's bedroom, uterus, marital preference, internet, telephone records, library records (at least that was stopped, no thanks to small govt. folks), comings and goings, and FACE.
> ...



Not at all. Everything I posted is a tenet of the majority of the right, including support for intrusive "security measures," and there has not been a single tea bag protest against the AZ law or republican obstructionism concerning regulation of the financial industry, particularly the latest Goldman Sachs scandal. Not. A. Single. One.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Apr 28, 2010)

Dude said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The TP claims to be patriots. They scream bloody murder that having to buy health insurance (which all of them already do) is an attack on their freedom
> ...



like this

or this

or this

or this

or this

or this?


----------



## Samson (Apr 28, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Gee, yet another poster who is incapable of posting in the right forum.
> 
> 
> I am shocked!
> ...



Some Liberal Professor needs to conduct a poll for Newsweek to find out why Anti-Tea Party Message Board Posters might not want to start threads about the Tea Party in the Tea Party Forum.


----------



## editec (Apr 28, 2010)

The differencve 'twix the liberals and conservatives, the teaparty folks and the anui-teaparty folks, the Rs and the Ds have NOTHING WHATEVER to do with loving or hating intrusive government.

BOTH teams support the government when they LIKE what it is intruding upon, and both hate the government when it is intuding in ways they do NOT approve of.

And BOTH claim they love freedom, and that the other side is authoritarian.

Partisans on both sides are basically lying to themselves and anybody else who will listen to their propaganda.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 28, 2010)

editec said:


> The differencve twix the liberals and conservatives, the teaparty folks and the anit-teaparty folks, the Rs and the Ds have NOTHING WHJATEVER to do with intrusive government.
> 
> BOTH teams support the government when they LIKE what it is intruding on, and both hate the government when it is intuding in ways they do NOT apprive of.
> 
> And BOTH claim they love freedom, and that the other side is authoritarian.


Guys like me say they're _*both*_ authoritarian, if you really wanna split hairs.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 28, 2010)

Barb said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...


Maybe the repubs are obstructing financial regulation for reasons other than you arbitrarily imagined.

As far as the AZ law is concerned, the added state law is to enforce federal regulations on the books that are being ignored. Maybe the key to having fewer laws and regulations is to fully enforce the ones you already have, eh?

So, which way do you want it here?...P.S. You don't get it both ways either.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 28, 2010)

Bfgrn said:


> Arizona's draconian new immigration law is an abomination -- racist, arbitrary, oppressive, mean-spirited, unjust. About the only hopeful thing that can be said is that the legislation, which Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed Friday, goes so outrageously far that it may well be unconstitutional.
> 
> Brewer, who caved to xenophobic pressures that previous governors had the backbone to resist, should be ashamed of herself. The law requires police to question anyone they "reasonably suspect" of being an undocumented immigrant -- a mandate for racial profiling on a massive scale. Legal immigrants will be required to carry papers proving that they have a right to be in the United States. Those without documentation can be charged with the crime of trespassing and jailed for up to six months.
> 
> ...



The Arizona law mirrors the federal law, of course you wouldn't know that because you haven't read the bill.

Since the feds are doing nothing to enforce their own fucking law, the state of Arizona has decided to help them out. Trust me, many states will soon be following suit.


----------



## Barb (Apr 28, 2010)

editec said:


> The differencve 'twix the liberals and conservatives, the teaparty folks and the anui-teaparty folks, the Rs and the Ds have NOTHING WHATEVER to do with loving or hating intrusive government.
> 
> BOTH teams support the government when they LIKE what it is intruding upon, and both hate the government when it is intuding in ways they do NOT approve of.
> 
> ...



I disagree. Liberals and progressives support government regulation of business (one example) because it is a consumer protection against fraud, pollution, environmental degradation, and unbridled power, and as such is a social good, something that our taxes should support (because in that case our money is spent on OUR benefit). Tell me what social good comes from regressive policies that reduce civil liberty, or intrude because of the religious preferences of some into the ability of others to enjoy equal protection under the law, or because of xenophobia, prevents others from doing the same? The Constitution specifies "citizens" in very few places, in most parts listing protections it does not. 

If government really wanted to curb undocumented immigration, and if that is what the majority of people wanted as well, the businesses that employ and profit from undocumented labor would be subject to spirited enforcement of the laws already on the books. They are not, and you don't see a lot of screaming in the streets over it.


----------



## Barb (Apr 28, 2010)

Dude, what reasons am I "arbitrarily" imagining? I answered the second question in another post before I saw this.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 28, 2010)

Barb said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > The differencve 'twix the liberals and conservatives, the teaparty folks and the anui-teaparty folks, the Rs and the Ds have NOTHING WHATEVER to do with loving or hating intrusive government.
> ...


Yeah, y'all tell yourselves that it's _*always*_ different when _*you*_ support big overbearing gubmint.


----------



## tigerbob (Apr 28, 2010)

Bfgrn said:


> Arizona's draconian new immigration law is an abomination -- racist, arbitrary, oppressive, mean-spirited, unjust. About the only hopeful thing that can be said is that the legislation, which Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed Friday, goes so outrageously far that it may well be unconstitutional.
> 
> Brewer, who caved to xenophobic pressures that previous governors had the backbone to resist, should be ashamed of herself. The law requires police to question anyone they "reasonably suspect" of being an undocumented immigrant -- a mandate for racial profiling on a massive scale. Legal immigrants will be required to carry papers proving that they have a right to be in the United States. Those without documentation can be charged with the crime of trespassing and jailed for up to six months.
> 
> ...



