# Why the tea party movement is so frightening...



## gslack

Everyday I see a knew article in the news or a new post here on USMB regarding the tea party, partiers, whatever. I have noticed something very strange.... I see very little positive threads started on them, and far too many negative ones. of all the negative ones I have seen, the most of them are decidedly left sided, and prone to exaggerations, misleading claims, and outright lies about what they are doing or represent....

Most of the time the threads about the tea party movement resort to calling the partiers ignorant hicks, uneducated, or racist hate-filled mobs of angry people all trying to intimidate or threaten. I wonder if this were true, why has there not been any arrests or riots yet? All we see or hear are these extreme claims and yet nothing regarding what was done about it.. What is there no Cops at these things? Are there no security or anti-tea partiers to at least give a counter argument? I mean if half the things we hear are true, why are they still walking around free? This leads me to believe there is far more propaganda than truth in these claims.

Also, I wonder if they really are so ignorant and uneducated, and their meetings so filled with mindless hate; why do they fear them so much? I mean in order to dedicate so much time to attack something one must have a good reason for it.. And the only good reason I can imagine must have some sort of fear involved... Fear of dissent, fear of racial hatred, fear of crazy uneducated folk with guns, fear of something... And if it is fear, why all the fear?

Indeed what is to fear in groups of so-called uneducated folk venting? They have guns? Well so do the cops and the cops will be legally in their right to shoot them if they become dangerous. The fear of racial hatred? Well then why don't we arrest all the KKK or white supremest groups? maybe the fear of spreading stupidity? Well if its so stupid why would it spread? According to the left media, it is so ignorant and only serves the side of hatred and only an idiot would follow it... So if we are not all idiots, and we can easily see how ignorant it is, why all the bother and press time?

Its simple really, I think Louis Farrakhan is an idiot and only morons would follow him, so I don't pay attention to him. Problem solved and no fear at all... Sure he has some followers, but I do not fear them because I know they are limited by laws and have at least enough sense to know what they can get away with. So why do the media and so many left leaning people dedicate so much of their time on them?

The answer to that is simple... The tea party movement represents something government and left minded governments fear the most... Free thought... All things start with a thought, and from that thought can grow more critical thinking and then questions arise. Questions that no one who isn't thinking freely will ever ask. Then those freethinkers will gather and exchange information and share knowledge, ask questions and get answers. This gathering and exchange will be free of the media spin and biased political party nonsense. And without that spin, real knowledge and critical thought will empower those people. 

If left alone this movement will allow left, right and center minded people to exchange ideas and talk without the media enhanced left vs right haze, without the absolutism of placating and throw away political ideologies, and without someone telling them how bad their neighbor is.... Soon that neighbor will no longer be left or right, but simply a neighbor just like themselves with many of the same fears and concerns..

This is the fear to end all fears of any government drunk with power, and desiring nothing more than their own well being. Look throughout history and see what exactly what I am talking about. Before the media became so powerful a political tool; before Hitler and so many since. Look and you will find free thought started revolutions that lead to the greatest changes in the world.

Right now the left has power hear in this country. But watch and when the right has power, see how they change their stance on the tea party movement... They will vilify them and say they were okay before the lefty socialists took it over, and any other excuse or reason they can find. They will fear them just as the left does now, but right now they serve a purpose for them. So they applaud them quietly and condemn the extreme examples.

In my opinion, the tea party movement could be the foundations of the next big national change, or even world change. Sure some of the bad elements may try and move in on it, but they will not live long amongst free thinkers. Those types never do. They hide in the shadows and prey on the weak. And people desiring to exchange directly with each other rather than accepting what they are told by media or politicians are not weak..

Perhaps the next time any of you condemn this movement off hand, you will take a closer look and realize these are possibly the Jeffersons, Adams, and Franklins of this era....


----------



## uscitizen

I have not condemned the party of Bush in an offhand manner.
They have earned my disrespect.


----------



## VaYank5150

Or Bubba, Jethro and Willie T from the trailer park....


----------



## gslack

I will wait for someone who actually read the post and has a reasonable, thoughtful response....


----------



## VaYank5150

gslack said:


> I will wait for someone who actually read the post and has a reasonable, thoughtful response....



Why?  Your original post is so slanted, the only people you will consider "reasonable and/or thoughtful" are those who have slanted opinions just like you.  What kind of debate is THAT?


----------



## uscitizen

I read the OP.  I made a reasonable thoughtful response.
Sorry it does not agree with your definition of a reasonable and thoughtful response.


----------



## VaYank5150

uscitizen said:


> I read the OP.  I made a reasonable thoughtful response.
> Sorry it does not agree with your definition of a reasonable and thoughtful response.



Let me guess....you were thinking for yourself again, right???  Now what have Rush, Beck and Hannity told you about doing that?


----------



## gslack

If either of you idiot leftist trolls would have read the post you would know it wasn't from either side of the party line.... Now if you two children can't understand the concept of free thought, than please troll elsewhere...


----------



## Luissa

Kind of goes both ways, doesn't it?

We are afraid of the Tea Party, they are afraid of liberals and Obama.
It is called politics.


----------



## gslack

Luissa said:


> Kind of goes both ways, doesn't it?
> 
> We are afraid of the Tea Party, they are afraid of liberals and Obama.
> It is called politics.



And if the right was in power? The same fear..... As I said in the OP its the fear of free thinking without the induced haze of political party and dogma..


----------



## uscitizen

gslack said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of goes both ways, doesn't it?
> 
> We are afraid of the Tea Party, they are afraid of liberals and Obama.
> It is called politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the right was in power? The same fear..... As I said in the OP its the fear of free thinking without the induced haze of political party and dogma..
Click to expand...


And I thought this thread was about the Tea Party?


----------



## gslack

uscitizen said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of goes both ways, doesn't it?
> 
> We are afraid of the Tea Party, they are afraid of liberals and Obama.
> It is called politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the right was in power? The same fear..... As I said in the OP its the fear of free thinking without the induced haze of political party and dogma..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I thought this thread was about the Tea Party?
Click to expand...


Read it, don't read it, whatever you want to do, but don't ask me to explain it if you won't read it.....


----------



## uscitizen

As I have already said I read it.


----------



## gslack

uscitizen said:


> As I have already said I read it.



Good then I can expect reasonable response some time?

Do you have a specific question about it or not?


----------



## uscitizen

So unless I come to the same conclusions as you do on it I will have no reasonable responses?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

VaYank5150 said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will wait for someone who actually read the post and has a reasonable, thoughtful response....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  Your original post is so slanted, the only people you will consider "reasonable and/or thoughtful" are those who have slanted opinions just like you.  What kind of debate is THAT?
Click to expand...


Ya cause you have not engaged in the offhand bullshit claims of all your lrft leaning buddies? You have not made claims with absolutely no facts to back them up concerning the tea party people or meetings?

You are a Hypocrite and a Liar.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

uscitizen said:


> I read the OP.  I made a reasonable thoughtful response.
> Sorry it does not agree with your definition of a reasonable and thoughtful response.



Claiming the Tea party is Bush's party is YOUR idea of a thoughtful well reasoned post? And you claim THEY are idiots?


----------



## uscitizen

RetiredGySgt said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read the OP.  I made a reasonable thoughtful response.
> Sorry it does not agree with your definition of a reasonable and thoughtful response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claiming the Tea party is Bush's party is YOUR idea of a thoughtful well reasoned post? And you claim THEY are idiots?
Click to expand...


Every Tea Partier I personally know.  Perhaps a dozen.  Were avid Bush supporters to the end.

Where did I say they were idiots?


----------



## gslack

uscitizen said:


> So unless I come to the same conclusions as you do on it I will have no reasonable responses?



Dude  do you have a question or comment other than the trolling we have seen so far?

if you do please state it, if not then what are you crying about?

Seriously the OP was not picking a left or right side. if you read it and understood it you would know this... if you don't understand it please ask a question. I will try and make it more clear...


----------



## uscitizen

If you think the OP was not highly politically slanted then Fox has surely warped your mind.


----------



## gslack

uscitizen said:


> If you think the OP was not highly politically slanted then Fox has surely warped your mind.



from my OP near the end.....



> *Right now the left has power hear in this country. But watch and when the right has power, see how they change their stance on the tea party movement... They will vilify them and say they were okay before the lefty socialists took it over, and any other excuse or reason they can find. They will fear them just as the left does now, but right now they serve a purpose for them. So they applaud them quietly and condemn the extreme examples.*



yeah sure looks like I picked a side there buddy..... yeah.... So ya didn't read it like I said.. Thanks for showing you are dishonest as well.....

Now if you have nothing else but trolling I will go about my evening....


----------



## AllieBaba

VaYank5150 said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will wait for someone who actually read the post and has a reasonable, thoughtful response....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?  Your original post is so slanted, the only people you will consider "reasonable and/or thoughtful" are those who have slanted opinions just like you.  What kind of debate is THAT?
Click to expand...


Count on the leftards to chime in and prove the OP's point!

Tanks, you fucking twits. You guys are priceless!


----------



## gslack

I am not at all surprised so many die hard political party worshipers came in and tried to make it a right leaning OP... They see an opposition to their party and automatically assume it supports the opposite. This is a fine example of black and white thinking. This kind of thing is exactly the type of trained mentality that allows this kind of ignorance to spread and grow....


----------



## bodecea

gslack said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of goes both ways, doesn't it?
> 
> We are afraid of the Tea Party, they are afraid of liberals and Obama.
> It is called politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the right was in power? The same fear..... As I said in the OP its the fear of free thinking without the induced haze of political party and dogma..
Click to expand...


You bring up a good point.  The Right WAS in power for a while there....where was the Tea Party then?


----------



## Murf76

The Tea Party doesn't respond to the usual Democrat tactics of Plantation Politics, whereby groups of people are sorted into demographics, sprinkled with manure, and then harvested for votes at election time.  It can't be divided into sub-groups that can be then be pandered to.  It's larger motives aren't based in social issues, but rather upon _fiscal restraint_ and _limited Constitutional government_.

It's easy to divide and conquer when you're dealing with social issues like abortion and gay marriage.  It's easy to present a racial, ethnic, or gender group with an invented common enemy because there ARE isolated instances of discrimination and intolerance within the American landscape to draw upon and inflate.  But when your actual _policy_ is rejected... there's not a whole lot you can do but change policy. 

It's giving them a bad-hair day because in order to respond to it appropriately... they'd have to reject their own socialist agenda.  They're not going to do that, so their only answer is to ramp up the energy on their accusations of racism in the hopes that  The Big Lie will stick.

Problem is... that we all KNOW we're not racists.  So, everything they say after that only serves to further reveal the deflection.  And here we are, with division and tumult aggravated to gargantuan proportions by a guy who was elected to bring _Unity_.


----------



## bodecea

gslack said:


> Everyday I see a knew article in the news or a new post here on USMB regarding the tea party, partiers, whatever. I have noticed something very strange.... I see very little positive threads started on them, and far too many negative ones. of all the negative ones I have seen, the most of them are decidedly left sided, and prone to exaggerations, misleading claims, and outright lies about what they are doing or represent....



Actually, I've seen about half and half...but can you give us a ball park figure as to what ratio of positive vs. negative articles/posts/threads you've seen?



> Most of the time the threads about the tea party movement resort to calling the partiers ignorant hicks, uneducated, or racist hate-filled mobs of angry people all trying to intimidate or threaten.



Most of the time?   Really?



> I wonder if this were true, why has there not been any arrests or riots yet?



Why would there be?



> All we see or hear are these extreme claims and yet nothing regarding what was done about it.. What is there no Cops at these things?



I believe there are.  As there are at pretty much all group events, assemblies.



> Are there no security or anti-tea partiers to at least give a counter argument? I mean if half the things we hear are true, why are they still walking around free? This leads me to believe there is far more propaganda than truth in these claims.



Why are they walking around free?   Maybe because we have the 1st Amendment's freedom of assembly?   Are you saying that in our country, assembled protestors are arrested?



> Also, I wonder if they really are so ignorant and uneducated, and their meetings so filled with mindless hate; why do they fear them so much?




Fear?   Seriously?



> I mean in order to dedicate so much time to attack something one must have a good reason for it..



Attack?  There's been an attack?   Now THAT does need the police involved.



> And the only good reason I can imagine must have some sort of fear involved... Fear of dissent, fear of racial hatred, fear of crazy uneducated folk with guns, fear of something... And if it is fear, why all the fear?



People are always afraid of the new, the different...especially if it isn't their choice (i.e. vote)   Do you think maybe there's enough fear on both sides?   Would you say the tea party  protest assemblies also have their share of fear?  



> Indeed what is to fear in groups of so-called uneducated folk venting? They have guns? Well so do the cops and the cops will be legally in their right to shoot them if they become dangerous.




Really?   People with guns are to be shot on sight?   Has that happened yet?  If so, where?



> The fear of racial hatred? Well then why don't we arrest all the KKK or white supremest groups?



Because this is America, maybe?



> maybe the fear of spreading stupidity? Well if its so stupid why would it spread? According to the left media, it is so ignorant and only serves the side of hatred and only an idiot would follow it... So if we are not all idiots, and we can easily see how ignorant it is, why all the bother and press time?



Are you suggesting it would be more appropriate for the press to IGNORE large gatherings of people?   I would think it would be somewhat newsworthy.



> Its simple really, I think Louis Farrakhan is an idiot and only morons would follow him, so I don't pay attention to him.



If you ignore him, how do you even know who he is and what his stand is on issues?



> Problem solved and no fear at all...



No, that's covering your ears, closing your eyes and yelling "la la la la"



> Sure he has some followers, but I do not fear them because I know they are limited by laws and have at least enough sense to know what they can get away with. So why do the media and so many left leaning people dedicate so much of their time on them?



Maybe because he hasn't been running any large protest assemblies lately.  There was ample coverage during his "Million Man March", was there not?   Was that coverage based on fear too?



> The answer to that is simple... The tea party movement represents something government and left minded governments fear the most... Free thought...



And where was that "free thought" during the last Administration?



> All things start with a thought, and from that thought can grow more critical thinking and then questions arise. Questions that no one who isn't thinking freely will ever ask. Then those freethinkers will gather and exchange information and share knowledge, ask questions and get answers.



And where were all those freethinkers during the last Administration?



> This gathering and exchange will be free of the media spin and biased political party nonsense. And without that spin, real knowledge and critical thought will empower those people.



That would be nice.



> If left alone this movement will allow left, right and center minded people to exchange ideas and talk without the media enhanced left vs right haze, without the absolutism of placating and throw away political ideologies, and without someone telling them how bad their neighbor is.... Soon that neighbor will no longer be left or right, but simply a neighbor just like themselves with many of the same fears and concerns..



I'm puzzled by what you mean by "left alone."   Has anyone tried to STOP this movement?  Anyone arrested?  detained?  harassed by the authorities?   Could you clarify what you mean by "If left alone"?



> This is the fear to end all fears of any government drunk with power, and desiring nothing more than their own well being. Look throughout history and see what exactly what I am talking about. Before the media became so powerful a political tool; before Hitler and so many since. Look and you will find free thought started revolutions that lead to the greatest changes in the world.



Are you saying that the Tea Party is going to start a revolution?



> Right now the left has power hear in this country.



And a few years ago, the Right had power in this country....were they better?   Was there less spending?   Less government intrusion?   If not, where was the Tea Party then?



> But watch and when the right has power, see how they change their stance on the tea party movement... They will vilify them and say they were okay before the lefty socialists took it over, and any other excuse or reason they can find. They will fear them just as the left does now, but right now they serve a purpose for them. So they applaud them quietly and condemn the extreme examples.



A distinct possibility...or else the Right will take over the Tea Party image from within and twist its stance.



> In my opinion, the tea party movement could be the foundations of the next big national change, or even world change. Sure some of the bad elements may try and move in on it, but they will not live long amongst free thinkers. Those types never do. They hide in the shadows and prey on the weak. And people desiring to exchange directly with each other rather than accepting what they are told by media or politicians are not weak..



Maybe, maybe not.



> Perhaps the next time any of you condemn this movement off hand, you will take a closer look and realize these are possibly the Jeffersons, Adams, and Franklins of this era....



Hyperbole.   I get it.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

uscitizen said:


> I read the OP.  I made a reasonable thoughtful response.
> Sorry it does not agree with your definition of a reasonable and thoughtful response.



If you think that was a reasonable thoughtful response then you are a fucking idiot.


Go outside and play little boy!


----------



## JWBooth

Mommy mommy, those scary people don't have the same outlook on the state and its place in our lives as we do....


----------



## Lonestar_logic

uscitizen said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read the OP.  I made a reasonable thoughtful response.
> Sorry it does not agree with your definition of a reasonable and thoughtful response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Claiming the Tea party is Bush's party is YOUR idea of a thoughtful well reasoned post? And you claim THEY are idiots?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every Tea Partier I personally know.  Perhaps a dozen.  Were avid Bush supporters to the end.
> 
> Where did I say they were idiots?
Click to expand...


You label an entire movement because of a dozen people? Are you really that fucking stupid?

About forty percent of the tea partiers are either Democrats or Independents according to a poll done by David Winston, polling director of the Winston Group that did the poll for an education advocacy group. The Winston poll also says 80% of total Tea Party supporters dislike Obama's job performance.


----------



## Lonestar_logic

bodecea said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of goes both ways, doesn't it?
> 
> We are afraid of the Tea Party, they are afraid of liberals and Obama.
> It is called politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if the right was in power? The same fear..... As I said in the OP its the fear of free thinking without the induced haze of political party and dogma..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You bring up a good point.  The Right WAS in power for a while there....where was the Tea Party then?
Click to expand...


The "right" wasn't trying take control of one sixth of our economy and mandating that Americans purchase health insurance or risk being punished by fines. The right doubled the defict the left is tripling it.


----------



## Stephanie

JWBooth said:


> Mommy mommy, those scary people don't have the same outlook on the state and its place in our lives as we do....



no kidding.


----------



## gslack

bodecea said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyday I see a knew article in the news or a new post here on USMB regarding the tea party, partiers, whatever. I have noticed something very strange.... I see very little positive threads started on them, and far too many negative ones. of all the negative ones I have seen, the most of them are decidedly left sided, and prone to exaggerations, misleading claims, and outright lies about what they are doing or represent....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Actually, I've seen about half and half...but can you give us a ball park figure as to what ratio of positive vs. negative articles/posts/threads you've seen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the time the threads about the tea party movement resort to calling the partiers ignorant hicks, uneducated, or racist hate-filled mobs of angry people all trying to intimidate or threaten.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 2. Most of the time?   Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Why would there be?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. I believe there are.  As there are at pretty much all group events, assemblies.
> 
> 
> 
> 5. Why are they walking around free?   Maybe because we have the 1st Amendment's freedom of assembly?   Are you saying that in our country, assembled protestors are arrested?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6. Fear?   Seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> 7. Attack?  There's been an attack?   Now THAT does need the police involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 8. People are always afraid of the new, the different...especially if it isn't their choice (i.e. vote)   Do you think maybe there's enough fear on both sides?   Would you say the tea party  protest assemblies also have their share of fear?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9. Really?   People with guns are to be shot on sight?   Has that happened yet?  If so, where?
> 
> 
> 
> 10. Because this is America, maybe?
> 
> 
> 
> 11. Are you suggesting it would be more appropriate for the press to IGNORE large gatherings of people?   I would think it would be somewhat newsworthy.
> 
> 
> 
> 12. If you ignore him, how do you even know who he is and what his stand is on issues?
> 
> 
> 
> 13. No, that's covering your ears, closing your eyes and yelling "la la la la"
> 
> 
> 
> 14. Maybe because he hasn't been running any large protest assemblies lately.  There was ample coverage during his "Million Man March", was there not?   Was that coverage based on fear too?
> 
> 
> 
> 15. And where was that "free thought" during the last Administration?
> 
> 
> 
> 16. And where were all those freethinkers during the last Administration?
> 
> 
> 
> 17. That would be nice.
> 
> 
> 
> 18. I'm puzzled by what you mean by "left alone."   Has anyone tried to STOP this movement?  Anyone arrested?  detained?  harassed by the authorities?   Could you clarify what you mean by "If left alone"?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the Tea Party is going to start a revolution?
> 
> 
> 
> And a few years ago, the Right had power in this country....were they better?   Was there less spending?   Less government intrusion?   If not, where was the Tea Party then?
> 
> 
> 
> A distinct possibility...or else the Right will take over the Tea Party image from within and twist its stance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, the tea party movement could be the foundations of the next big national change, or even world change. Sure some of the bad elements may try and move in on it, but they will not live long amongst free thinkers. Those types never do. They hide in the shadows and prey on the weak. And people desiring to exchange directly with each other rather than accepting what they are told by media or politicians are not weak..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe, maybe not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the next time any of you condemn this movement off hand, you will take a closer look and realize these are possibly the Jeffersons, Adams, and Franklins of this era....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hyperbole.   I get it.
Click to expand...


Bode, this is the one and only time i will quote ignorant childish quoting each sentence enough to comment on it.....

If YOU want me to take your response seriously then act like it and don't try and be as annoying as possible with this kind of crap...

I will not comment on every single sentence.. its asinine and from reading it , it is repetitive, often making false claims what the OP stated, and childish to quote each line like an idiot.....


----------



## boedicca

gslack said:


> In my opinion, the tea party movement could be the foundations of the next big national change, or even world change. Sure some of the bad elements may try and move in on it, but they will not live long amongst free thinkers. Those types never do. They hide in the shadows and prey on the weak. And people desiring to exchange directly with each other rather than accepting what they are told by media or politicians are not weak..
> 
> Perhaps the next time any of you condemn this movement off hand, you will take a closer look and realize these are possibly the Jeffersons, Adams, and Franklins of this era....




Tea Partiers mostly consist of people who are not afraid of being grown ups - taking responsibility for themselves and their families.  They don't expect government to solve their problems.  It's understanding that those who are infantilized by Big Government programs feel threatened by the Tea Party - hence the inane level of vicious attacks.

John Fund has an interesting opinion piece in the WSJ regarding what the current political environment really is:  The Tea Partiers vs. SEIU.    

_In contrast to the tea party, there has been far too little scrutiny of the SEIU, whose membership of government and health-care workers is the fastest-growing of any union in the country. Andy Stern, the just retired head of the SEIU, was found to be the most frequent guest at the Obama White House last year, stopping by 22 times between January and September, more than all congressional leaders and cabinet members.

The SEIU's close ties to the discredited group Acorn have largely been ignored. The same is true for the violence perpetrated by some of its members.

Last August in St. Louis, tea party supporter Kenneth Gladney was set upon by SEIU members during a town-hall meeting on health care. They were apparently angry that an African-American was supporting the tea party and hurled the "n" word at him while beating him to the point where he required hospitalization. St. Louis County officials waited until November to press assault charges against two SEIU members. Four others were charged with interfering with police during the incident. All six have pleaded not guilty._

John Fund: Tea Parties vs. Unions in November - WSJ.com


Ideologically, the Tea Partiers are focused on the founding values of the country, while the SEIU is the muscle to keep Big Government growing and becoming more intrusive in our lives.


----------



## Samson

gslack said:


> I will wait for someone who actually read the post and has a reasonable, thoughtful response....



I scanned through the OP.

From what I gather, opposition to the tea party is based on two things:

1. They are caught up in emotion

 Isn't "being caught up in emotion" the per certus for any "movement?" (I suppose an exception could be made for the Apathy Party Movement, but they don't care enough to apply)

2. They are manipulated by special interests

Again, with the exception of the Apathy Party Movement, who cannot be accused of being "manipulated by special interests?" Also, again, isn't having special interests the per certus for any movement?

Of course, if any movement is not alligned with our own, then it must, AGAIN, per certus, be "motivated by the lust for power and avarice."

In summary: What else do you expect a political movement to be?


----------



## gslack

boedicca said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my opinion, the tea party movement could be the foundations of the next big national change, or even world change. Sure some of the bad elements may try and move in on it, but they will not live long amongst free thinkers. Those types never do. They hide in the shadows and prey on the weak. And people desiring to exchange directly with each other rather than accepting what they are told by media or politicians are not weak..
> 
> Perhaps the next time any of you condemn this movement off hand, you will take a closer look and realize these are possibly the Jeffersons, Adams, and Franklins of this era....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Partiers mostly consist of people who are not afraid of being grown ups - taking responsibility for themselves and their families.  They don't expect government to solve their problems.  It's understanding that those who are infantilized by Big Government programs feel threatened by the Tea Party - hence the inane level of vicious attacks.
> 
> John Fund has an interesting opinion piece in the WSJ regarding what the current political environment really is:  The Tea Partiers vs. SEIU.
> 
> _In contrast to the tea party, there has been far too little scrutiny of the SEIU, whose membership of government and health-care workers is the fastest-growing of any union in the country. Andy Stern, the just retired head of the SEIU, was found to be the most frequent guest at the Obama White House last year, stopping by 22 times between January and September, more than all congressional leaders and cabinet members.
> 
> The SEIU's close ties to the discredited group Acorn have largely been ignored. The same is true for the violence perpetrated by some of its members.
> 
> Last August in St. Louis, tea party supporter Kenneth Gladney was set upon by SEIU members during a town-hall meeting on health care. They were apparently angry that an African-American was supporting the tea party and hurled the "n" word at him while beating him to the point where he required hospitalization. St. Louis County officials waited until November to press assault charges against two SEIU members. Four others were charged with interfering with police during the incident. All six have pleaded not guilty._
> 
> John Fund: Tea Parties vs. Unions in November - WSJ.com
> 
> 
> Ideologically, the Tea Partiers are focused on the founding values of the country, while the SEIU is the muscle to keep Big Government growing and becoming more intrusive in our lives.
Click to expand...


The story you linked to actually supports a great deal of my OP's assertions... Particularly this part...


> "After a New York Times survey found tea partiers are generally better educated and wealthier than the general public, they are now attacked as aloof and out of touch with the concerns of average voters."



SEIU are another political entity, I don't see how they factor into my OP....


----------



## gslack

Samson said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will wait for someone who actually read the post and has a reasonable, thoughtful response....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I scanned through the OP.
> 
> From what I gather, opposition to the tea party is based on two things:
> 
> 1. They are caught up in emotion
> 
> Isn't "being caught up in emotion" the per certus for any "movement?" (I suppose an exception could be made for the Apathy Party Movement, but they don't care enough to apply)
> 
> 2. They are manipulated by special interests
> 
> Again, with the exception of the Apathy Party Movement, who cannot be accused of being "manipulated by special interests?" Also, again, isn't having special interests the per certus for any movement?
> 
> Of course, if any movement is not alligned with our own, then it must, AGAIN, per certus, be "motivated by the lust for power and avarice."
> 
> In summary: What else do you expect a political movement to be?
Click to expand...


Well, the OP was actually about the media and the political parties use or abuse of the tea party movement versus what they most likely (in most cases) actually represent...

All political parties seek power. For good or bad, right or wrong they all do..


----------



## AquaAthena

*[B"]Perhaps the next time any of you condemn this movement off hand, you will take a closer look and realize these are possibly the Jeffersons, Adams, and Franklins of this era"....* [/B]

Yes, they are the new and powerful, participating in a non-violent and civilized approach for "hope and change." _Back to basics _people who are peacefully demonstrating against a tyrannical government and using the successful theories of passive resistance espoused by Mahatma Gandhi and  by whom MLK Jr. was also inspired. 

They are making a positive difference and the conservative politicians are listening...


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

uscitizen said:


> I have not condemned the party of Bush in an offhand manner.
> They have earned my disrespect.





VaYank5150 said:


> Or Bubba, Jethro and Willie T from the trailer park....



Really is that all you guys got?  Nothing substantiative to adress, couldn't even pick out a paragraph of his to refute?

Man you guys don't even have the ability to debate something anymore, 2 prime examples of why the USMB is going down in quality.



BTW UScitizen I've been up the bush admins but since the patriot act, their adding another entitlement (med part D), their debt increasing budgets, and his support of the bailouts/tarp at the end.    I have also been to 3 tea party rallies so your claim is false.


----------



## rdean

gslack said:


> I will wait for someone who actually read the post and has a reasonable, thoughtful response....



The post isn't all that "reasonable and thoughtful".  Just the fact that you bring up Louis Farrakhan proves that.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

rdean said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will wait for someone who actually read the post and has a reasonable, thoughtful response....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The post isn't all that "reasonable and thoughtful".  Just the fact that you bring up Louis Farrakhan proves that.
Click to expand...


You have a problem with Farrakhan and his publicly stated positions?


----------



## rikules

gslack said:


> Everyday I see a knew article in the news or a new post here on USMB regarding the tea party, partiers, whatever. I have noticed something very strange.... I see very little positive threads started on them, and far too many negative ones. of all the negative ones I have seen, the most of them are decidedly left sided, and prone to exaggerations, misleading claims, and outright lies about what they are doing or represent....
> 
> Most of the time the threads about the tea party movement resort to calling the partiers ignorant hicks, uneducated, or racist hate-filled mobs of angry people all trying to intimidate or threaten. I wonder if this were true, why has there not been any arrests or riots yet? All we see or hear are these extreme claims and yet nothing regarding what was done about it.. What is there no Cops at these things? Are there no security or anti-tea partiers to at least give a counter argument? I mean if half the things we hear are true, why are they still walking around free? This leads me to believe there is far more propaganda than truth in these claims.
> 
> Also, I wonder if they really are so ignorant and uneducated, and their meetings so filled with mindless hate; why do they fear them so much? I mean in order to dedicate so much time to attack something one must have a good reason for it.. And the only good reason I can imagine must have some sort of fear involved... Fear of dissent, fear of racial hatred, fear of crazy uneducated folk with guns, fear of something... And if it is fear, why all the fear?
> 
> Indeed what is to fear in groups of so-called uneducated folk venting? They have guns? Well so do the cops and the cops will be legally in their right to shoot them if they become dangerous. The fear of racial hatred? Well then why don't we arrest all the KKK or white supremest groups? maybe the fear of spreading stupidity? Well if its so stupid why would it spread? According to the left media, it is so ignorant and only serves the side of hatred and only an idiot would follow it... So if we are not all idiots, and we can easily see how ignorant it is, why all the bother and press time?
> 
> Its simple really, I think Louis Farrakhan is an idiot and only morons would follow him, so I don't pay attention to him. Problem solved and no fear at all... Sure he has some followers, but I do not fear them because I know they are limited by laws and have at least enough sense to know what they can get away with. So why do the media and so many left leaning people dedicate so much of their time on them?
> 
> The answer to that is simple... The tea party movement represents something government and left minded governments fear the most... Free thought... All things start with a thought, and from that thought can grow more critical thinking and then questions arise. Questions that no one who isn't thinking freely will ever ask. Then those freethinkers will gather and exchange information and share knowledge, ask questions and get answers. This gathering and exchange will be free of the media spin and biased political party nonsense. And without that spin, real knowledge and critical thought will empower those people.
> 
> If left alone this movement will allow left, right and center minded people to exchange ideas and talk without the media enhanced left vs right haze, without the absolutism of placating and throw away political ideologies, and without someone telling them how bad their neighbor is.... Soon that neighbor will no longer be left or right, but simply a neighbor just like themselves with many of the same fears and concerns..
> 
> This is the fear to end all fears of any government drunk with power, and desiring nothing more than their own well being. Look throughout history and see what exactly what I am talking about. Before the media became so powerful a political tool; before Hitler and so many since. Look and you will find free thought started revolutions that lead to the greatest changes in the world.
> 
> Right now the left has power hear in this country. But watch and when the right has power, see how they change their stance on the tea party movement... They will vilify them and say they were okay before the lefty socialists took it over, and any other excuse or reason they can find. They will fear them just as the left does now, but right now they serve a purpose for them. So they applaud them quietly and condemn the extreme examples.
> 
> In my opinion, the tea party movement could be the foundations of the next big national change, or even world change. Sure some of the bad elements may try and move in on it, but they will not live long amongst free thinkers. Those types never do. They hide in the shadows and prey on the weak. And people desiring to exchange directly with each other rather than accepting what they are told by media or politicians are not weak..
> 
> Perhaps the next time any of you condemn this movement off hand, you will take a closer look and realize these are possibly the Jeffersons, Adams, and Franklins of this era....



for the past 20 years double digit IQ conservatives, speared on by the misinformation, fear tactics and lies of unscrupulous (or deranged) conservative spinmeisters (like limbaugh, savage, oreilly, beck, coulter, malkin etc) ANGRILY shouted
a. democrats are EVIL
b. republicans are GOOD!
c. America is a CHRISTIAN NATION
d. we are taking OUR country back!
e. there's another civil war coming!
f. we have guns and we are NOT afraid to use them on liberals and democrats!

and generally proclaiming that THEY were REPUBLICANS because they were the defenders of FREEDOM even though there were so MANY freedoms that really pissed them off;

gay marriage
gay rights
divorce
sex outside of marriage
pot smoking
atheism 
evolution


in the last few years these simpleminded deranged loons finally realized that the republican party isn't any better than the democratic party

NOW they denounce the republican party
and they have gravitated to a new party...
the tea party
a party that is being spearheaded by right wing ultra conservative CHRISTIANS like...beck
and limbaugh

and they proclaim "we are the DEFENDERS of FREEDOM!"
even though there are still so many freedoms that really piss them off....

most tea baggers are simpleminded and angry dupes for the SHILLS who lie to them about being defenders of freedom while their REAL agenda is to make America a christian nation and finally do something about the things they REALLY hate...;

liberals
feminists
homosexuals
evolution
pot smokers
divorce
pre-marital sex

prominent tea baggers (like chuck norris) continue to say things like..."we are ANGRY....we are taking OUR COUNTRY BACK...by ANY MEANS NECESSARY...we have GUNS and we WILL USE THEM!...."

hardly the words of peaceful freedom lovers....

no doubt you are one of the ones easily duped by these nefarious liars....

not me.....