I support the tea party objective of reining in public spending, yet have no real problem being required to carry my green card.  It's a bit of a pain, but that's about it.  

But perhaps because I don't have brown skin or speak Spanish my views don't matter.  Oh well...


----------



## Samson (Apr 28, 2010)

tigerbob said:


> I support the tea party objective of reining in public spending, yet have no real problem being required to carry my green card.  It's a bit of a pain, but that's about it.
> 
> But perhaps because I don't have brown skin or speak Spanish my views don't matter.  Oh well...



If you're gonna be in the USA, then you really need to learn Spanish.


----------



## Bfgrn (Apr 28, 2010)

editec said:


> The differencve 'twix the liberals and conservatives, the teaparty folks and the anui-teaparty folks, the Rs and the Ds have NOTHING WHATEVER to do with loving or hating intrusive government.
> 
> BOTH teams support the government when they LIKE what it is intruding upon, and both hate the government when it is intuding in ways they do NOT approve of.
> 
> ...



Bullshit...liberal puts human beings ahead of property. Conservatives see other human beings AS property. The right squeals about 'individual' freedom. What that word really means is ME freedom, not you or anybody else.

Our founding fathers created a GOVERNMENT, not corporations or insurance cartels with REAL death panels. 

The teabaggers are advocates for the modern day British East India Companies.


----------



## Barb (Apr 28, 2010)

Dude said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



I don't see something that contributes to the strength of our society or my fellow humans as "overbearing." There are real and pervasive costs to us as a society and to our economy when the game is rigged to let some few profit at the expense of everyone else, including future generations, and those costs can and should be avoided. We live in an instant gratification age, where profit and loss is measured quarterly, if not monthly or weekly, and the long term is for someone else to concern themselves with.


----------



## Barb (Apr 28, 2010)

Bfgrn said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > The differencve 'twix the liberals and conservatives, the teaparty folks and the anui-teaparty folks, the Rs and the Ds have NOTHING WHATEVER to do with loving or hating intrusive government.
> ...



You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Bfgrn again.


----------



## Barb (Apr 28, 2010)

tigerbob said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Arizona's draconian new immigration law is an abomination -- racist, arbitrary, oppressive, mean-spirited, unjust. About the only hopeful thing that can be said is that the legislation, which Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed Friday, goes so outrageously far that it may well be unconstitutional.
> ...



Because if you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about, right? Every act is a small step. Every act seems inconsequential at the time.


----------



## Bfgrn (Apr 28, 2010)

Dude said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The TP claims to be patriots. They scream bloody murder that having to buy health insurance (which all of them already do) is an attack on their freedom
> ...



Hey DUD, you just proved you are a real Jethro...people CAN and WILL be stopped and detained to check for proper documentation based on nothing other than their appearance.


----------



## tigerbob (Apr 28, 2010)

Barb said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



OK, thanks for reminding me of the classic libertarian justification for doing nothing about anything ever, but you're actually quoting it out of context.  

You will doubtless remember that the maxim ends "And then they came for me, and there was nobody left to complain".  Well, in this case they have come for me, since I am an immigrant, and I don't think it's a big deal to be required to carry ID.  I carry ID anyway.  I am as much the focus of this law as a Mexican living in Arizona.


----------



## American Horse (Apr 28, 2010)

Barb said:


> I disagree. Liberals and progressives support government regulation of business (one example) because it is a consumer protection against fraud, pollution, environmental degradation, and unbridled power, and as such is a social good, something that our taxes should support (because in that case our money is spent on OUR benefit). Tell me what social good comes from regressive policies that reduce civil liberty, or intrude because of the religious preferences of some into the ability of others to enjoy equal protection under the law, or because of xenophobia, prevents others from doing the same?



It is a social good to enforce immigration laws, when the object of the law is to protect citizens in their own property.  As far as 70 miles north of the US/Mexico border, American citizens are unable to leave their homes unprotected for even a couple hours.  Chances are good that when they return, their houses will be occupied by illegals, or at best have only been broken into with their property stolen and destroyed.  Where is the equal protection in that situation?  Those same citizens whose property rights are being violated interact with people with hispanic physical characteristics every single day whose citizenship they have no reason to question; people whom they regard as friends and citizens.  But when strangers in and on their land are arrested in instances of lawbreaking, in whatever manner, it is a bonafide responsibility of government in the capacity of police officers to ask them for identification.  If that identification is suspect or fraudulent, and they cannot speak english, then it is reasonable to suspect that they are not American citizens and are here illegally, and further investigation is warranted.

EDIT:  Where is the Tea Party crowd?  One of the greatest motiviations of the TP people is preservation of property rights from being taken by government either by direct action or from lacking government action in responsibly defending the constitution.

A large percentage of property owners north of the US/Mex border in Arizona have abandoned their properties because it became too dangerous to continue living on it.  These large areas have in effect become, unofficially, Mexican territory.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 28, 2010)

Bfgrn said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Which section of the law says that?...Put up or shut up.


----------



## tigerbob (Apr 28, 2010)

Dude said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



It's an assumption.  I think the assumption is that the police are guilty of racism, until proved innocent.


----------



## Barb (Apr 28, 2010)

tigerbob said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > tigerbob said:
> ...



I actually wasn't referencing the "Then they came for me" idea, I was referencing the justification in this country, this century, for the intrusions and restrictions on civil liberty put in place by the arts and crafts departments of homeland insecurity and the US PATRIOT Acts I and II. 