----------



## gslack

rdean said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will wait for someone who actually read the post and has a reasonable, thoughtful response....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The post isn't all that "reasonable and thoughtful".  Just the fact that you bring up Louis Farrakhan proves that.
Click to expand...


Why don't you mention or cite what I SAID ABOUT FARRAKHAN in the OP then?

I can tell you.... Because you saw the name and made an assumption based on it and the fact it didn't follow your party view on the subject....

I will point out what I said about him in the OP...



> Its simple really, I think Louis Farrakhan is an idiot and only morons would follow him, so I don't pay attention to him. Problem solved and no fear at all... Sure he has some followers, but I do not fear them because I know they are limited by laws and have at least enough sense to know what they can get away with. So why do the media and so many left leaning people dedicate so much of their time on them?



See that? was I supporting him? No I said I thought he was an idiot....

Once again if you aren't going to bother reading the OP enough to understand it. And you aren't even going to read it enough to give at least a decent rebuttal based on what it does say instead of what you think it says, why are you even bothering to post in the thread?

I'm sorry its not streamlined to a sensational headline for you, or simplified to an absolute left or right mentality you can easily digest. It like life requires thought and thought based on what it actually says, not what you assume it will mean based on a headline or keywords....

if you guys are this fucking lazy that you cannot read something and base your arguments on what it actually says, than whatever government you get will be exactly what you deserve.

you are here to debate politics and things like it, yet many of you clearly only want to defend your party. Thats not debate, nor is it logical... Why fucking bother if you already made up your mind anyway? You came in and without reading the OP decided it was not with your party view therefore it must be for the other party view. WTF kind of close minded ignorance is that? Seriously...

That is the clearest example of my OP's assertions I could think of.. You don't know what it even said but you decided it was not along your party line so therefore must be the right party line. Get a taste of reality....

Turn off your TV, stop hanging around your preferred party media sites, and go out and talk to people whom may have a different view of things. Read things not party approved or agenda/party driven, get a dose of the real world before you vote next time..... if you don't god help you...


----------



## gslack

rikules said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyday I see a knew article in the news or a new post here on USMB regarding the tea party, partiers, whatever. I have noticed something very strange.... I see very little positive threads started on them, and far too many negative ones. of all the negative ones I have seen, the most of them are decidedly left sided, and prone to exaggerations, misleading claims, and outright lies about what they are doing or represent....
> 
> Most of the time the threads about the tea party movement resort to calling the partiers ignorant hicks, uneducated, or racist hate-filled mobs of angry people all trying to intimidate or threaten. I wonder if this were true, why has there not been any arrests or riots yet? All we see or hear are these extreme claims and yet nothing regarding what was done about it.. What is there no Cops at these things? Are there no security or anti-tea partiers to at least give a counter argument? I mean if half the things we hear are true, why are they still walking around free? This leads me to believe there is far more propaganda than truth in these claims.
> 
> Also, I wonder if they really are so ignorant and uneducated, and their meetings so filled with mindless hate; why do they fear them so much? I mean in order to dedicate so much time to attack something one must have a good reason for it.. And the only good reason I can imagine must have some sort of fear involved... Fear of dissent, fear of racial hatred, fear of crazy uneducated folk with guns, fear of something... And if it is fear, why all the fear?
> 
> Indeed what is to fear in groups of so-called uneducated folk venting? They have guns? Well so do the cops and the cops will be legally in their right to shoot them if they become dangerous. The fear of racial hatred? Well then why don't we arrest all the KKK or white supremest groups? maybe the fear of spreading stupidity? Well if its so stupid why would it spread? According to the left media, it is so ignorant and only serves the side of hatred and only an idiot would follow it... So if we are not all idiots, and we can easily see how ignorant it is, why all the bother and press time?
> 
> Its simple really, I think Louis Farrakhan is an idiot and only morons would follow him, so I don't pay attention to him. Problem solved and no fear at all... Sure he has some followers, but I do not fear them because I know they are limited by laws and have at least enough sense to know what they can get away with. So why do the media and so many left leaning people dedicate so much of their time on them?
> 
> The answer to that is simple... The tea party movement represents something government and left minded governments fear the most... Free thought... All things start with a thought, and from that thought can grow more critical thinking and then questions arise. Questions that no one who isn't thinking freely will ever ask. Then those freethinkers will gather and exchange information and share knowledge, ask questions and get answers. This gathering and exchange will be free of the media spin and biased political party nonsense. And without that spin, real knowledge and critical thought will empower those people.
> 
> If left alone this movement will allow left, right and center minded people to exchange ideas and talk without the media enhanced left vs right haze, without the absolutism of placating and throw away political ideologies, and without someone telling them how bad their neighbor is.... Soon that neighbor will no longer be left or right, but simply a neighbor just like themselves with many of the same fears and concerns..
> 
> This is the fear to end all fears of any government drunk with power, and desiring nothing more than their own well being. Look throughout history and see what exactly what I am talking about. Before the media became so powerful a political tool; before Hitler and so many since. Look and you will find free thought started revolutions that lead to the greatest changes in the world.
> 
> *Right now the left has power hear in this country. But watch and when the right has power, see how they change their stance on the tea party movement... They will vilify them and say they were okay before the lefty socialists took it over, and any other excuse or reason they can find. They will fear them just as the left does now, but right now they serve a purpose for them. So they applaud them quietly and condemn the extreme examples.*
> 
> In my opinion, the tea party movement could be the foundations of the next big national change, or even world change. Sure some of the bad elements may try and move in on it, but they will not live long amongst free thinkers. Those types never do. They hide in the shadows and prey on the weak. And people desiring to exchange directly with each other rather than accepting what they are told by media or politicians are not weak..
> 
> Perhaps the next time any of you condemn this movement off hand, you will take a closer look and realize these are possibly the Jeffersons, Adams, and Franklins of this era....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> for the past 20 years double digit IQ conservatives, speared on by the misinformation, fear tactics and lies of unscrupulous (or deranged) conservative spinmeisters (like limbaugh, savage, oreilly, beck, coulter, malkin etc) ANGRILY shouted
> a. democrats are EVIL
> b. republicans are GOOD!
> c. America is a CHRISTIAN NATION
> d. we are taking OUR country back!
> e. there's another civil war coming!
> f. we have guns and we are NOT afraid to use them on liberals and democrats!
> 
> and generally proclaiming that THEY were REPUBLICANS because they were the defenders of FREEDOM even though there were so MANY freedoms that really pissed them off;
> 
> gay marriage
> gay rights
> divorce
> sex outside of marriage
> pot smoking
> atheism
> evolution
> 
> 
> in the last few years these simpleminded deranged loons finally realized that the republican party isn't any better than the democratic party
> 
> NOW they denounce the republican party
> and they have gravitated to a new party...
> the tea party
> a party that is being spearheaded by right wing ultra conservative CHRISTIANS like...beck
> and limbaugh
> 
> and they proclaim "we are the DEFENDERS of FREEDOM!"
> even though there are still so many freedoms that really piss them off....
> 
> most tea baggers are simpleminded and angry dupes for the SHILLS who lie to them about being defenders of freedom while their REAL agenda is to make America a christian nation and finally do something about the things they REALLY hate...;
> 
> liberals
> feminists
> homosexuals
> evolution
> pot smokers
> divorce
> pre-marital sex
> 
> prominent tea baggers (like chuck norris) continue to say things like..."we are ANGRY....we are taking OUR COUNTRY BACK...by ANY MEANS NECESSARY...we have GUNS and we WILL USE THEM!...."
> 
> hardly the words of peaceful freedom lovers....
> 
> no doubt you are one of the ones easily duped by these nefarious liars....
> 
> not me.....
Click to expand...


YOU just recite every hair brained, ignorant, misleading, and twisted agenda driven talking point mentioned on the liberal media like a talking head, and then try and make a claim like that about me? LOL, thanks for proving my point....

Notice my post even spoke ill of the right in it? no of course not.... look at the bold print.... Notice that? Yeah funny how you can't see that when you think based on your political party... 

One more for the "I cant be bothered to read the OP, it didn't support my party view" bin..... I refer you to the previous post imbecile......


----------



## midcan5

"Why the tea party movement is so frightening."

I've already answered this question, and I do not think the tea party frightening, I find them simply hypocritical. Had they started when Bush destroyed the economy I could take them serious. There is no thought in their whining over a new president of a party they disagree with. Nor is there any idea of freedom in criticism of democratic political outcomes. 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/tea-party/116607-would-the-tea-party-exist.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/tea-party/114928-tea-party-and-sympathizers-please-read.html




uscitizen said:


> I have not condemned the party of Bush in an offhand manner.
> They have earned my disrespect.



Well put, they whine because they have lost power plain and simple, as nothing has changed with Obama who is at best a moderate, at worst, another kinder and gentler and smarter Bush. lol


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

midcan5 said:


> "Why the tea party movement is so frightening."
> 
> I've already answered this question, and I do not think the tea party frightening, I find them simply hypocritical. Had they started when Bush destroyed the economy I could take them serious. There is no thought in their whining over a new president of a party they disagree with. Nor is there any idea of freedom in criticism of democratic political outcomes.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/tea-party/116607-would-the-tea-party-exist.html
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/tea-party/114928-tea-party-and-sympathizers-please-read.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have not condemned the party of Bush in an offhand manner.
> They have earned my disrespect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well put, they whine because they have lost power plain and simple, as nothing has changed with Obama who is at best a moderate, at worst, another kinder and gentler and smarter Bush. lol
Click to expand...


Another false generalization....this generalization sounds as ignorant as me saying you must like watermelon.


----------



## bodecea

gslack said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyday I see a knew article in the news or a new post here on USMB regarding the tea party, partiers, whatever. I have noticed something very strange.... I see very little positive threads started on them, and far too many negative ones. of all the negative ones I have seen, the most of them are decidedly left sided, and prone to exaggerations, misleading claims, and outright lies about what they are doing or represent....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Actually, I've seen about half and half...but can you give us a ball park figure as to what ratio of positive vs. negative articles/posts/threads you've seen?
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Most of the time?   Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Why would there be?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. I believe there are.  As there are at pretty much all group events, assemblies.
> 
> 
> 
> 5. Why are they walking around free?   Maybe because we have the 1st Amendment's freedom of assembly?   Are you saying that in our country, assembled protestors are arrested?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6. Fear?   Seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> 7. Attack?  There's been an attack?   Now THAT does need the police involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 8. People are always afraid of the new, the different...especially if it isn't their choice (i.e. vote)   Do you think maybe there's enough fear on both sides?   Would you say the tea party  protest assemblies also have their share of fear?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9. Really?   People with guns are to be shot on sight?   Has that happened yet?  If so, where?
> 
> 
> 
> 10. Because this is America, maybe?
> 
> 
> 
> 11. Are you suggesting it would be more appropriate for the press to IGNORE large gatherings of people?   I would think it would be somewhat newsworthy.
> 
> 
> 
> 12. If you ignore him, how do you even know who he is and what his stand is on issues?
> 
> 
> 
> 13. No, that's covering your ears, closing your eyes and yelling "la la la la"
> 
> 
> 
> 14. Maybe because he hasn't been running any large protest assemblies lately.  There was ample coverage during his "Million Man March", was there not?   Was that coverage based on fear too?
> 
> 
> 
> 15. And where was that "free thought" during the last Administration?
> 
> 
> 
> 16. And where were all those freethinkers during the last Administration?
> 
> 
> 
> 17. That would be nice.
> 
> 
> 
> 18. I'm puzzled by what you mean by "left alone."   Has anyone tried to STOP this movement?  Anyone arrested?  detained?  harassed by the authorities?   Could you clarify what you mean by "If left alone"?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the Tea Party is going to start a revolution?
> 
> 
> 
> And a few years ago, the Right had power in this country....were they better?   Was there less spending?   Less government intrusion?   If not, where was the Tea Party then?
> 
> 
> 
> A distinct possibility...or else the Right will take over the Tea Party image from within and twist its stance.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, maybe not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps the next time any of you condemn this movement off hand, you will take a closer look and realize these are possibly the Jeffersons, Adams, and Franklins of this era....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hyperbole.   I get it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bode, this is the one and only time i will quote ignorant childish quoting each sentence enough to comment on it.....
> 
> If YOU want me to take your response seriously then act like it and don't try and be as annoying as possible with this kind of crap...
> 
> I will not comment on every single sentence.. its asinine and from reading it , it is repetitive, often making false claims what the OP stated, and childish to quote each line like an idiot.....
Click to expand...


I covered your OP point by point...apparently you do not want serious discourse even tho you said you do.    Color me surprised.   You didn't want to be taken seriously at all.


----------



## Old Rocks

If the Teabaggers had come into existance when Bush started his wars off the books, and defunding government by giving the wealthy huge tax breaks, I could respect them. As it is, they only showed up when a Democratic President was attempting to stave off the Second Great Republican Depression. 

Then you look at the signs they carry in some of their rallies! Birthers, people that say things like "Keep Government out of our Medicare".

While I find observing the Teabaggers to be a great source of humor, I find no serious message in their antics. Mostly resentment, racial and economic. Nothing there to respect at all.


----------



## Immanuel

gslack said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you think the OP was not highly politically slanted then Fox has surely warped your mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> from my OP near the end.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Right now the left has power hear in this country. But watch and when the right has power, see how they change their stance on the tea party movement... They will vilify them and say they were okay before the lefty socialists took it over, and any other excuse or reason they can find. They will fear them just as the left does now, but right now they serve a purpose for them. So they applaud them quietly and condemn the extreme examples.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yeah sure looks like I picked a side there buddy..... yeah.... So ya didn't read it like I said.. Thanks for showing you are dishonest as well.....
> 
> Now if you have nothing else but trolling I will go about my evening....
Click to expand...


I happen to disagree with you about the way the TP would react if the right were in charge.  I am not a tea partier although I agree with much of what I have read that they have supported, but I can not get passed the realization that every time I read or hear something from the group, they are supporting the Republican Party.  To me, it seems like nothing more than an arm of the Republican Party, much like say... and I hate to mention this because I used to be a big fan of Dr. Dobson, but Focus on the Family or the Christian Coalition.  

Immie


----------



## gslack

bodecea said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Actually, I've seen about half and half...but can you give us a ball park figure as to what ratio of positive vs. negative articles/posts/threads you've seen?
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Most of the time?   Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Why would there be?
> 
> 
> 
> 4. I believe there are.  As there are at pretty much all group events, assemblies.
> 
> 
> 
> 5. Why are they walking around free?   Maybe because we have the 1st Amendment's freedom of assembly?   Are you saying that in our country, assembled protestors are arrested?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6. Fear?   Seriously?
> 
> 
> 
> 7. Attack?  There's been an attack?   Now THAT does need the police involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 8. People are always afraid of the new, the different...especially if it isn't their choice (i.e. vote)   Do you think maybe there's enough fear on both sides?   Would you say the tea party  protest assemblies also have their share of fear?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9. Really?   People with guns are to be shot on sight?   Has that happened yet?  If so, where?
> 
> 
> 
> 10. Because this is America, maybe?
> 
> 
> 
> 11. Are you suggesting it would be more appropriate for the press to IGNORE large gatherings of people?   I would think it would be somewhat newsworthy.
> 
> 
> 
> 12. If you ignore him, how do you even know who he is and what his stand is on issues?
> 
> 
> 
> 13. No, that's covering your ears, closing your eyes and yelling "la la la la"
> 
> 
> 
> 14. Maybe because he hasn't been running any large protest assemblies lately.  There was ample coverage during his "Million Man March", was there not?   Was that coverage based on fear too?
> 
> 
> 
> 15. And where was that "free thought" during the last Administration?
> 
> 
> 
> 16. And where were all those freethinkers during the last Administration?
> 
> 
> 
> 17. That would be nice.
> 
> 
> 
> 18. I'm puzzled by what you mean by "left alone."   Has anyone tried to STOP this movement?  Anyone arrested?  detained?  harassed by the authorities?   Could you clarify what you mean by "If left alone"?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you saying that the Tea Party is going to start a revolution?
> 
> 
> 
> And a few years ago, the Right had power in this country....were they better?   Was there less spending?   Less government intrusion?   If not, where was the Tea Party then?
> 
> 
> 
> A distinct possibility...or else the Right will take over the Tea Party image from within and twist its stance.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe, maybe not.
> 
> 
> 
> Hyperbole.   I get it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bode, this is the one and only time i will quote ignorant childish quoting each sentence enough to comment on it.....
> 
> If YOU want me to take your response seriously then act like it and don't try and be as annoying as possible with this kind of crap...
> 
> I will not comment on every single sentence.. its asinine and from reading it , it is repetitive, often making false claims what the OP stated, and childish to quote each line like an idiot.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I covered your OP point by point...apparently you do not want serious discourse even tho you said you do.    Color me surprised.   You didn't want to be taken seriously at all.
Click to expand...


Well then why the ridiculous quoting nearly every single line? Your one post took up nearly the page. You couldn't have condensed some of that?

Whats more some of the points you made were things like "Maybe, maybe not." and crap like that... WTF??... Bullshit Bode you were being asinine and a deliberate shit... And from reading your responses, we can see you had no intention of actually debating or giving your thoughts; you just wanted to call it right wing garbage and shout it down with a ridiculous post...

A serious response wouldn't have been separating every line like that...


----------



## gslack

Immanuel said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you think the OP was not highly politically slanted then Fox has surely warped your mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> from my OP near the end.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Right now the left has power hear in this country. But watch and when the right has power, see how they change their stance on the tea party movement... They will vilify them and say they were okay before the lefty socialists took it over, and any other excuse or reason they can find. They will fear them just as the left does now, but right now they serve a purpose for them. So they applaud them quietly and condemn the extreme examples.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yeah sure looks like I picked a side there buddy..... yeah.... So ya didn't read it like I said.. Thanks for showing you are dishonest as well.....
> 
> Now if you have nothing else but trolling I will go about my evening....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I happen to disagree with you about the way the TP would react if the right were in charge.  I am not a tea partier although I agree with much of what I have read that they have supported, but I can not get passed the realization that every time I read or hear something from the group, they are supporting the Republican Party.  To me, it seems like nothing more than an arm of the Republican Party, much like say... and I hate to mention this because I used to be a big fan of Dr. Dobson, but Focus on the Family or the Christian Coalition.
> 
> Immie
Click to expand...


One of the main points in my OP was the way the media portrays the Tea party movement... So if you get most of your news from MSM, it furthers my assertions. 

If you go to Rush or Hannity they will most likely make them sound like perfect angels right now, after all they are in opposition to Obama a lot. And if you listen to Olberman you will hear how they are all racists and vile, because they disagree with the powers that be(his party). This is classic "enemy of my enemy is my friend" opportunistic logic and very little of it is based in reality.

Again if the roles were reversed we would see a reversal in who supports and who condemns them. Which reasserts my OP....


----------



## Sarah G

gslack said:


> I will wait for someone who actually read the post and has a reasonable, thoughtful response....



I don't fear them, they've yet to do anything positive for this country, the country they claim to want to take back.

They need more credible leadership and spokespeople who can communicate well with a bigger tent in mind.  To me, they're just more of the same.  Angry religious righters with no focus other than to spread hate far and wide.


----------



## gslack

Sarah G said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will wait for someone who actually read the post and has a reasonable, thoughtful response....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't fear them, they've yet to do anything positive for this country, the country they claim to want to take back.
> 
> They need more credible leadership and spokespeople who can communicate well with a bigger tent in mind.  To me, they're just more of the same.  Angry religious righters with no focus other than to spread hate far and wide.
Click to expand...


Well, is that based on what you know from experience, or from what the media told you? 

I live right next to my county fairgrounds. Literally I am right across the street. We have had 2 Tea partys there this past year and at the first one, there was virtually no noise at all. In fact there was no evidence that anything was going on to anyone not already aware of it. No signs, no racist  groups or hate speak at all. Couldn't have been more than a couple hundred people there all day. Not one time did the noise bother me and I was having a family barbecue that day.

The second one had a few more turn out but again the same results.. No hate groups or racial slurs, no signs, nothing at all like what the media describes.

Yet when the Cleveland news channel reported on them that evening they told an entirely different story. They made sure there was the "feeling" of racism and hatred. They said the police were on hand to control the situation... There were no police there. The security guard was a sheriff's Dept. retiree/volunteer who is always there... Also they showed ictures of people holding signs with racial remarks on them, and non of that was true at all... Matter of fact the town our fairgrounds is in, has a rather large black community. Our school board has more black members than white. our population here in the actual city is actually very near 50/50 black and white.

This was a deliberate misleading account of both those tea parties...


----------



## Sarah G

gslack said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will wait for someone who actually read the post and has a reasonable, thoughtful response....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't fear them, they've yet to do anything positive for this country, the country they claim to want to take back.
> 
> They need more credible leadership and spokespeople who can communicate well with a bigger tent in mind.  To me, they're just more of the same.  Angry religious righters with no focus other than to spread hate far and wide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, is that based on what you know from experience, or from what the media told you?
> 
> I live right next to my county fairgrounds. Literally I am right across the street. We have had 2 Tea partys there this past year and at the first one, there was virtually no noise at all. In fact there was no evidence that anything was going on to anyone not already aware of it. No signs, no racist  groups or hate speak at all. Couldn't have been more than a couple hundred people there all day. Not one time did the noise bother me and I was having a family barbecue that day.
> 
> The second one had a few more turn out but again the same results.. No hate groups or racial slurs, no signs, nothing at all like what the media describes.
> 
> Yet when the Cleveland news channel reported on them that evening they told an entirely different story. They made sure there was the "feeling" of racism and hatred. They said the police were on hand to control the situation... There were no police there. The security guard was a sheriff's Dept. retiree/volunteer who is always there... Also they showed ictures of people holding signs with racial remarks on them, and non of that was true at all... Matter of fact the town our fairgrounds is in, has a rather large black community. Our school board has more black members than white. our population here in the actual city is actually very near 50/50 black and white.
> 
> This was a deliberate misleading account of both those tea parties...
Click to expand...


Stop blaming the media for teparty failure to get their message out.  They're the ones who are allowing Bachman and Palin to take over.  Extreme religious righters.

You seem very whiney and unfocused.  Explain their simple minded leadership and their inability to get the "true" teaparty message out.  You can't other than to blame the media the reason?  They are simply what we the people see them as.  Hate, ignorance and intolerance.  Nothing more.

Crybaby.


----------



## gslack

Sarah G said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't fear them, they've yet to do anything positive for this country, the country they claim to want to take back.
> 
> They need more credible leadership and spokespeople who can communicate well with a bigger tent in mind.  To me, they're just more of the same.  Angry religious righters with no focus other than to spread hate far and wide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, is that based on what you know from experience, or from what the media told you?
> 
> I live right next to my county fairgrounds. Literally I am right across the street. We have had 2 Tea partys there this past year and at the first one, there was virtually no noise at all. In fact there was no evidence that anything was going on to anyone not already aware of it. No signs, no racist  groups or hate speak at all. Couldn't have been more than a couple hundred people there all day. Not one time did the noise bother me and I was having a family barbecue that day.
> 
> The second one had a few more turn out but again the same results.. No hate groups or racial slurs, no signs, nothing at all like what the media describes.
> 
> Yet when the Cleveland news channel reported on them that evening they told an entirely different story. They made sure there was the "feeling" of racism and hatred. They said the police were on hand to control the situation... There were no police there. The security guard was a sheriff's Dept. retiree/volunteer who is always there... Also they showed ictures of people holding signs with racial remarks on them, and non of that was true at all... Matter of fact the town our fairgrounds is in, has a rather large black community. Our school board has more black members than white. our population here in the actual city is actually very near 50/50 black and white.
> 
> This was a deliberate misleading account of both those tea parties...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop blaming the media for teparty failure to get their message out.  They're the ones who are allowing Bachman and Palin to take over.  Extreme religious righters.
> 
> You seem very whiney and unfocused.  Explain their simple minded leadership and their inability to get the "true" teaparty message out.  You can't other than to blame the media the reason?  They are simply what we the people see them as.  Hate, ignorance and intolerance.  Nothing more.
> 
> Crybaby.
Click to expand...


WTH?????

I didn't cry nor did I insult you at all!!!!!! Please point to where ANY of this happened in my post..... I was respectful and gave a legitimate example based on personal experience, and asked you respectfully if your opinion was based on what you know from experience or from what you are told by the media...

Fact: Palin does not run the tea party, nor does any other candidate...

Your response to my question, and immediate claim of sarah palin (known idiot and opportunistic press whore) shows exactly where you get your information on this from....

THe only crying that went on was YOU in the last post.... I showed my personal experience regarding this and asked on yours, and you resorted to being dismissive and generalizing tea party(ers) to palin and bachman supporters, and insulting me...

Once again you make my OP all the more clear....


----------



## Sarah G

gslack said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, is that based on what you know from experience, or from what the media told you?
> 
> I live right next to my county fairgrounds. Literally I am right across the street. We have had 2 Tea partys there this past year and at the first one, there was virtually no noise at all. In fact there was no evidence that anything was going on to anyone not already aware of it. No signs, no racist  groups or hate speak at all. Couldn't have been more than a couple hundred people there all day. Not one time did the noise bother me and I was having a family barbecue that day.
> 
> The second one had a few more turn out but again the same results.. No hate groups or racial slurs, no signs, nothing at all like what the media describes.
> 
> Yet when the Cleveland news channel reported on them that evening they told an entirely different story. They made sure there was the "feeling" of racism and hatred. They said the police were on hand to control the situation... There were no police there. The security guard was a sheriff's Dept. retiree/volunteer who is always there... Also they showed ictures of people holding signs with racial remarks on them, and non of that was true at all... Matter of fact the town our fairgrounds is in, has a rather large black community. Our school board has more black members than white. our population here in the actual city is actually very near 50/50 black and white.
> 
> This was a deliberate misleading account of both those tea parties...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop blaming the media for teparty failure to get their message out.  They're the ones who are allowing Bachman and Palin to take over.  Extreme religious righters.
> 
> You seem very whiney and unfocused.  Explain their simple minded leadership and their inability to get the "true" teaparty message out.  You can't other than to blame the media the reason?  They are simply what we the people see them as.  Hate, ignorance and intolerance.  Nothing more.
> 
> Crybaby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTH?????
> 
> I didn't cry nor did I insult you at all!!!!!! Please point to where ANY of this happened in my post..... I was respectful and gave a legitimate example based on personal experience, and asked you respectfully if your opinion was based on what you know from experience or from what you are told by the media...
> 
> Fact: Palin does not run the tea party, nor does any other candidate...
> 
> Your response to my question, and immediate claim of sarah palin (known idiot and opportunistic press whore) shows exactly where you get your information on this from....
> 
> THe only crying that went on was YOU in the last post.... I showed my personal experience regarding this and asked on yours, and you resorted to being dismissive and generalizing tea party(ers) to palin and bachman supporters, and insulting me...
> 
> Once again you make my OP all the more clear....
Click to expand...


Of course.  The only correct opinion is yours, in your own mind.

You've been blaming the media with every post.  The teapartiers are protesting around the country and the press is taking pics of the people and their signs, they're yelling and taunting, they are not peaceful protests.  They're haters alright.


----------



## editec

You wish the tea party was "so frightening", I suspect.

It isn't.

It is a healthy expression of the discontent felt by a lot of Americans.

While I think they're mostly wrong in how to solve the problems we're all facing, I applaude them for finally getting off their asses to petition their government.


----------



## AllieBaba

Old Rocks said:


> If the Teabaggers had come into existance when Bush started his wars off the books, and defunding government by giving the wealthy huge tax breaks, I could respect them. As it is, they only showed up when a Democratic President was attempting to stave off the Second Great Republican Depression.
> 
> Then you look at the signs they carry in some of their rallies! Birthers, people that say things like "Keep Government out of our Medicare".
> 
> While I find observing the Teabaggers to be a great source of humor, I find no serious message in their antics. Mostly resentment, racial and economic. Nothing there to respect at all.



Your democratic piece of shit president has done more to sink us into depression than any one person in the history of the country. Nothing there to respect at all.


----------



## AllieBaba

Sarah G said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop blaming the media for teparty failure to get their message out.  They're the ones who are allowing Bachman and Palin to take over.  Extreme religious righters.
> 
> You seem very whiney and unfocused.  Explain their simple minded leadership and their inability to get the "true" teaparty message out.  You can't other than to blame the media the reason?  They are simply what we the people see them as.  Hate, ignorance and intolerance.  Nothing more.
> 
> Crybaby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTH?????
> 
> I didn't cry nor did I insult you at all!!!!!! Please point to where ANY of this happened in my post..... I was respectful and gave a legitimate example based on personal experience, and asked you respectfully if your opinion was based on what you know from experience or from what you are told by the media...
> 
> Fact: Palin does not run the tea party, nor does any other candidate...
> 
> Your response to my question, and immediate claim of sarah palin (known idiot and opportunistic press whore) shows exactly where you get your information on this from....
> 
> THe only crying that went on was YOU in the last post.... I showed my personal experience regarding this and asked on yours, and you resorted to being dismissive and generalizing tea party(ers) to palin and bachman supporters, and insulting me...
> 
> Once again you make my OP all the more clear....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course.  The only correct opinion is yours, in your own mind.
> 
> You've been blaming the media with every post.  The teapartiers are protesting around the country and the press is taking pics of the people and their signs, they're yelling and taunting, they are not peaceful protests.  They're haters alright.
Click to expand...


I continue to be amazed at the stupidity of people.

They are peaceful protests. Apparently you don't know what violence is, having been protected all your life by people who do know.

The only violence at tea party demonstrations has been violence by the left, aimed at the protesters.


----------



## code1211

uscitizen said:


> I read the OP.  I made a reasonable thoughtful response.
> Sorry it does not agree with your definition of a reasonable and thoughtful response.




As I understand the TEA Party, they would not have supported the policies of Bush.  IF you read the OP and you understand anything of politics beyond labels, you would not have made the response you made to the OP.


----------



## AllieBaba

The tea partiers are scary because they protest tyranny and carry pocket Constitutions...


OOOooooooooo....SCARY!


----------



## editec

AllieBaba said:


> The tea partiers are scary because they protest tyranny and carry pocket Constitutions...
> 
> 
> OOOooooooooo....SCARY!


 
Yeah the antiwar movment, the civil rights movements all were accused of the same thing.

Anytime the PEOPLE gather in protest, those in power start talking about how threating that is to social order.

Note that in this nation being a *demogogue* is thought to be an insult?

Now what is a demogogue?

"a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular passions and prejudices "


Yeah, what a bad thing to do in a *demo*cratic republic, eh?

Appealing to the people for support.

Truly! How evil demogoguery must seem to people who essantially hate and fear that one day people will one day wake up and tear down the ediface of this shamocracy.


----------



## CMike

Dissent is a terrible threat to the neo liberals.