And Bob, if you aren't Mexican, even IF you were living in AZ, maybe especially IF, no, you aren't. Not even close.


----------



## Barb (Apr 28, 2010)

American Horse said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > I disagree. Liberals and progressives support government regulation of business (one example) because it is a consumer protection against fraud, pollution, environmental degradation, and unbridled power, and as such is a social good, something that our taxes should support (because in that case our money is spent on OUR benefit). Tell me what social good comes from regressive policies that reduce civil liberty, or intrude because of the religious preferences of some into the ability of others to enjoy equal protection under the law, or because of xenophobia, prevents others from doing the same?
> ...



You'll have to post some local news articles to support that. AND, I did post the solution, overwhelmingly and universally ignored, one that would cut the demand for undocumented labor, and consequently stem the supply.


----------



## Oddball (Apr 28, 2010)

Barb said:


> I actually wasn't referencing the "Then they came for me" idea, I was referencing the justification in this country, this century, for the intrusions and restrictions on civil liberty put in place by the arts and crafts departments of homeland insecurity and the US PATRIOT Acts I and II.
> 
> And Bob, if you aren't Mexican, even IF you were living in AZ, maybe especially IF, no, you aren't. Not even close.



And guess who came up with the lion's share of the provisions in the USAPATRIOT act...Bubba Clinton and Janet Reno.

BTW, how many democrat Senators voted against passage of USAPATRIOT?....One.

Nope...Not a dime's worth of difference.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 28, 2010)

Bfgrn said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



You have evidence of this?

Fact is dumbass, the city of Phoenix has been upholding federal immigration laws for the past two years and not one episode of civil rights violations has been proven.


----------



## Truthmatters (Apr 28, 2010)

Dude said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...





OK this post should end forever the MYTH that our little duder is not a republican.

How can anyone defend the republican refusal to act on these issues?


----------



## Barb (Apr 28, 2010)

Dude said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...





> Most police agencies or jails here already check the immigration status of people charged with a crime, in consultation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, but the new law would expand that power and *allows the police to stop people on the suspicion* of being in the country without documents.


Arizona Immigration Bill Divides Law Enforcement - NYTimes.com


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 28, 2010)

Barb said:


> American Horse said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



Google Robert Krentz, officer Nick Erfle, officer Brandon Winfield, officer Henry Canales, officer Richard Salter, officer Rodney Johnson, just to name a few.

Immigrations Human Cost


----------



## tigerbob (Apr 28, 2010)

Barb said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



So if I were stopped and found to be illegal but not Mexican I'd be OK?  Course not.

You're saying, if I'm reading you correctly, that the police et al will stop people based on ethnic origin, thereby making an assumption of possible guilt solely by race - guilty until proven innocent - correct?


----------



## Barb (Apr 28, 2010)

Dude said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > I actually wasn't referencing the "Then they came for me" idea, I was referencing the justification in this country, this century, for the intrusions and restrictions on civil liberty put in place by the arts and crafts departments of homeland insecurity and the US PATRIOT Acts I and II.
> ...



You won't find a word from me anywhere defending craven and pussy democrats more concerned with smears from the Bush administration regarding their "patriotism," or care for their continued employment than doing what was proper at that time. I bitched up a storm about the end run around congress giving that cocksucker the ability to declare military action as well.


----------



## Barb (Apr 28, 2010)

tigerbob said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > tigerbob said:
> ...



Are you saying I'm mistaken? Or are you saying that AUTHORITY should be given carte blanche and that the accused should have to prove innocence?


----------



## Samson (Apr 28, 2010)

Barb said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



No that would be the basis on Napoleonic Law, which is the basis of Mexican Law.


----------



## tigerbob (Apr 28, 2010)

Barb said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



I'm surprised you couldn't just take an honest, open question at face value.

I was paraphrasing what I believed to be your position so that I could understand it completely, and asking you whether my summary was correct.  You appear to have chosen to read some potential hidden agenda that wasn't there.

I guess that answers your question.  I hope you'll answer mine.



> You're saying, if I'm reading you correctly, that the police et al will stop people based on ethnic origin, thereby making an assumption of possible guilt solely by race - guilty until proven innocent - correct?


----------



## Stephanie (Apr 28, 2010)

Boy oh boy, these Progressive lefties can't make up their minds on the Tea Party.

First they say the TP are irrelevant, then they claim they are relevant and not doing as the lefties believe they should be doing by joining in their foot stomping, violent protesting of a law on ILLEGAL INVADERS in our country.

you just gotta laugh your ass off.


----------



## Barb (Apr 28, 2010)

tigerbob said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > tigerbob said:
> ...



You'll have to be more clear about what you think my position is, and that was the nature of my reply. Do you think 1), that I am wrong in believing the law will be abused or carries the probability of abuse, or 2) do you think that the accused should have to prove bias in order to challenge the application of the new law?


----------



## Barb (Apr 28, 2010)

Samson said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > tigerbob said:
> ...



So...are you saying that we should be more like Mexico, or that the law as written copied them?


----------



## tigerbob (Apr 28, 2010)

Barb said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



I think (1).

I don't think that people should have to prove their innocence, but by the same token I don't think that the police should have to prove that they are not racists.  

If we say that a law cannot be put in place because we do not trust law officers to apply it legally (i.e. without prejudice), then why are we suddenly giving illegals the benefit of "innocent until guilty" and effectively denying it to police officers?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Apr 28, 2010)

Teabagger: How a Liberal calls himself a douchebag


----------



## Samson (Apr 28, 2010)

Barb said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...