----------



## William Joyce

gslack said:


> Everyday I see a knew article in the news or a new post here on USMB regarding the tea party, partiers, whatever. I have noticed something very strange.... I see very little positive threads started on them, and far too many negative ones. of all the negative ones I have seen, the most of them are decidedly left sided, and prone to exaggerations, misleading claims, and outright lies about what they are doing or represent....
> 
> Most of the time the threads about the tea party movement resort to calling the partiers ignorant hicks, uneducated, or racist hate-filled mobs of angry people all trying to intimidate or threaten. I wonder if this were true, why has there not been any arrests or riots yet? All we see or hear are these extreme claims and yet nothing regarding what was done about it.. What is there no Cops at these things? Are there no security or anti-tea partiers to at least give a counter argument? I mean if half the things we hear are true, why are they still walking around free? This leads me to believe there is far more propaganda than truth in these claims.
> 
> Also, I wonder if they really are so ignorant and uneducated, and their meetings so filled with mindless hate; why do they fear them so much? I mean in order to dedicate so much time to attack something one must have a good reason for it.. And the only good reason I can imagine must have some sort of fear involved... Fear of dissent, fear of racial hatred, fear of crazy uneducated folk with guns, fear of something... And if it is fear, why all the fear?
> 
> Indeed what is to fear in groups of so-called uneducated folk venting? They have guns? Well so do the cops and the cops will be legally in their right to shoot them if they become dangerous. The fear of racial hatred? Well then why don't we arrest all the KKK or white supremest groups? maybe the fear of spreading stupidity? Well if its so stupid why would it spread? According to the left media, it is so ignorant and only serves the side of hatred and only an idiot would follow it... So if we are not all idiots, and we can easily see how ignorant it is, why all the bother and press time?
> 
> Its simple really, I think Louis Farrakhan is an idiot and only morons would follow him, so I don't pay attention to him. Problem solved and no fear at all... Sure he has some followers, but I do not fear them because I know they are limited by laws and have at least enough sense to know what they can get away with. So why do the media and so many left leaning people dedicate so much of their time on them?
> 
> The answer to that is simple... The tea party movement represents something government and left minded governments fear the most... Free thought... All things start with a thought, and from that thought can grow more critical thinking and then questions arise. Questions that no one who isn't thinking freely will ever ask. Then those freethinkers will gather and exchange information and share knowledge, ask questions and get answers. This gathering and exchange will be free of the media spin and biased political party nonsense. And without that spin, real knowledge and critical thought will empower those people.
> 
> If left alone this movement will allow left, right and center minded people to exchange ideas and talk without the media enhanced left vs right haze, without the absolutism of placating and throw away political ideologies, and without someone telling them how bad their neighbor is.... Soon that neighbor will no longer be left or right, but simply a neighbor just like themselves with many of the same fears and concerns..
> 
> This is the fear to end all fears of any government drunk with power, and desiring nothing more than their own well being. Look throughout history and see what exactly what I am talking about. Before the media became so powerful a political tool; before Hitler and so many since. Look and you will find free thought started revolutions that lead to the greatest changes in the world.
> 
> Right now the left has power hear in this country. But watch and when the right has power, see how they change their stance on the tea party movement... They will vilify them and say they were okay before the lefty socialists took it over, and any other excuse or reason they can find. They will fear them just as the left does now, but right now they serve a purpose for them. So they applaud them quietly and condemn the extreme examples.
> 
> In my opinion, the tea party movement could be the foundations of the next big national change, or even world change. Sure some of the bad elements may try and move in on it, but they will not live long amongst free thinkers. Those types never do. They hide in the shadows and prey on the weak. And people desiring to exchange directly with each other rather than accepting what they are told by media or politicians are not weak..
> 
> Perhaps the next time any of you condemn this movement off hand, you will take a closer look and realize these are possibly the Jeffersons, Adams, and Franklins of this era....



The fear is that whites are getting a backbone.  There may be nothing to worry about right now, because the Tea Party people strenuously deny that they are "racist".  But the fact is that race is what's motivating this... a white minority coming in 2042, a black president, Hispanic illegals flooding in... YES, VIRGINIA, whites are very worried.

They of course have a right to be.  And they shouldn't fear just saying, "Yeah, actually, what bothers me is walking in to Wal-Mart and seeing three Muslim ladies in a hijab stroll past, a lady who doesn't speak English at the checkout and three shirtless black gangbangers eyeing me as I walk back to my car."

But they do.  Being a "racist" is the system's biggest offense -- and remember, only WHITES can be "racist."  Blacks, Hispanics, Jews... never racist.  Even when they are.

The "system" is dominated by those who hate whites:  Jews, anti-white minorities, a few self-hating whites.

Things like the Tea Party have the POTENTIAL to become a white resistance movement, and of course that will never do.  Whites are supposed to just be quiet and keep providing the tax base for the minority state and the cannon fodder for Wars for Israel.

You wanted an honest answer about why the Tea Party is so controversial, and that's my offering.

But feel free to ignore it.  The more truthful something is, of course, the more "racist" it is.


----------



## Big Fitz

uscitizen said:


> I have not condemned the party of Bush in an offhand manner.
> They have earned my disrespect.


Now see, this is one of the big mistakes of Tea Party haters.  They are blind to the fact that most Tea Partiers are pretty damn pissed off at W too.  Worse, they feel betrayed by him because many of them voted for him based on the belief that he would do some conservative things such as shrink the size of government.  Much like some less radical elements of the DNC are feeling betrayed because Obama is a race baiter when he claimed to be post racial.

So, I don't see how you can equate the two groups with any honesty.



> Why? Your original post is so slanted, the only people you will consider "reasonable and/or thoughtful" are those who have slanted opinions just like you. What kind of debate is THAT?



Then why do you even comment on the thread if you are incapable of acknowledging the subject?


----------



## American Horse

gslack said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> So unless I come to the same conclusions as you do on it I will have no reasonable responses?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude  do you have a question or comment other than the trolling we have seen so far?
> 
> if you do please state it, if not then what are you crying about?
> 
> Seriously the OP was not picking a left or right side. if you read it and understood it you would know this... if you don't understand it please ask a question. I will try and make it more clear...
Click to expand...


They've read it, they understand it, and they don't like the implications of it.  Since - in their opinion - only fools, tools, dupes, and criminals occupy the right side of the political specturm, the purpose of their criticism is to discourage wanderers from the "true" path.  Don't go there! Don't be one of them.  They are the evil ones.! A word that describes those who do that is  "blackguards"  (_blaggards_ - look it up)

Here is where they practice their defamation, because there's no better place to access their opponents and de-moralize them.

The danger in this practice is that they throw everyone into the same slanderous category, and the huge independent demographic, and also  dis-affected Dems, neither of which take kindly to it.


----------



## geauxtohell

Luissa said:


> Kind of goes both ways, doesn't it?
> 
> We are afraid of the Tea Party, they are afraid of liberals and Obama.
> It is called politics.



Yeah, that about sums it up.


----------



## geauxtohell

uscitizen said:


> So unless I come to the same conclusions as you do on it I will have no reasonable responses?



Yeah, that about sums it up.

Wow.  I am starting to sound like a broken record.


----------



## geauxtohell

Samson said:


> I scanned through the OP.
> 
> From what I gather, opposition to the tea party is based on two things:
> 
> 1. They are caught up in emotion
> 
> 2. They are manipulated by special interests



Ironic that we say the same thing about the Tea Party.

Then again, it's a little hard to debates the merits of a "movement" that doesn't really have an official position, leader, or platform.


----------



## Zona

Rand Paul!


----------



## Zona

geauxtohell said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I scanned through the OP.
> 
> From what I gather, opposition to the tea party is based on two things:
> 
> 1. They are caught up in emotion
> 
> 2. They are manipulated by special interests
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic that we say the same thing about the Tea Party.
> 
> Then again, it's a little hard to debates the merits of a "movement" that doesn't really have an official position, leader, or platform.
Click to expand...


They do have a leader...his name is Dick Armey.


----------



## Foxfyre

Initial impression scanning through the thread to this point:

1.  Wordy but well written OP with plenty of meat for discussion.

2.  Typical mostly kneejerk  'kill the messenger' posts from the left with typical unsupportable ad hominem and one liner talking points that you can find repeated throughout leftwing sites on the Internet.  No original or thoughtful concepts detected.

3.  The inevitable criticism of the kneejerk "kill the messenger' posters from those who might otherwise have discussed the thesis.

4.  The few who actually did attempt to discuss the thesis were pretty much drowned out by the other stuff.

So, having said that, my two cents worth here:

To those who criticize the Tea Partiers because they didn't protest during the Bush administration, they didn't have to.  Your side was out there in force protesting anything and everything.   The Tea Partiers became truly alarmed, however, when TARP was passed in late 2008 as most Tea Partiers saw that as a really bad and dangerous thing.  The evidence was in letters to the editor and on the message boards.

Now that Obama is President, even though the exact same problems exist, all those protesters during the Bush administration have crawled back into the wood work.  This would suggest they hated the man and not so much his policies, yes?

And as the indefensible (as the Tea Partiers see it) TARP legislation has been escalated, misused, abused, and trillions of dollars of mistakes along with erosion of individual rights have been piled on top of it all during last year, the Tea Partiers became concerned enough and angry enough to mobilize.

They are the voice of the people expressing their opinions and they aren't attacking people or parties.  They are attacking bad ideas, bad programs, indefensible fiscal irresponsibility, and deficits that threaten to bankrupt the nation.

And in my opinion, people fear them because deep down they know they are right.


----------



## geauxtohell

Zona said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I scanned through the OP.
> 
> From what I gather, opposition to the tea party is based on two things:
> 
> 1. They are caught up in emotion
> 
> 2. They are manipulated by special interests
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ironic that we say the same thing about the Tea Party.
> 
> Then again, it's a little hard to debates the merits of a "movement" that doesn't really have an official position, leader, or platform.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They do have a leader...his name is Dick Armey.
Click to expand...


And they dispute that, just as we dispute being manipulated by "special interests".

That's a curious statement to make, however.  There isn't an "anti-Tea Party" movement.  Just ordinary Americans who find the movement absurd (or insert appropriate pejorative here).  

Since there is no organized effort, it would be a little hard to be "manipulated by special interests".


----------



## gslack

Sarah G said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop blaming the media for teparty failure to get their message out.  They're the ones who are allowing Bachman and Palin to take over.  Extreme religious righters.
> 
> You seem very whiney and unfocused.  Explain their simple minded leadership and their inability to get the "true" teaparty message out.  You can't other than to blame the media the reason?  They are simply what we the people see them as.  Hate, ignorance and intolerance.  Nothing more.
> 
> Crybaby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTH?????
> 
> I didn't cry nor did I insult you at all!!!!!! Please point to where ANY of this happened in my post..... I was respectful and gave a legitimate example based on personal experience, and asked you respectfully if your opinion was based on what you know from experience or from what you are told by the media...
> 
> Fact: Palin does not run the tea party, nor does any other candidate...
> 
> Your response to my question, and immediate claim of sarah palin (known idiot and opportunistic press whore) shows exactly where you get your information on this from....
> 
> THe only crying that went on was YOU in the last post.... I showed my personal experience regarding this and asked on yours, and you resorted to being dismissive and generalizing tea party(ers) to palin and bachman supporters, and insulting me...
> 
> Once again you make my OP all the more clear....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course.  The only correct opinion is yours, in your own mind.
> 
> You've been blaming the media with every post.  The teapartiers are protesting around the country and the press is taking pics of the people and their signs, they're yelling and taunting, they are not peaceful protests.  They're haters alright.
Click to expand...


WTF???? I said no such thing.... All you have done is parrot what MSNBC says.. you have shown nothing of your own thoughts based on any experience with them. Nor have you even attempted to do any research outside your liberal slanted MSM outlets. And whats worse you resorted to name calling and absolutes. Absolutes taken straight from Olberman and the talking heads at MSNBC...

You obviously don't actually know about these tea parties, all you do is follow the liberal line on this.... I challenge you to go and look for yourself... Seriously what do you have to loose, other than possibly some preconceptions? If they are so bad a quick visit to one will clarify it... And wouldn't that be better than taking anyone else's word? At least you could have something more than repeating the PR....


----------



## Samson

gslack said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will wait for someone who actually read the post and has a reasonable, thoughtful response....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I scanned through the OP.
> 
> From what I gather, opposition to the tea party is based on two things:
> 
> 1. They are caught up in emotion
> 
> Isn't "being caught up in emotion" the per certus for any "movement?" (I suppose an exception could be made for the Apathy Party Movement, but they don't care enough to apply)
> 
> 2. They are manipulated by special interests
> 
> Again, with the exception of the Apathy Party Movement, who cannot be accused of being "manipulated by special interests?" Also, again, isn't having special interests the per certus for any movement?
> 
> Of course, if any movement is not alligned with our own, then it must, AGAIN, per certus, be "motivated by the lust for power and avarice."
> 
> In summary: What else do you expect a political movement to be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, the OP was actually about the media and the political parties use or abuse of the tea party movement versus what they most likely (in most cases) actually represent...
> 
> All political parties seek power. For good or bad, right or wrong they all do..
Click to expand...


OK, then I think that the tea party challenges the status quo, threatening most the party in power (dems), second, the minority party (repub), and thirdly a media that likes the simplicity that a two party system offers to their storylines that depend on a "Good" vs. "Evil" plot.


----------



## gslack

Samson said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> I scanned through the OP.
> 
> From what I gather, opposition to the tea party is based on two things:
> 
> 1. They are caught up in emotion
> 
> Isn't "being caught up in emotion" the per certus for any "movement?" (I suppose an exception could be made for the Apathy Party Movement, but they don't care enough to apply)
> 
> 2. They are manipulated by special interests
> 
> Again, with the exception of the Apathy Party Movement, who cannot be accused of being "manipulated by special interests?" Also, again, isn't having special interests the per certus for any movement?
> 
> Of course, if any movement is not alligned with our own, then it must, AGAIN, per certus, be "motivated by the lust for power and avarice."
> 
> In summary: What else do you expect a political movement to be?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the OP was actually about the media and the political parties use or abuse of the tea party movement versus what they most likely (in most cases) actually represent...
> 
> All political parties seek power. For good or bad, right or wrong they all do..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, then I think that the tea party challenges the status quo, threatening most the party in power (dems), second, the minority party (repub), and thirdly a media that likes the simplicity that a two party system offers to their storylines that depend on a "Good" vs. "Evil" plot.
Click to expand...


Agreed 100%..... Good post, very truthful...


----------



## geauxtohell

Samson said:


> OK, then I think that the tea party challenges the status quo, threatening most the party in power (dems), second, the minority party (repub), and thirdly a media that likes the simplicity that a two party system offers to their storylines that depend on a "Good" vs. "Evil" plot.



The inherent design of our system ("winner takes all") is what creates a two party system.  If the Dems or GOP go away, another party will take their place, but ultimately it will still be a two party system.  

If people want legitimate third parties, it would be more productive to advocate for switching to a parliamentarian system than blaming the media or whatever.


----------



## Samson

geauxtohell said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, then I think that the tea party challenges the status quo, threatening most the party in power (dems), second, the minority party (repub), and thirdly a media that likes the simplicity that a two party system offers to their storylines that depend on a "Good" vs. "Evil" plot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The inherent design of our system ("winner takes all") is what creates a two party system.  If the Dems or GOP go away, another party will take their place, but ultimately it will still be a two party system.
> 
> If people want legitimate third parties, it would be more productive to advocate for switching to a parliamentarian system than blaming the media or whatever.
Click to expand...


Not sure what you mean by "winner takes all inherent design" of the US Political System? That it isn't parliamentarian? So What?

I'm much less inclined to understand why this would promote two, rather than one, or three, or 5 parties?

If people want a legitamate third party, then I agree that "blaming" the media for maintaining two parties is ineffective, but this doesn't reduce the media value of two establish rivals making simpler press for a simple public.

Why is it so impossible to form a third party that is simply popular?

Don't give me any crap like, "Its never been done before," or, "Because its new." Obviously. Other wise, it wouldn't need forming: ALL political movements begin this way.


----------



## Foxfyre

Samson said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, then I think that the tea party challenges the status quo, threatening most the party in power (dems), second, the minority party (repub), and thirdly a media that likes the simplicity that a two party system offers to their storylines that depend on a "Good" vs. "Evil" plot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The inherent design of our system ("winner takes all") is what creates a two party system.  If the Dems or GOP go away, another party will take their place, but ultimately it will still be a two party system.
> 
> If people want legitimate third parties, it would be more productive to advocate for switching to a parliamentarian system than blaming the media or whatever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean by "winner takes all inherent design" of the US Political System? That it isn't parliamentarian? So What?
> 
> I'm much less inclined to understand why this would promote two, rather than one, or three, or 5 parties?
> 
> If people want a legitamate third party, then I agree that "blaming" the media for maintaining two parties is ineffective, but this doesn't reduce the media value of two establish rivals making simpler press for a simple public.
> 
> Why is it so impossible to form a third party that is simply popular?
> 
> Don't give me any crap like, "Its never been done before," or, "Because its new." Obviously. Other wise, it wouldn't need forming: ALL political movements begin this way.
Click to expand...


I think it is more difficult to build a viable third party these days because:

1)  The old guard Democrats and Republicans don't want one and they will do what they have to to make it as difficult as possible for a third party candidate such as rules excluding a marginal third party guy from the debates, etc.

2)  Despite the obscene amount of money spent on US elections, there is a finite amount of money and it takes a lot of it to win in the larger districts/states.  When the old guard can command most of the purse strings, it is really difficult for a third party candidate to raise money.

3)  The mainstream media in the USA has become mostly an extension and quasi-department of the Democratic Party and is not going to give much of a fair hearing to a non-Democrat UNLESS they can control th agenda and unless they think that person can be made to look radical, foolish, stupid, or whatever.   And any face time such person gets will be ridiculed and demonized by pundits later.

Ross Perot and the Reform Party almost did it though out of his sheer entertainment value and charisma that caught the imagination of a very large number of Americans.   Given that Clinton got 43% and Bush 38% in the 1992 election, I think if he hadn't wigged out and went nuts, Perot very well might have done it.


----------



## Samson

Foxfyre said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The inherent design of our system ("winner takes all") is what creates a two party system.  If the Dems or GOP go away, another party will take their place, but ultimately it will still be a two party system.
> 
> If people want legitimate third parties, it would be more productive to advocate for switching to a parliamentarian system than blaming the media or whatever.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean by "winner takes all inherent design" of the US Political System? That it isn't parliamentarian? So What?
> 
> I'm much less inclined to understand why this would promote two, rather than one, or three, or 5 parties?
> 
> If people want a legitamate third party, then I agree that "blaming" the media for maintaining two parties is ineffective, but this doesn't reduce the media value of two establish rivals making simpler press for a simple public.
> 
> Why is it so impossible to form a third party that is simply popular?
> 
> Don't give me any crap like, "Its never been done before," or, "Because its new." Obviously. Other wise, it wouldn't need forming: ALL political movements begin this way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think it is more difficult to build a viable third party these days because:
> 
> 1)  The old guard Democrats and Republicans don't want one and they will do what they have to to make it as difficult as possible for a third party candidate such as rules excluding a marginal third party guy from the debates, etc.
> 
> 2)  Despite the obscene amount of money spent on US elections, there is a finite amount of money and it takes a lot of it to win in the larger districts/states.  When the old guard can command most of the purse strings, it is really difficult for a third party candidate to raise money.
> 
> 3)  The mainstream media in the USA has become mostly an extension and quasi-department of the Democratic Party and is not going to give much of a fair hearing to a non-Democrat UNLESS they can control th agenda and unless they think that person can be made to look radical, foolish, stupid, or whatever.   And any face time such person gets will be ridiculed and demonized by pundits later.
> 
> Ross Perot and the Reform Party almost did it though out of his sheer entertainment value and charisma that caught the imagination of a very large number of Americans.   Given that Clinton got 43% and Bush 38% in the 1992 election, I think if he hadn't wigged out and went nuts, Perot very well might have done it.
Click to expand...


A playground is more difficult to build today than it was.

But I'm surprised that a third party wouldn't really be EASIER to build.

1. Obviously the Dems & Republicans don't want competition, but they've never been less popular

2. Why shouldn't it be easy to raise money? More people today have cable TV and internet, and I, for example, know more about growing "upside-down tomatos" than people could have ever imagined 20 years ago! Hell, I may even BUY ONE.

3. Media...pttthhhhhhhhhhhh......becomming less and less influential every time a toddler learns to log-on to the internet.

No, there will be some major changes in store for Dems & Repubs, either in 2012, 2016, 2020......We're just seeing the begining of the results of a _modern_ (internet based, traditional media-independent political movement). No longer will representatives be shipped off to Washington to chase skirts and make backroom deals without answering for them THE SAME HOUR as consituants demand active representation.


----------



## Foxfyre

Samson said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure what you mean by "winner takes all inherent design" of the US Political System? That it isn't parliamentarian? So What?
> 
> I'm much less inclined to understand why this would promote two, rather than one, or three, or 5 parties?
> 
> If people want a legitamate third party, then I agree that "blaming" the media for maintaining two parties is ineffective, but this doesn't reduce the media value of two establish rivals making simpler press for a simple public.
> 
> Why is it so impossible to form a third party that is simply popular?
> 
> Don't give me any crap like, "Its never been done before," or, "Because its new." Obviously. Other wise, it wouldn't need forming: ALL political movements begin this way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is more difficult to build a viable third party these days because:
> 
> 1)  The old guard Democrats and Republicans don't want one and they will do what they have to to make it as difficult as possible for a third party candidate such as rules excluding a marginal third party guy from the debates, etc.
> 
> 2)  Despite the obscene amount of money spent on US elections, there is a finite amount of money and it takes a lot of it to win in the larger districts/states.  When the old guard can command most of the purse strings, it is really difficult for a third party candidate to raise money.
> 
> 3)  The mainstream media in the USA has become mostly an extension and quasi-department of the Democratic Party and is not going to give much of a fair hearing to a non-Democrat UNLESS they can control th agenda and unless they think that person can be made to look radical, foolish, stupid, or whatever.   And any face time such person gets will be ridiculed and demonized by pundits later.
> 
> Ross Perot and the Reform Party almost did it though out of his sheer entertainment value and charisma that caught the imagination of a very large number of Americans.   Given that Clinton got 43% and Bush 38% in the 1992 election, I think if he hadn't wigged out and went nuts, Perot very well might have done it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A playground is more difficult to build today than it was.
> 
> But I'm surprised that a third party wouldn't really be EASIER to build.
> 
> 1. Obviously the Dems & Republicans don't want competition, but they've never been less popular
> 
> 2. Why shouldn't it be easy to raise money? More people today have cable TV and internet, and I, for example, know more about growing "upside-down tomatos" than people could have ever imagined 20 years ago! Hell, I may even BUY ONE.
> 
> 3. Media...pttthhhhhhhhhhhh......becomming less and less influential every time a toddler learns to log-on to the internet.
> 
> No, there will be some major changes in store for Dems & Repubs, either in 2012, 2016, 2020......We're just seeing the begining of the results of a _modern_ (internet based, traditional media-independent political movement). No longer will representatives be shipped off to Washington to chase skirts and make backroom deals without answering for them THE SAME HOUR as consituants demand active representation.
Click to expand...


I hope there will be major changes and major reforms within all political parties.  Never has the country more desperately needed that.

But it is harder for a non-Democrat or Republican to raise money because they don't have the big, experienced,and well tested political machines the major political parties have, and therefore they don't have the connections to the big money donors that the major political parties have.  Why do people give really big donations to political parties or candidates?  There are exceptions, but for the most part it is not out of some noble ideological purpose.  It is to have a foot in the door and the ear of those in power.

Few big money donors will take a chance on an unknown quantity.  There are literally dozens of registered political parties in the United States, but most people have never heard of most of them, and even the more familiar ones are not considered viable in anything other than really local elections.

And don't shortsell the media influence either.  Given the deplorable lack of curiosity re the issues and credentials of the candidates by so many of the electorate, name recognition and star appeal has become as important as anything else.  The media may be in low esteem these days, but they still have the power to get the names and photos out there.  And they can word headlines, pose photos, and cast the names into short impresssions that do color how the people feel about those candidates.

Those of us who actually do study the candidates and the issues are not as easily manipulated.  But alas, I fear far too many are.


----------



## Wicked Jester

Gslack, they are so negative about the tea partiers because they abjectly fear them. They fear what happened with Brown. They know that this isn't just a flash in the pan movement. They fear the fact that so many people don't support their beloved messiah. They fear the fact that they are calling Obama out for his abject failures, and the insane direction he wants to take this great country. But the real fear comes from the fact that they are beginning to realize that they ignorantly bought into that hopey changey bullshit, and nothings changed. They were sucked in by an empty suit with nothing more than sappy assed campaign slogans, and no experience whatsoever. Their lives are no better with that asshat in office, and they know it........LMAO!

I find these lil' douchbags amusing. The way they express their fear is comical. Particulalrly that VA yank douchebag. His fear of Palin and the tea partiers is palpable and downright funny!


----------



## Mr Natural

Frightening, no.

Amusing, yes.


----------



## Samson

Foxfyre said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think it is more difficult to build a viable third party these days because:
> 
> 1)  The old guard Democrats and Republicans don't want one and they will do what they have to to make it as difficult as possible for a third party candidate such as rules excluding a marginal third party guy from the debates, etc.
> 
> 2)  Despite the obscene amount of money spent on US elections, there is a finite amount of money and it takes a lot of it to win in the larger districts/states.  When the old guard can command most of the purse strings, it is really difficult for a third party candidate to raise money.
> 
> 3)  The mainstream media in the USA has become mostly an extension and quasi-department of the Democratic Party and is not going to give much of a fair hearing to a non-Democrat UNLESS they can control th agenda and unless they think that person can be made to look radical, foolish, stupid, or whatever.   And any face time such person gets will be ridiculed and demonized by pundits later.
> 
> Ross Perot and the Reform Party almost did it though out of his sheer entertainment value and charisma that caught the imagination of a very large number of Americans.   Given that Clinton got 43% and Bush 38% in the 1992 election, I think if he hadn't wigged out and went nuts, Perot very well might have done it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A playground is more difficult to build today than it was.
> 
> But I'm surprised that a third party wouldn't really be EASIER to build.
> 
> 1. Obviously the Dems & Republicans don't want competition, but they've never been less popular
> 
> 2. Why shouldn't it be easy to raise money? More people today have cable TV and internet, and I, for example, know more about growing "upside-down tomatos" than people could have ever imagined 20 years ago! Hell, I may even BUY ONE.
> 
> 3. Media...pttthhhhhhhhhhhh......becomming less and less influential every time a toddler learns to log-on to the internet.
> 
> No, there will be some major changes in store for Dems & Repubs, either in 2012, 2016, 2020......We're just seeing the begining of the results of a _modern_ (internet based, traditional media-independent political movement). No longer will representatives be shipped off to Washington to chase skirts and make backroom deals without answering for them THE SAME HOUR as consituants demand active representation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope there will be major changes and major reforms within all political parties.  Never has the country more desperately needed that.
> 
> But it is harder for a non-Democrat or Republican to raise money because they don't have the big, experienced,and well tested political machines the major political parties have, and therefore they don't have the connections to the big money donors that the major political parties have.  Why do people give really big donations to political parties or candidates?  There are exceptions, but for the most part it is not out of some noble ideological purpose.  It is to have a foot in the door and the ear of those in power.
> 
> Few big money donors will take a chance on an unknown quantity.  There are literally dozens of registered political parties in the United States, but most people have never heard of most of them, and even the more familiar ones are not considered viable in anything other than really local elections.
> 
> And don't shortsell the media influence either.  Given the deplorable lack of curiosity re the issues and credentials of the candidates by so many of the electorate, name recognition and star appeal has become as important as anything else.  The media may be in low esteem these days, but they still have the power to get the names and photos out there.  And they can word headlines, pose photos, and cast the names into short impresssions that do color how the people feel about those candidates.
> 
> Those of us who actually do study the candidates and the issues are not as easily manipulated.  But alas, I fear far too many are.
Click to expand...


Out of Deperate Need, comes Desperate Measures.

I'd agree with you, IF Dems or Repubs were doing a great job, for ANYONE, but who would give money to such baffons?

Who _wouldn't_ consider a possibly better investment opportunity?

Obviously TV media hasn't disappeared (as is the Vanishing Newspaper). But you neglected to mention that CABLE is the medium: Inexpensive, and wider-spread each day.


----------



## Foxfyre

Samson said:


> Obviously TV media hasn't disappeared (as is the Vanishing Newspaper). But you neglected to mention that CABLE is the medium: Inexpensive, and wider-spread each day.



I consider Cable as media so that is certainly part of it.  In fact, I suspect that most households have cable or direct TV or dish network or some such and don't depend on the free networks only for all TV content.  But with the exception of Fox News, cable generally doesn't pull as many viewers as the free networks do.  Therefore ads may be more affordable on cable only stations but it is necessary to advertise or appear on many more of them to reach the same audience as the free networks can claim.

Either way, running a campaign to reach and influence many millions of voters across a broad, diverse area is going to be costly.


----------



## Samson

Foxfyre said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously TV media hasn't disappeared (as is the Vanishing Newspaper). But you neglected to mention that CABLE is the medium: Inexpensive, and wider-spread each day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I consider Cable as media so that is certainly part of it.  In fact, I suspect that most households have cable or direct TV or dish network or some such and don't depend on the free networks only for all TV content.  But with the exception of Fox News, cable generally doesn't pull as many viewers as the free networks do.  Therefore ads may be more affordable on cable only stations but it is necessary to advertise or appear on many more of them to reach the same audience as the free networks can claim.
> 
> Either way, running a campaign to reach and influence many millions of voters across a broad, diverse area is going to be costly.
Click to expand...


Sure it will.

But, its cheaper per capita than its ever been in history.


----------



## geauxtohell

Samson said:


> Not sure what you mean by "winner takes all inherent design" of the US Political System? That it isn't parliamentarian? So What?



It's basic comparative poli-sci.  Our election system is "winner takes all" which means whoever wins gets all the chips with no mandate to share it with other parties.  So there are only winners and losers.  Parliamentary systems are based around power sharing where parties are allotted seats based on their percentage of the vote.  That's why the United States has always had a two party system.  Even when one goes away (i.e. the Federalists) another one steps in to take it's place.  However, if you look at the parliamentarian systems in Europe, you'll see several parties that have seats in parliament.  There still tends to be two dominant parties, but there are other real options for people who don't like either the labor or Torie party (for example in England).  



> I'm much less inclined to understand why this would promote two, rather than one, or three, or 5 parties?



See the above.  If you win, you get all the marbles.  That means there is little chance for an outside party to establish itself.  Even if they do, it's usually to the detriment of another party that is going extinct.  



> If people want a legitamate third party, then I agree that "blaming" the media for maintaining two parties is ineffective, but this doesn't reduce the media value of two establish rivals making simpler press for a simple public.



It's more than the media.  It's the system.  People already claim that the GOP and DEMs are the same party.  However, the truth is America is a center-right nation.  That means the more extreme views really aren't that attractive to enough people to make a difference in a general election.  Since that's the case, it's just logical that there would be some overlap.  Libertarians can bemoan their relatively poor showing over the past couple of decades, but their platform obviously isn't attracting a ton of voters.



> Why is it so impossible to form a third party that is simply popular?



It's not, but the end result is that it would just push out one of the other parties and we would again have a two party system.  I mean, this is nothing new under the Sun.  There is a reason why this nation has generally had two parties since it's inception.   



> Don't give me any crap like, "Its never been done before," or, "Because its new." Obviously. Other wise, it wouldn't need forming: ALL political movements begin this way.



See above.  Again, it's not the ideas.  It's the way our system is configured. 

Believe me, this isn't just me spouting off my opinion.  It's just basic poli-sci (though it's been a decade since I've taken comparative poli-sci).


----------



## Foxfyre

geauxtohell said:


> It's more than the media.  It's the system.  People already claim that the GOP and DEMs are the same party.  However, the truth is America is a center-right nation.  That means the more extreme views really aren't that attractive to enough people to make a difference in a general election.  Since that's the case, it's just logical that there would be some overlap.  Libertarians can bemoan their relatively poor showing over the past couple of decades, but their platform obviously isn't attracting a ton of voters.



No it isn't.  Just a few points of the Libertarian (big "L") platform in recent years:
*--Oppose the death penalty  *(this would not be the position of many Tea Partiers or libertarians (little "L").