I'm sayin' that the US Constitution prevents Napoleonic Code from being US Law, and that its more than a little ridiculous to believe otherwise.


----------



## Bfgrn (Apr 28, 2010)

Dude said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



_For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person._

WOW DUD, how 'Jethro' of me. How could I ever possibly suspect that a beloved and worshiped agent of the government would EVER put 'reasonable suspicion' ahead of 'any lawful contact'... 

I guess my naiveté comes from watched too much of The Beverly Hillbillies. I should have been watching Leave it to Beaver and Ozzie & Harriet...


----------



## boedicca (Apr 28, 2010)

Why would the Tea Party protest the government enforcing immigration laws?


----------



## Oddball (Apr 28, 2010)

Bfgrn said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...


Uh-huh..._*Reasonable suspicion*_.

How does that codify being able to demand someone's ID _*at will*_, Jethro?

I guess that sixth grade education didn't include a reading comprehension requirement, did it?


----------



## Bfgrn (Apr 28, 2010)

Dude said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



I guess living in a bubble sucking the tit of your mommy and daddy would insulate you from the real world.

Have you ever TRIED confronting an agent of the government that wears a badge with a statement of your rights. I'm sure he or she was very receptive, obliging and non confrontational.

You truly are THE Jethro...






Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. 
Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Oddball (Apr 28, 2010)

Translation: All cops are racists.

Thanks for your your bigoted opinion, Jethro.


----------



## Bfgrn (Apr 28, 2010)

Dude said:


> Translation: All cops are racists.
> 
> Thanks for your your bigoted opinion, Jethro.



Ah, the polarized mind, how right wing pea brain of you...




Dude said:


> The Nazis and commies built walls and fences to keep people _*IN*_.



Ain't THAT the truth!






Incarceration Nation The US is the World

Since 1970 our state and federal prison population has grown nearly seven-fold from just under 200,000 to close to 1.4 million people. 

In 1998 the US surpassed the former Soviet Union and won the crown as the globe&#8217;s foremost jailer with an incarceration rate of approximately 690 prisoners per 100,000 citizens. By comparison, that is almost 6 times Canada&#8217;s incarceration rate (115), over 12 times Greece&#8217;s rate (55), 19 times Japan&#8217;s rate (37) and 29 times India&#8217;s rate of 24 prisoners per 100,000 citizens.


Ronald Reagan&#8217;s Legacy

Prison growth is fed politically by the growth of the pro-prison lobby, consisting of the newly empowered prison employees unions and the private prison industry. Mandatory sentencing laws adopted by most states as part of Ronald Reagan&#8217;s "war on drugs," assured that our spanking new jails would be full for decades to come. This is Reagan&#8217;s legacy. 

A War on African Americans - "Driving While in Kenmore"

Consider these numbers: 
According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, African Americans make up 13% of illicit drug users in the United States. 

However, according to the Sentencing Project, a policy research institute funded in part by the Department of Justice, African Americans constitute 35% of all arrests for drug possession, 55% of all drug possession convictions and a whopping 74% of people sentenced to jail for drug possession. 

White people, by comparison, make up 74% of illicit drug users but roughly account for only one fifth of those serving jail time for drug possession. 

Put simply, this means that if a white man in Amherst and a Black man in Buffalo both personally consume illicit drugs, t*he Black man is over 20 times more likely to wind up in jail.
*
Part of the blame for this disparity lands with police agencies that are more prone to stop and search African Americans (for infractions such as "driving while in Kenmore") or carry out the bulk of their drug enforcement operations primarily in African American neighborhoods where their heavy handed tactics meet less political resistance. 

Statistics show that both practices are racist, as blacks are not statistically much more likely to abuse drugs. Blacks are, however, statistically more likely to be arrested for abusing drugs, making racial profiling a self-fulfilling prophesy.

The bulk of the blame for this disparity lies with the judiciary. First, judges seldom blink an eye at the fact that black drug users are three times as likely to be arrested than whites, thus raising a plethora of constitutional issues. Second, once arrested, African Americans are over 50% more likely than others to be convicted in the courts. And third, once convicted, blacks are another 40% or so more likely to receive jail time.

Skip College - Go Directly to Jail

The end result in New York State is that 51% of the state prison population and 91% of the New York City prison population is African American. 

Take into account the subsequent cuts to education funding which were needed to fund this prison growth and we wind up with the horrific fact that there are more African American men in New York State prisons than there are enrolled as students in the State University of New York system. 

Like the Nazis Before Them...

State and local governments nationwide are finding out that even with cuts to other programs, they cannot afford the costly price tags associated with their new jails. To meet these costs, states are turning to prison labor. American prison administrators are now "leasing" prison labor to private corporations in a system reminiscent of their Nazi predecessors, who "leased" concentration camp labor to corporations such as Ford and BASF. The difference is that while the Third Reich prisoners were virtual slaves, the current American prisoners are paid. Their wages, however, are often less than state minimum wages, and the prison systems take about 80% of that wage for "room and board."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey DUD...e, Ronbo Reagan was the pied piper on the road to serfdom, how do you cross the street without getting creamed by a semi?


----------



## Oddball (Apr 28, 2010)

Yeah...Polarized.

You're the dickweed implying that cops are just going to stop people willy-nilly, with no proof whatsoever other than your blind bigotry.

BTW, did you get the permission of the author of that piece to post it in full?


----------



## Bfgrn (Apr 28, 2010)

Dude said:


> Yeah...Polarized.
> 
> You're the dickweed implying that cops are just going to stop people willy-nilly, with no proof whatsoever other than your blind bigotry.
> 
> BTW, did you get the permission of the author of that piece to post it in full?