*--Legalize all drugs, alcohol, prostitution, gambling, suicide.*  Many, probably most members of both major parties would oppose no regulation at all on these things and Tea Partiers (libertarian with little "L") are out to reform the worst excesses of government but are not gung ho to completely rewrite the cultural social contract.

*--No US intervention the affairs of other countries.*  I think a lot of Tea Partiers remember the Cuban missile crisis or understand the implications of nuclear weapons, etc. in the hands of a crazy man.  They did not and would not oppose forcing a Saddam Hussein to relinquish illegal seizure of Kuwait who had done no harm to Iraq or preventing Saddam from taking the Saudi oil fields by force which he was poised to do.  Meddling where it isn't any of our business should not be U.S. policy.  But preventing madmen from creating intolerable situations on earth could of necessity involve us.   What, for instance, would have been the consequences of allowing Hitler to continue unimpeded?  How many more innocent Jews and others would have paid the price for us 'minding our own business'?  What would that have ultimately cost us?

*Abolish all trade agreements.*   I think most Tea Partiers (libertarian with little "L") do support free, unimpeded markets.  But I think most would want to look long and hard as to whether no treaties or trade agreements are ever appropriate before just saying 'no'.

*Repeal all gun control regulation including restrictions on any form of weapons.*  I think many Tea Partiers would want to look closely at this one too.  I think they would think letting Uncle Billy, who gets drunk and stupid every weekend, have a fully armed Bradley Tank in his back yard would be a bad idea.

*Repeal all restrictions on immigration.*   Of all Libertarian (big "L") concepts, this one is most strongly opposed by Tea Partiers and probably most Americans.

So it is little wonder that Libertarians (big "L"), who are very different animals from your average Tea Partier, don't attract a lot of support.  When you look at how the Tea Partiers and their very sensible and reasonable emphasis are demonized, it isn't difficult to make the average Libertarian look like a crazed fanatic even when most are anything but that.


----------



## geauxtohell

Foxfyre said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's more than the media.  It's the system.  People already claim that the GOP and DEMs are the same party.  However, the truth is America is a center-right nation.  That means the more extreme views really aren't that attractive to enough people to make a difference in a general election.  Since that's the case, it's just logical that there would be some overlap.  Libertarians can bemoan their relatively poor showing over the past couple of decades, but their platform obviously isn't attracting a ton of voters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't.  Just a few points of the Libertarian (big "L") platform in recent years:
> *--Oppose the death penalty  *(this would not be the position of many Tea Partiers or libertarians (little "L").
> 
> *--Legalize all drugs, alcohol, prostitution, gambling, suicide.*  Many, probably most members of both major parties would oppose no regulation at all on these things and Tea Partiers (libertarian with little "L") are out to reform the worst excesses of government but are not gung ho to completely rewrite the cultural social contract.
> 
> *--No US intervention the affairs of other countries.*  I think a lot of Tea Partiers remember the Cuban missile crisis or understand the implications of nuclear weapons, etc. in the hands of a crazy man.  They did not and would not oppose forcing a Saddam Hussein to relinquish illegal seizure of Kuwait who had done no harm to Iraq or preventing Saddam from taking the Saudi oil fields by force which he was poised to do.  Meddling where it isn't any of our business should not be U.S. policy.  But preventing madmen from creating intolerable situations on earth could of necessity involve us.   What, for instance, would have been the consequences of allowing Hitler to continue unimpeded?  How many more innocent Jews and others would have paid the price for us 'minding our own business'?  What would that have ultimately cost us?
> 
> *Abolish all trade agreements.*   I think most Tea Partiers (libertarian with little "L") do support free, unimpeded markets.  But I think most would want to look long and hard as to whether no treaties or trade agreements are ever appropriate before just saying 'no'.
> 
> *Repeal all gun control regulation including restrictions on any form of weapons.*  I think many Tea Partiers would want to look closely at this one too.  I think they would think letting Uncle Billy, who gets drunk and stupid every weekend, have a fully armed Bradley Tank in his back yard would be a bad idea.
> 
> *Repeal all restrictions on immigration.*   Of all Libertarian (big "L") concepts, this one is most strongly opposed by Tea Partiers and probably most Americans.
> 
> So it is little wonder that Libertarians (big "L"), who are very different animals from your average Tea Partier, don't attract a lot of support.  When you look at how the Tea Partiers and their very sensible and reasonable emphasis are demonized, it isn't difficult to make the average Libertarian look like a crazed fanatic even when most are anything but that.
Click to expand...


Again, if the Libertarian Party became wildly popular overnight, they would just end up displacing the GOP or the DEMS.

The problem I see with the LP is this:  Their platform spans both parties and cuts across some of their core issues.

For example, most DEMS have no problem with the LP's social platform, but have issue with it's economic platform and vice versa for the GOP.

Couple that up with the fact that the GOP has defined itself by social issues and it's easy to see why there has been a lack of traction.


----------



## Foxfyre

geauxtohell said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's more than the media.  It's the system.  People already claim that the GOP and DEMs are the same party.  However, the truth is America is a center-right nation.  That means the more extreme views really aren't that attractive to enough people to make a difference in a general election.  Since that's the case, it's just logical that there would be some overlap.  Libertarians can bemoan their relatively poor showing over the past couple of decades, but their platform obviously isn't attracting a ton of voters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't.  Just a few points of the Libertarian (big "L") platform in recent years:
> *--Oppose the death penalty  *(this would not be the position of many Tea Partiers or libertarians (little "L").
> 
> *--Legalize all drugs, alcohol, prostitution, gambling, suicide.*  Many, probably most members of both major parties would oppose no regulation at all on these things and Tea Partiers (libertarian with little "L") are out to reform the worst excesses of government but are not gung ho to completely rewrite the cultural social contract.
> 
> *--No US intervention the affairs of other countries.*  I think a lot of Tea Partiers remember the Cuban missile crisis or understand the implications of nuclear weapons, etc. in the hands of a crazy man.  They did not and would not oppose forcing a Saddam Hussein to relinquish illegal seizure of Kuwait who had done no harm to Iraq or preventing Saddam from taking the Saudi oil fields by force which he was poised to do.  Meddling where it isn't any of our business should not be U.S. policy.  But preventing madmen from creating intolerable situations on earth could of necessity involve us.   What, for instance, would have been the consequences of allowing Hitler to continue unimpeded?  How many more innocent Jews and others would have paid the price for us 'minding our own business'?  What would that have ultimately cost us?
> 
> *Abolish all trade agreements.*   I think most Tea Partiers (libertarian with little "L") do support free, unimpeded markets.  But I think most would want to look long and hard as to whether no treaties or trade agreements are ever appropriate before just saying 'no'.
> 
> *Repeal all gun control regulation including restrictions on any form of weapons.*  I think many Tea Partiers would want to look closely at this one too.  I think they would think letting Uncle Billy, who gets drunk and stupid every weekend, have a fully armed Bradley Tank in his back yard would be a bad idea.
> 
> *Repeal all restrictions on immigration.*   Of all Libertarian (big "L") concepts, this one is most strongly opposed by Tea Partiers and probably most Americans.
> 
> So it is little wonder that Libertarians (big "L"), who are very different animals from your average Tea Partier, don't attract a lot of support.  When you look at how the Tea Partiers and their very sensible and reasonable emphasis are demonized, it isn't difficult to make the average Libertarian look like a crazed fanatic even when most are anything but that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, if the Libertarian Party became wildly popular overnight, they would just end up displacing the GOP or the DEMS.
> 
> The problem I see with the LP is this:  Their platform spans both parties and cuts across some of their core issues.
> 
> For example, most DEMS have no problem with the LP's social platform, but have issue with it's economic platform and vice versa for the GOP.
> 
> Couple that up with the fact that the GOP has defined itself by social issues and it's easy to see why there has been a lack of traction.
Click to expand...


You really think that Democrats that have regulated and taxed anything that can be identified--yes, yes, I know the GOP isn't in the clear on that one either--but anyway, would they give up all that lovely tax money and power on those social issues?  I think the Dems are even more regulation minded on social issues than the GOP is.

The GOP would certainly agree with Libertarian ideas of lower taxes and much smaller, less restrictive government, but GOPers do see necessity of laws and regulation that discourage infringement of individual rights.  The Libertarians, while by no means are anarchists, do lean in that direction further than most Republicans would.

And the GOP would be solidly unified in opposing opening up the borders to all comers.


----------



## Samson

Foxfyre said:


> And the GOP would be solidly unified in opposing opening up the borders to all comers.





Really?

Why do you think that?


----------



## Foxfyre

Samson said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the GOP would be solidly unified in opposing opening up the borders to all comers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Why do you think that?
Click to expand...


Because right now even John McCain is talking the talk.  I suspect it's temporary though as he has a tough time stepping out of character and being tough on immigration is waaaay out of character for him.

But I can't imagine any Republican, even the most obvious Rinos, ever agreeing to take down the borders and allow anybody and everybody to come and go at will.  Can you?


----------



## Maple

The tea party people are the most educated group of people watching this election. They are thoroughly informed and educated on the candidates and the issues. Many are constitutional scholars. I know, I am a tea partier and a Republican state delegate. In my state of Colorado app 50% of the 6,500 were new to the process, most of them tea partiers who have decided to take the Republican party back to it's roots of fiscal conservatism and individual liberty and responsibility. 

We rocked the assembly by voting Ken Buck for United States senate with 77% of the vote. Jane Norton, Washington insider, is having to petition to be on the ballot, she could not beat Ken at the assembly. That was the tea party that was responsible for this vote.

Another vote, Dan Maes, was the major under-dog, a small business man, won by a small number, and beat  the national news favorite Scott McGinnis a former congressman. Dan is the favorite of the tea party. Dan and Scott are running for governor.

The news media has it wrong---including Fox News.

The senate election will not be between Senator Bennet and Jane Norton it will be Ken Buck and Romanoff. Democrat Romanoff won at the Democratic state assembly- both Bennet( we call him the accidental senator) and Norton are having to petition to be on the ballot. The tea party is the reason for this. We do not want any more Washington insiders, we want true conservatives, who have worked, had to see how business runs from the inside out. As Dan Maes puts it, " I have signed both sides of a paycheck." Ken Buck's  statement is. " I have no friends in Washington and I won't have any when I leave."

Those are real fiscal conservative people running, not career politicians, the tea party is taking the Republican party back one state at a time, and beleive me we will get out the vote this November.


----------



## Foxfyre

I hope you're right that they are now committed to retake and reform the GOP Maple.  We've been going back and forth in New Mexico and Texas as to whether the GOP is a lost cause and the time is ripe to generate that third viable party.

The fear of course is that it will so split the conservative vote that we put the liberal Democrats into power for perpetuity.  And I think New Mexico and Texas are both coming around to that point of view too.


----------



## kurtsprincess

Samson said:


> Why is it so impossible to form a third party that is simply popular?
> 
> Don't give me any crap like, "Its never been done before," or, "Because its new." Obviously. Other wise, it wouldn't need forming: ALL political movements begin this way.



I believe it's because there are no current "third political party members" in congress to be courted and bought by contributors, therefore, there is no money to campaign and the third party gets lost.  

Most third party candidates have been unable to generate the kind of money it takes to become known nationally.  During debates on national tv, how many candidates from other parties are invited?  So, I believe the media is partially responsible for the two-party system, however, I believe apathy is just as responsible.

Which brings me to OP question - why the fear?  Because the apathy is dissolving and people are breaking away from group thought.  Tea Party members are typically not part of a "groupthink" movement, they seem to be all over the board (which I believe another poster said), and that they have no coherent platform.  So the fear is that we are questioning .......... "EVERYTHING".  And, contrary to another poster wanting them to have a leader .... I hope they never do, because, so far, there are no leaders to be corrupted or demonized by the media and politicians.


----------



## gslack

I think the entire thing can be simplified even further... There is no legitimate 3rd party because most people have already been herded into their acceptable boxes. The stragglers are either being conformed through an apparent lack of realistic options, continued pressure from peers and media to pick an acceptable side, or simply dying off because the education system does not reward thinking but only following an accepted process laid before them. 

The fact is some states if you register as an independent you cannot vote in primaries, and in most cases a registered independent is barred from party caucuses and conventions. This means your choices are already limited at the start. This is not true for all states but enough of them to make a serious limitation in options for a great many Americans. And if this were not enough take into account the electoral college and then see the limitations...

This government wants two parties, and as time goes on we will see all other options dry up.  Do you really think its a coincidence Hollywood pushes politics in their films and TV so often these days? The media quietly vilify all non-conformists as crazies and worse, at every chance they get and no one seems to think its odd...

Bottom line if you vote liberal democrat these days, and your candidate wins; you will not get a liberal democrat but a progressive centrist... Its a fact look at Clinton and Obama... And by that same factor if you choose a conservative republican these days you will not get anything like that in the end. Bush was elected on the belief he was a conservative, but his policies and actions were anything but a conservative...

This is no accident.... As soon as a president is elected he is very quickly made aware of what will happen and where the lines are. He has some leeway but on major decisions and policies he is a puppet. Sure he can push for some of his political promises but only so long as they do not interfere with the status quo too greatly. if they do he is quickly put back in line or he suddenly finds himself with less and less support. its not a coincidence or happenstance; its a natural and well known effect of government that wishes to remain in power..

The UN likes it a certain way, the corporations like it a certain way, the banks like it a certain way, the tech, science, and medical fields like it a certain way and somewhere after all those are the people the government was built to protect and work for. You cannot ever think to get all of them to agree on anything. And trying to screw them will get you nowhere fast. So what do you think a government will do? THey will placate them as much as they can and create watered down laws with loop-holes and other nonsense to allow those at the top to manipulate their way through any uncomfortable laws. This keeps all those important to the function and well-being of government to remain pleased enough to help out...

If it were as simple as a third party choice based on merit, it would be easy. But thats not the case at all......


----------



## fyrenza

*Why the tea party movement is so frightening...*

Wow.

'cuz they just want to think and DO for themselves, with LESS gov involvement?

'cuz they understand that if YOU don't actively make the effort to feed yourself, they aren't responsible for your sorry ass?

There isn't an acronym for this, YET, but:

Too Stoopid, Didn't Read.


----------



## rdean

History says when you have large numbers of poor and uneducated people who are also terribly frightened, bad things happen.  Look at Russia and China.  Perfect examples.


----------



## chanel

Yes. Look at Russia and China. And Cuba, Venezuela, Greece...

Fortunately, the tea party doesn't idolize those governments like the America haters do. Did anyone see our asst Secretary of State's comments to China about the AZ law? Posner should resign immediately.


----------



## The Infidel

rdean said:


> History says when you have *large numbers of poor and uneducated people who are also terribly frightened*, bad things happen.  Look at Russia and China.  Perfect examples.



The problem with your comment is, it does'nt describe the "Tea Party" folks at all.... Lots of them are just everyday common people who have never really been involved in politics and are expressing their anger and contempt for the sudden and extreme turn to the left our gov't has taken in the last couple of years.
I dont consider myself a "tea partier" b/c I have been screaming at Washington DC since around 2004 or so... maybe even before that.
Bush is the reason we have Obama, and "the people" who were promised *change* are seeing nothing but politics as usual and they are sick of it!

*I dont see poor uneducated and terribly frightened people...* I see middle class moms and dads who are watching the gov't flush their children and grandchildrens future right down pooper.... Thats what pisses me off the most. My kids are in debt to the tune of trillions of $$$ and I see no end to the spending spree.


----------



## gslack

rdean said:


> History says when you have large numbers of poor and uneducated people who are also terribly frightened, bad things happen.  Look at Russia and China.  Perfect examples.



So then Jefferson, Adams, and all the rest were the poor and uneducated as well I suppose? They were part of a group that was pretty much feeling the same way.... When we had our first tea party in this country, there was a massive destruction of British property in the dumping of the tea into the harbor. Have there even been any acts of vandalism anywhere near that directly related to a tea party?

You generalize this like that and call people uneducated who participate or support the tea parties, yet you fail to realize the truly uneducated tend to follow the status quo rather than oppose it.....