You are as obtuse as a rock. You are NOT and never will be a libertarian, you are a right wing 'statist'

The beloved government...DUD's alter...






Don't worry statist DUD, you can feel all warm and fuzzy inside, the author of the Arizona Immigration Bill had nothing but fair justice and good intent in mind, just your freedom loving kind of guy... 

RUSSELL PEARCE is the quintessential Arizona Republican. He wears stars-and-stripes shirts and has clips of John Wayne and Ronald Reagan on his website. He loves guns, his family, his Mormon faith, his country and the law, which he enforced for many years as deputy sheriff of Maricopa County. He jokes that being Republican, and thus not having a heart, saved his life when he got shot in the chest once. But his main passion is illegal immigrants, whom he calls invaders. He loathed them even before his son Sean, also a sheriffs deputy, got shot by one. But now it is personal.

Mr Pearce, a state senator, has sponsored an Arizona law that, if enacted, would be the toughest in the country. It is so brazen it has caused outrage. This week it passed the last hurdles in the state legislature. As The Economist went to press, it was awaiting the signature of Arizonas Republican governor, Jan Brewer.

Illegal immigration is a federal crime. Mr Pearces law, however, would also make it a state crime and would require the police, as opposed to federal agents, to make arrests and check the immigration status of individuals who look suspicious to them. Citizens who think their cops are not vigilant enough would be encouraged to sue their cities or counties, and no city or county may remain a sanctuary where this law is not enforced.

In Mr Pearces opinion his law merely removes the handcuffs from the police and sheriffs deputies so they can do their work. To a great many other people, however, it screams racial profiling. Arizona is an overwhelmingly white state, and virtually all illegal immigrantsperhaps about half a million in the stateare Hispanic. Whom else would cops suspect and arrest but the brown ones? Even American Latinos who happen to be out without their driving licence might be at risk.

Arizona's immigration law: Hysterical nativism | The Economist


----------



## Barb (Apr 29, 2010)

tigerbob said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > tigerbob said:
> ...



Laws should not be written without clear protections against abuse, Bob, that is the point. This one will be challenged on those grounds, and those challenges will be found valid. Our entire system of justice hinges on the burden of proof being on those who accuse, and this law turns that around. Anyone can be stopped and proof of citizenship demanded from them. On what grounds? Any and none. Where are the rules for probable cause or reasonable suspicion? Out the window, they don't exist under this law. Where is the protection of privacy in that respect? There is none.  Where is the protection against unreasonable search? Not there! And not only for "illegals" Bob, but for anyone the police want to go on a fishing expedition against.


----------



## Barb (Apr 29, 2010)

Samson said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > Samson said:
> ...



Then you agree that the AZ law is unconstitutional.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Apr 29, 2010)

Bfgrn said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Translation: All cops are racists.
> ...



These stats aren't a fair comparison when you factor in the populations of each Country.

US - 300+ million

Japan - 127+ million

Canada - 34+ million

Greece - 11+ million

The only exception would be India although a study suggest that India could be under-reporting crimes.

A case study on crime


----------



## Bfgrn (Apr 29, 2010)

Lonestar_logic said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Dude said:
> ...



Your case study is on CRIME, not incarceration. Incarceration rate is measured per 100,000 citizens, so population growth IS factored in.


*Incarcerated America*
April 2003

Download as 192K PDF

According to the latest statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice, more than two million men and women are now behind bars in the United States. The country that holds itself out as the "land of freedom" incarcerates a higher percentage of its people than any other country. The human costs  wasted lives, wrecked families, troubled children  are incalculable, as are the adverse social, economic and political consequences of weakened communities, diminished opportunities for economic mobility, and extensive disenfranchisement.

Contrary to popular perception, violent crime is not responsible for the quadrupling of the incarcerated population in the United States since 1980. In fact, violent crime rates have been relatively constant or declining over the past two decades. The exploding prison population has been propelled by public policy changes that have increased the use of prison sentences as well as the length of time served, e.g. through mandatory minimum sentencing, "three strikes" laws, and reductions in the availability of parole or early release.

Although these policies were championed as protecting the public from serious and violent offenders, they have instead yielded high rates of confinement of nonviolent offenders. Nearly three quarters of new admissions to state prison were convicted of nonviolent crimes. Only 49 percent of sentenced state inmates are held for violent offenses.

Perhaps the single greatest force behind the growth of the prison population has been the national "war on drugs." The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges.

Even more troubling than the absolute number of persons in jail or prison is the extent to which those men and women are African-American. Although blacks account for only 12 percent of the U.S. population, 44 percent of all prisoners in the United States are black (Figure 1).
*
U.S. Population by Race*







Census data for 2000,which included a count of the number and race of all individuals incarcerated in the United States, reveals the dramatic racial disproportion of the incarcerated population in each state: the proportion of blacks in prison populations exceeds the proportion among state residents in every single state. In twenty states, the percent of blacks incarcerated is at least five times greater than their share of resident population (Figure 2).
*
State and Federal Inmates by Race*


----------



## Intense (Apr 29, 2010)

Bfgrn said:


> Dude said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



No profiling or Stereotyping here.     

We are all human beings first, even cop's. You might want to check your tone and attitude if you are hitting a stone wall there Sugar.


----------



## Intense (Apr 29, 2010)

Bfgrn said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Maybe we should just decriminalize Murder, Rape, Assault, Armed Robbery, All Drug Dealing, does that work for you Sugar????


----------



## tigerbob (Apr 29, 2010)

Barb said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > Barb said:
> ...



I understand the point, but have a different view on the extent to which this is a new law as opposed to an extension of existing federal law.  In the overwhelming majority of cases, the grounds for probable cause will be what they have always been.  As such, the only difference between then and now is that police officers are required to ascertain legal presence and required to arrest if proof is not forthcoming.

I'm sure that you, like many, feel that this law encourages police to overstep the existing authority they have to conduct searches / demand ID, and to do so based solely on racial profile.  I understand that position but do not feel that those concerns are significant enough to warrant this law being struck off the books.

I probably have a slightly different view of this to a US Citizen because, as a permanent resident I am required to carry proof of legal presence at all times and have never found it to be inconvenient.  In my 2 years back in this country, I have only been asked for it once other than at an airport.

If illegals are flooding into the country (and they are) and all ways to control that influx so far have more or less failed, I agree with the State of Arizona that the time has come to find a better way to determine who the illegals are that are already here and have them removed.  I hope that this new law generates some success in that objective.


----------



## Bfgrn (Apr 29, 2010)

Intense said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Another polarized mind. Black or white, devoid of gray and devoid of gray matter. Why don't you take this up with DUD, you can have a Jethro convention, how does that sound sugar?


----------



## Intense (Apr 29, 2010)

Bfgrn said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Polarized??? Rule of Law. Innocent or Guilty? What percentage of those incarcerated are guilty of the crime??? Not that that should matter to you. Logic has no place in a debate with you, nor should it, huh. It's all about feelings, right Sugar? Not just anybody's feelings, but your feelings, is that it? What is Gray to you, supposition or circumstance?


----------



## Oddball (Apr 29, 2010)

It's called "projection", Innie.


----------



## Barb (Apr 29, 2010)

tigerbob said:


> Barb said:
> 
> 
> > tigerbob said:
> ...



We will have to agree to disagree then. I do believe that a much more cost effective way to limit supply of undocumented immigrants is to lend more muscle to enforcement of the laws (also already on the books) that limit demand.


----------



## Bfgrn (Apr 29, 2010)

Intense said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



YES, polarized, pea brain...YOU...

There is basically one constant throughout history; human nature and human foible. When violent crime rates stay the same, or decrease, yet incarceration rates quadruple, we can deduce that human nature and human foible is not the cause. Then, intelligent and capable adults need to examine other factors.

Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.
Edmund Burke

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. 
Thomas Jefferson

It is more dangerous that even a guilty person should be punished without the forms of law than that he should escape. 
Thomas Jefferson


----------



## Gunny (Apr 29, 2010)

Bfgrn said:


> Arizona's draconian new immigration law is an abomination -- racist, arbitrary, oppressive, mean-spirited, unjust. About the only hopeful thing that can be said is that the legislation, which Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed Friday, goes so outrageously far that it may well be unconstitutional.
> 
> Brewer, who caved to xenophobic pressures that previous governors had the backbone to resist, should be ashamed of herself. The law requires police to question anyone they "reasonably suspect" of being an undocumented immigrant -- a mandate for racial profiling on a massive scale. Legal immigrants will be required to carry papers proving that they have a right to be in the United States. Those without documentation can be charged with the crime of trespassing and jailed for up to six months.
> 
> ...



The only teabaggers are fags who are so insecure and scared they have to call the Tea Party "teabaggers", spend countless hours and post countless threads full of nothing but political hate and rhetoric.  

Some of you sheep need to learn to think on your own.


----------



## Samson (Apr 29, 2010)

Gunny said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Arizona's draconian new immigration law is an abomination -- racist, arbitrary, oppressive, mean-spirited, unjust. About the only hopeful thing that can be said is that the legislation, which Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed Friday, goes so outrageously far that it may well be unconstitutional.
> ...


----------



## Intense (Apr 29, 2010)

Bfgrn said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Calm down Sally. Focus and then try to clearly state your position. Crime statistics are not constant. They rise and fall. What does directly effect crime, be it economical, political, Emotional, whatever are related to quality of Life, and current events, environment, Weather, monkey see, monkey do, what ever. Violent crime is a threat to society as a whole and should be dealt with strictly as opposed to liberally. You may argue for methods that produce true reform freely. We supposedly live in a Federal Republic which may be the very best environment to establish just Laws by the consent of the governed. I humbly suggest you reevaluate your position on the Enumerated Powers of the Federal Government and consider supporting that safeguard of Liberty. Try to think more Federalism rather than Nationalism. They are not compatible.


----------



## jeffrockit (Apr 30, 2010)

rightwinger said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Arizona's draconian new immigration law is an abomination -- racist, arbitrary, oppressive, mean-spirited, unjust. About the only hopeful thing that can be said is that the legislation, which Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed Friday, goes so outrageously far that it may well be unconstitutional.
> ...


----------



## momonkey (Apr 30, 2010)

midcan5 said:


> The tea party is a bunch of republicans and conservatives who cannot get over their loss in the last election. Nothing is consistent about them except a disregard for the process of democracy.  They lost, now they cry foul - where were they when Bush did all the same things they fault Obama with? Can you say hypocrites.




"did all the same things"?

Really?

For example...


----------



## Intense (Apr 30, 2010)

momonkey said:


> midcan5 said:
> 
> 
> > The tea party is a bunch of republicans and conservatives who cannot get over their loss in the last election. Nothing is consistent about them except a disregard for the process of democracy.  They lost, now they cry foul - where were they when Bush did all the same things they fault Obama with? Can you say hypocrites.
> ...



Good catch Momonkey! Another obvious point here is the make up of the Tea Party being strongly Independent. Obama has lost the swing vote and is still in denial.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 30, 2010)

Gunny said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > Arizona's draconian new immigration law is an abomination -- racist, arbitrary, oppressive, mean-spirited, unjust. About the only hopeful thing that can be said is that the legislation, which Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed Friday, goes so outrageously far that it may well be unconstitutional.
> ...



Interesting, because the first people I saw using the word "Teabagger" were those of the Tea Party movement....it took about a week before it sunk in that they had picked an "unfortunate" term.


----------



## Intense (Apr 30, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



The first I saw were Anderson Cooper and Chris Mathews.


----------



## Gunny (Apr 30, 2010)

bodecea said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...



Right.

My statement stands.


----------



## boedicca (Apr 30, 2010)

One person put up a website in April 2009 using the term tea bag.  Thousands of other tea party groups refute that term and call themselves Tea Partiers or Tea Party Patriots.  

Yet the Lefty Moonbats continue to repeat the term like a Tourette's Victim with a Sexual Festish.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Apr 30, 2010)

those "statements"  stand, too.


----------



## Intense (Apr 30, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> those "statements"  stand, too.



The phrase was already coined. A private joke to the media elite. Good try though. Still effective on the unaware.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Apr 30, 2010)

Intense said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > those "statements"  stand, too.
> ...




that is the thing, the phrase was already coined and used widely by frat boys and gamers e.g.

the "media elite" apparently did not know it, that's why it has become a public joke.


----------



## bodecea (Apr 30, 2010)

Gunny said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



For you, I'm sure.


----------



## Intense (Apr 30, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



You might want to confirm with Anderson Cooper what he knows about tea bagging before making that statement.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Apr 30, 2010)

Intense said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



will do right away,

wait, you still haven't returned my time machine.

my post stays 

timelines, they are a bitch.


----------



## Immanuel (Apr 30, 2010)

> Teabaggers exposed. No REAL opposition to overreaching government



I have not followed the Tea Party protests all that closely.  Some of the ideas I have read seem pretty good to me.  But from what I have seen on this site your title is not all that surprising to me.  

I've said this elsewhere, so I will say it again, from what I can see regarding the tea party protesters is that the goal is to elect any and every Republican possible regardless of past performance.  I know I will catch hell for typing that, but I don't see the Republicans as being all that much different when you are speaking about size of government.

Last weekend someone said to me that the tea party was only welcoming Republicans that had come over to "their side".  Well, I've thought about that a bit and if you want to know my opinion about trusting a politician when he or she says they have come over to your side... well, about all I can say to that is I think they are fools if they actually believe the politicians.

Immie


----------



## Intense (Apr 30, 2010)

I would hope the Tea Party could seat a core group of Independents too, at least where circumstance dictates.


----------



## Intense (Apr 30, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



I'm just saying that the first time I heard the term "Tea Baggers" was Anderson Cooper and then Chris Matthews, They were smirky when they said it. Inside joke.


----------



## Immanuel (Apr 30, 2010)

Intense said:


> I would hope the Tea Party could seat a core group of Independents too, at least where circumstance dictates.



I would hope so too, but trusting a politician these days is not something I am all that well known for.

Immie


----------



## L.K.Eder (Apr 30, 2010)

Intense said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



"teabagging" has been around for years, if not decades.

i don't think it qualifies as an "elite media" inside joke, if you don't know it and need the media to tell you.

teabaggers deserve to be ridiculed. and not only for choosing to wear teabags on heads and hats and declaring to want to teabag the fools in DC. the sexual connotation just adds to the ridiculousness. and the wailing and whining about being called "teabaggers" is sugar on top.

teabagga please.


PS: in the building where i work, there is a shop that is called "moon me". some day i might walk in there and try to find out what she is selling..


----------



## Intense (Apr 30, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



Well, that said, nobody can accuse you of profiling and generalizing Professor. You are one straight shooter. 

Maybe you would agree to refine your aim to those that refer to themselves in such a way. I for one do not.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Apr 30, 2010)

Intense said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



Never.


----------



## Samson (Apr 30, 2010)

Bfgrn said:


> But where was the Tea Party crowd?
> Isn't the whole premise of the Tea Party movement that overreaching government poses a grave threat to individual freedom? washingtonpost.com



I wonder why so many OpEd column writers like to pretend they're suddenly Tea Party Experts willing to reveal "The Whole Premise" of the Tea Party movement?


----------



## California Girl (Apr 30, 2010)

Intense said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



The fallacy that it originated with the TEA party movement - which originates in the MSM - gives the kool aiders a way to justify using it. Despite hard evidence of where it originates being presented to them, they continue to deny it. They are laughable.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Apr 30, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



please point me to the origin.


----------



## boedicca (Apr 30, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> *"teabagging"* has been around for years, if not decades.
> 
> i don't think it qualifies as an "elite media" inside joke, if you don't know it and need the media to tell you.
> 
> ...




^^^On the topic of people deserving of ridicule...

It is a truth universally acknowledged that someone who repeats the T-word ad nauseam must have a sexual fetish bordering on OCD regarding sweaty male balls.


----------



## boedicca (Apr 30, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...




Given your obsession, it's likely you are very close to ground zero of the Meme.


----------



## Samson (Apr 30, 2010)

boedicca said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > *"teabagging"* has been around for years, if not decades.
> ...



Calamari


Calamari


Calamari


Calamari


Calamari


Calamari


----------



## California Girl (Apr 30, 2010)

Samson said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Gee, yet another poster who is incapable of posting in the right forum.
> ...



Yep. And then they need research why some anti-TEA Party poster thinks he/she can decide what it is that the TEA Party should protest.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Apr 30, 2010)

boedicca said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > *"teabagging"* has been around for years, if not decades.
> ...



of course my sexual fetish involves sweaty male balls.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Apr 30, 2010)

boedicca said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



you ain't seen nothing yet.


----------



## Samson (Apr 30, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



Freak.


----------



## boedicca (Apr 30, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...




You left out the OCD part.


----------



## Intense (Apr 30, 2010)

Samson said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...




[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnNYXgV7L-c]YouTube - South Park - Chef - Chocolate Salty Balls[/ame]


----------



## L.K.Eder (Apr 30, 2010)

boedicca said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



that comes later, when the true origin is revealed.

if i got the time line wrong, i will cease using the word teabagger.


----------



## boedicca (Apr 30, 2010)

Here's what you ignore.  The Tea Party Movement refutes the term.  You know it is offensive, and yet you continue to spew it in a demeaning and offensive manner.

Your use of the term says nothing about the Tea Partiers, but a great deal about your complete and utter lack of class.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Apr 30, 2010)

boedicca said:


> Here's what you ignore.  The Tea Party Movement refutes the term.  You know it is offensive, and yet you continue to spew it in a demeaning and offensive manner.
> 
> Your use of the term says nothing about the Tea Partiers, but a great deal about your complete and utter lack of class.



here is a tip: if you can't take it in, don't dish it out.

"utter lack of class" hahahaha

this board is a cesspit, and you are one major diver, shitnymph! 

now, where is the origin?


----------



## AllieBaba (Apr 30, 2010)

Licked er has always been without class.


----------



## boedicca (Apr 30, 2010)

LK:

I don't recall ever spewing a vulgar epithet at people ad nauseam, especially after being informed that they find it offensive.

You are no different than someone who uses the N word towards blacks when they know it is an insult.


----------



## boedicca (Apr 30, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > Here's what you ignore.  The Tea Party Movement refutes the term.  You know it is offensive, and yet you continue to spew it in a demeaning and offensive manner.
> ...




How classy!


----------



## L.K.Eder (Apr 30, 2010)

boedicca said:


> LK:
> 
> I don't recall ever spewing a vulgar epithet at people ad nauseam, especially after being informed that they find it offensive.
> 
> You are no different that someone who uses the N word towards blacks when they know if is an insult.



don't cry.

i laugh at your attempt to claim the real historic victimhood of blacks for yourself.

talk about class, hahah.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Apr 30, 2010)

AllieBaba said:


> Licked er has always been without class.



enough is enough, allie.

the pony will go to lumpy, hoping he does not stuff it like the other one.


----------



## boedicca (Apr 30, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > LK:
> ...




You're a nasty piece of work.   

I compared the use of insults, not the historical condition.  But I doubt you have the intellectual gravitas to discern that fact.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Apr 30, 2010)

boedicca said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



sure, sure.

taxpayer=niggar

any luck on the origin of the term? california girl does not answer me, the origin is probably in the hands of one of her secret sources.


----------



## tigerbob (Apr 30, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > LK:
> ...



The use of the term 'teabagger' by the 'left' (for want of a better word) is similar to the use of the term 'Barack the Magic Negro' by the right.  

They know it is found to be offensive, but they get a cheap kick out of it and it makes them feel superior.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Apr 30, 2010)

tigerbob said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



yes to the "cheap kick", no to the "feel superior", in my case.

i feel superior for a lot of other not necessarily totally unrelated reasons.


----------



## Immanuel (Apr 30, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> California Girl said:
> 
> 
> > Intense said:
> ...



Genesis 1:1... you can easily find it by opening your Bible to the first page.

John 1:1 is another starting point as well.  I'd estimate that it is about 60% of the way through your Bible.  



Need a Bible?  PM me, I'll send you one.  

Immie


----------



## L.K.Eder (Apr 30, 2010)

Immanuel said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > California Girl said:
> ...



the origin of the term teabagging relating to the tea party is no joking matter. 

this must be treated with the utmost sincerity and respect.

teabaggers are serious people.


----------



## Immanuel (Apr 30, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



Who was joking?

Okay, I was.

But the supporters of the health care takeover scheme are serious people too.  Don't discount that fact.

Immie


----------



## Barb (Apr 30, 2010)

Samson said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



Maybe this needs to move to a different thread. 
But hell, why not

First off, the sweaty part is unnecessary rudeness. Everything needs to start out clean and fresh.  That stipulated, I want to know why this is considered a "gay" thing. Are you hetro guys out there really saying that not ONE of your girlfriends EVER let the tongue slip south? Or that you didn't like it? Never ever? 

Poor deprived children.


----------



## Barb (Apr 30, 2010)

tigerbob said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



Only in America is sex considered offensive.


----------



## tigerbob (Apr 30, 2010)

L.K.Eder said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



Is that why you write such unwieldy sentences?


----------



## tigerbob (Apr 30, 2010)

Barb said:


> tigerbob said:
> 
> 
> > L.K.Eder said:
> ...



That point has some merit, but only in a different thread.


----------



## L.K.Eder (Apr 30, 2010)

tigerbob said:


> L.K.Eder said:
> 
> 
> > tigerbob said:
> ...



nah, that is just a hobby


----------