----------



## Samson

gslack said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> History says when you have large numbers of poor and uneducated people who are also terribly frightened, bad things happen.  Look at Russia and China.  Perfect examples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then Jefferson, Adams, and all the rest were the poor and uneducated as well I suppose? They were part of a group that was pretty much feeling the same way.... When we had our first tea party in this country, there was a massive destruction of British property in the dumping of the tea into the harbor. Have there even been any acts of vandalism anywhere near that directly related to a tea party?
> 
> You generalize this like that and call people uneducated who participate or support the tea parties, yet you fail to realize the truly uneducated tend to follow the status quo rather than oppose it.....
Click to expand...



Let's face it rdean's grip on the present is a little slippery, so his understanding of historical context is something that's difficult to take seriously, much less discuss.

The American Revolution was somewhat unique in that the revolt was against a relatively free government, (GB had a parliment) and didn't seek to unseat that government. In fact, had the Britian's Parliment simply allowed the colonies have any representation, or any "slack" the revolution probably would have fizzled, and we would be no more independent than Canada, or Australia.

As a result of British Intrangedance, our government is inherently designed to give slack.


----------



## gslack

Samson said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> History says when you have large numbers of poor and uneducated people who are also terribly frightened, bad things happen.  Look at Russia and China.  Perfect examples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then Jefferson, Adams, and all the rest were the poor and uneducated as well I suppose? They were part of a group that was pretty much feeling the same way.... When we had our first tea party in this country, there was a massive destruction of British property in the dumping of the tea into the harbor. Have there even been any acts of vandalism anywhere near that directly related to a tea party?
> 
> You generalize this like that and call people uneducated who participate or support the tea parties, yet you fail to realize the truly uneducated tend to follow the status quo rather than oppose it.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Let's face it rdean's grip on the present is a little slippery, so his understanding of historical context is something that's difficult to take seriously, much less discuss.
> 
> The American Revolution was somewhat unique in that the revolt was against a relatively free government, (GB had a parliment) and didn't seek to unseat that government. In fact, had the Britian's Parliment simply allowed the colonies have any representation, or any "slack" the revolution probably would have fizzled, and we would be no more independent than Canada, or Australia.
> 
> As a result of British Intrangedance, our government is inherently designed to give slack.
Click to expand...


Agreed, anyone who hasn't realized the reality of our origins need to take the BS blinders off... Perhaps the original intent was to get fair treatment and representation, but after realizing we could govern ourselves and the concept of god and then King began to fade away, the intent of the revolution and earlier revolt changed.

However, the founders still started out in much the same way the tea partiers of today have. Sure there were a few trying to use it for their own ends, but much like today they are not the core nor the norm. Sure had the crown been a bit more understanding we might still be a subject to them, but they didn't and we didn't... At the time England's parliament was in the hands of the elite ruling class. Virtually no seat would have been held by anyone not of "noble birth". Nobles who swore allegiance to the crown, and without that crown they would not have their noble right. They were the King's people they were allowed their ability to take seats in parliament only by the Kings leave.

Trying to liken their parliament especially at that time to a true democracy or even republic of duly publicly elected representatives, is a bit of a stretch. There was no labor party back then because according to the crown they were not fit to participate in governance beyond cheering at political speaking engagements. 

Many of conventions in the Constitution bear a striking resemblance to the English counterparts at the time. Despite these similarities, the core or essence of what they represent are in stark contrast. The British concept of the time was God, King, and then country... Here the idea was God, country, then government.. Our founding documents tell us to throw out bad governance and rulers like so much rubbish, I haven't heard of any such sentiment in English law of that time... Or even know for that matter...

I do not see how those men were heroes for this, and somehow today any who even dare gather and speak to one another directly are a threat to good governance....


----------



## Stainmaster

After all is said and done about taxes, the deficit, Tea Bagger hats, and all that red, white, and blue hoopla;  

don't be fooled it is just a new face for racism.


----------



## gslack

I expected some kind of substance.... We have multiple thoughtful posts on this in here, and the response from the other side so far has been the same crap they get from MSNBC.... What do you base this opinion on? have you been to one? Have you seen one nearby? Also, the concept of advanced citizenship requires not our blind devotion or mindless participation, but rather our opposition on things we disagree with. 

The right to peaceful assembly and free speech was designed to protect the people from an overbearing government. And in our founding documents we are reminded the right and duty to create a new government whenever the old one no longer serves the public good. only a close minded fool would make a decision based on what someone else told him.. And an even bigger fool would rely on a media with an agenda to supply him with his knowledge...


----------



## geauxtohell

Foxfyre said:


> You really think that Democrats that have regulated and taxed anything that can be identified--yes, yes, I know the GOP isn't in the clear on that one either--but anyway, would they give up all that lovely tax money and power on those social issues?  I think the Dems are even more regulation minded on social issues than the GOP is.
> 
> The GOP would certainly agree with Libertarian ideas of lower taxes and much smaller, less restrictive government, but GOPers do see necessity of laws and regulation that discourage infringement of individual rights.  The Libertarians, while by no means are anarchists, do lean in that direction further than most Republicans would.
> 
> And the GOP would be solidly unified in opposing opening up the borders to all comers.



You are still missing the larger point.  The way our system is designed creates a two party system.  Forget all these schumky-fantasies about "this or that" conspiracy keeping the third parties down.  It's absurd.

If the LP comes to power, they will most likely replace the GOP, not become a third option.  It might be that way for a short while but eventually, one of them will die off. 

Either way, the LP has been putting their issues out for a few decades and still is in the political basement.  That's not a conspiracy either, they just don't appeal to a broad enough base of voters.


----------



## Foxfyre

geauxtohell said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really think that Democrats that have regulated and taxed anything that can be identified--yes, yes, I know the GOP isn't in the clear on that one either--but anyway, would they give up all that lovely tax money and power on those social issues?  I think the Dems are even more regulation minded on social issues than the GOP is.
> 
> The GOP would certainly agree with Libertarian ideas of lower taxes and much smaller, less restrictive government, but GOPers do see necessity of laws and regulation that discourage infringement of individual rights.  The Libertarians, while by no means are anarchists, do lean in that direction further than most Republicans would.
> 
> And the GOP would be solidly unified in opposing opening up the borders to all comers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are still missing the larger point.  The way our system is designed creates a two party system.  Forget all these schumky-fantasies about "this or that" conspiracy keeping the third parties down.  It's absurd.
> 
> If the LP comes to power, they will most likely replace the GOP, not become a third option.  It might be that way for a short while but eventually, one of them will die off.
> 
> Either way, the LP has been putting their issues out for a few decades and still is in the political basement.  That's not a conspiracy either, they just don't appeal to a broad enough base of voters.
Click to expand...


Oh I think I get it and I think I understand where you are coming from.  I just see things from a different angle.

I haven't suggested any conspiracy theories keeping third parties down.  It isn't a conspiracy at all.  It is a simple fact that there is a finite amount of money available for political parties and campaigns, and those with the best chance to deliver value for money contributed are going to get most of it.  A party with little name recognition and candidates with little name recognition and/or mass appeal simply is not going to be viable regardless of its platform, nor will it get much help from the media.

Every now and then the grass roots does raise up a candidate that catches the imagination of a sizable number of people, and at some point such person outside the two major parties may be charismatic and believable enough to win.  Wallace was one of those but was simply too radical and polarizing as well as racist to attract much of the vote.  Perot was another who didn't have Wallace's negatives, and if he hadn't wigged out and gone looney tunes, he very well might have won in 1992.

It is possible the Tea Partiers will tag a capable and charismatic person to run,  and enough people are so thoroughly disgusted with the President and Congress that such a person could be a serious contender.

And again I'll refer you to some major points in the Libertarian Party's platform previously posted here:   http://www.usmessageboard.com/tea-p...movement-is-so-frightening-6.html#post2340952

The LP can't gain any attraction with so many platform planks that are contrary to the views of mainstream America, plus I think they sometimes work overtime to recruit the most unappealing candidates they can find.


----------



## gslack

geauxtohell said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really think that Democrats that have regulated and taxed anything that can be identified--yes, yes, I know the GOP isn't in the clear on that one either--but anyway, would they give up all that lovely tax money and power on those social issues?  I think the Dems are even more regulation minded on social issues than the GOP is.
> 
> The GOP would certainly agree with Libertarian ideas of lower taxes and much smaller, less restrictive government, but GOPers do see necessity of laws and regulation that discourage infringement of individual rights.  The Libertarians, while by no means are anarchists, do lean in that direction further than most Republicans would.
> 
> And the GOP would be solidly unified in opposing opening up the borders to all comers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are still missing the larger point.  The way our system is designed creates a two party system.  Forget all these schumky-fantasies about "this or that" conspiracy keeping the third parties down.  It's absurd.
> 
> If the LP comes to power, they will most likely replace the GOP, not become a third option.  It might be that way for a short while but eventually, one of them will die off.
> 
> Either way, the LP has been putting their issues out for a few decades and still is in the political basement.  That's not a conspiracy either, they just don't appeal to a broad enough base of voters.
Click to expand...


Dismissing what fox said as a conspiracy theory is an excuse in my opinion... In fact the only thing I have heard in the thread even close to a conspiracy theory is the way the left posters have tried to make the tea party movement a right wing conspiracy to give hate and racism a platform..

I don't understand the logic in calling this a right wing conspiracy and then telling someone to forget conspiracy theories..

There is no conspiracy, there doesn't need to be. This is the natural and logical next step for a government wishing to keep the status quo to take. Anytime a government becomes powerful it will seek to retain that power..


----------



## geauxtohell

gslack said:


> Dismissing what fox said as a conspiracy theory is an excuse in my opinion... In fact the only thing I have heard in the thread even close to a conspiracy theory is the way the left posters have tried to make the tea party movement a right wing conspiracy to give hate and racism a platform..



When I said "conspiracy theory", I was referring to the popular notion that third parties are kept down by the man or the major parties or whatever.  It's silly and shows an ignorance of political science.  Our country has a two party system by design (though most likely un-intentional).  It's winner takes all.  Three teams don't play in the Superbowl.  Two do.  If we were a parliamentary system there would be more parties and caucuses and power sharing (I am not advocating for that).

Just look at our country.  Three parties have never remained viable for long.  Eventually, one party engulfs the other.  



> I don't understand the logic in calling this a right wing conspiracy and then telling someone to forget conspiracy theories..



That's because we are talking about separate things.  I don't really think the Tea Parties are a right wing "conspiracy".  I certainly think they are propped up by right wing interest, PACs, and are overwhelmingly GOP voters.  You can argue that, but you don't see many "tea party" candidates running in DEM primaries.  

My belief is that the GOP embraced the tea parties, because they were scared to death of the enormous popularity Obama generated in 2008.  The movements themselves have been organized and funded by PACs who also represent corporate interests that the DEMs are generally hostile too.  You can read about it in my sig line.  So what you have, in essence, is a group of squirmashers that the GOP hoped would create the perception of mass public disapproval of Obama (hence the lame talking line "grass roots" and semi-funny retort "astroturf") who are no pushing out incumbents.

It's ironically funny.  However, on the national scale, the tea party is going to alienate moderates.



> There is no conspiracy, there doesn't need to be. This is the natural and logical next step for a government wishing to keep the status quo to take. Anytime a government becomes powerful it will seek to retain that power..



It's not a "conspiracy", but the movement is not as transparent and "golly-gee, this just all fell together!" as its proponents would have you believe.  

Also, if you all got your wish and the Tea Partiers all got in office, they would just become part of the system and eventually be viewed as "the problem".  What happened to the Republican revolution?  

Americans love to be disgruntled about their elected officials.  It's almost as American as apple pie.  However, on election day, pragmatism usually wins out.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Stainmaster said:


> After all is said and done about taxes, the deficit, Tea Bagger hats, and all that red, white, and blue hoopla;
> 
> don't be fooled it is just a new face for racism.​




Wow thats the only thing you have is a lie?   Poor show fool, poor show.


----------



## Stainmaster

PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:


> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> After all is said and done about taxes, the deficit, Tea Bagger hats, and all that red, white, and blue hoopla;
> 
> don't be fooled it is just a new face for racism.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow thats the only thing you have is a lie?   Poor show fool, poor show.​
Click to expand...



*The truth is out about you Tea Baggers, and it is everywhere.*

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if88PgI-vfU"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if88PgI-vfU[/ame]


----------



## boedicca

Stainmaster said:


> The truth is out about you *Tea Baggers*, and it is everywhere.





Your parents must be So Proud.


----------



## Stainmaster

boedicca said:


> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is out about you *Tea Baggers*, and it is everywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your parents must be So Proud.
Click to expand...


This is a pretty standard come back.  I have received it 4 or 5 times.  I don't get the relavance of it, but yes, my conservative Republican Parents are proud of me.  I just received an honorary MBA from UCDavis and AAAA's for work done in my field of marketing.


----------



## AllieBaba

Which I guess means you aren't a kid. Which puts a whole new slant on your belief that all kids should have straight and anal sex by the age of 16 or be forced to go to a "sex therapist".

Let me guess...do you consider yourself a "sex therapist"?


----------



## Stainmaster

AllieBaba said:


> Which I guess means you aren't a kid. Which puts a whole new slant on your belief that all kids should have straight and anal sex by the age of 16 or be forced to go to a "sex therapist".
> 
> Let me guess...do you consider yourself a "sex therapist"?



We can start that thread again.  It got so stupid, it would hardly be worth anyone's time including mine.  I stood up for teens based on an article I read in _Psychology Today_, and every jealous old person who is sexually inadequete trounced it.

Why don't you go start a thead, AllieBaba, I am sure we would all enjoy hearing your thoughts on teen sex?  




*^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^​*
The topic of this thread is;

*"Why the tea party movement is so frightening..."*​


----------



## Big Fitz

Stainbigot's back on his rant about non-existent racism and nerd pr0n?


----------



## Samson

Stainmaster said:


> I stood up for teens based on an article I read in _Psychology Today_, and every jealous old person who is sexually inadequete trounced it.



I guess I'm so old I cannot recall wheter or not "I trounced it," but I'm sure I could use an opinion regarding my sexual adequacy.

Volunteers?


----------



## Big Fitz

Samson said:


> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stood up for teens based on an article I read in _Psychology Today_, and every jealous old person who is sexually inadequete trounced it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I'm so old I cannot recall wheter or not "I trounced it," but I'm sure I could use an opinion regarding my sexual adequacy.
> 
> Volunteers?
Click to expand...

Samson.  Yer into squid porn.  Don't send me slow passes over the middle like that.  They're too tempting.


----------



## Samson

Big Fitz said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stood up for teens based on an article I read in _Psychology Today_, and every jealous old person who is sexually inadequete trounced it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess I'm so old I cannot recall wheter or not "I trounced it," but I'm sure I could use an opinion regarding my sexual adequacy.
> 
> Volunteers?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Samson.  Yer into squid porn.  Don't send me slow passes over the middle like that.  They're too tempting.
Click to expand...


You're also a guy


----------



## gslack

geauxtohell said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dismissing what fox said as a conspiracy theory is an excuse in my opinion... In fact the only thing I have heard in the thread even close to a conspiracy theory is the way the left posters have tried to make the tea party movement a right wing conspiracy to give hate and racism a platform..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I said "conspiracy theory", I was referring to the popular notion that third parties are kept down by the man or the major parties or whatever.  It's silly and shows an ignorance of political science.  Our country has a two party system by design (though most likely un-intentional).  It's winner takes all.  Three teams don't play in the Superbowl.  Two do.  If we were a parliamentary system there would be more parties and caucuses and power sharing (I am not advocating for that).
> 
> Just look at our country.  Three parties have never remained viable for long.  Eventually, one party engulfs the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand the logic in calling this a right wing conspiracy and then telling someone to forget conspiracy theories..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because we are talking about separate things.  I don't really think the Tea Parties are a right wing "conspiracy".  I certainly think they are propped up by right wing interest, PACs, and are overwhelmingly GOP voters.  You can argue that, but you don't see many "tea party" candidates running in DEM primaries.
> 
> My belief is that the GOP embraced the tea parties, because they were scared to death of the enormous popularity Obama generated in 2008.  The movements themselves have been organized and funded by PACs who also represent corporate interests that the DEMs are generally hostile too.  You can read about it in my sig line.  So what you have, in essence, is a group of squirmashers that the GOP hoped would create the perception of mass public disapproval of Obama (hence the lame talking line "grass roots" and semi-funny retort "astroturf") who are no pushing out incumbents.
> 
> It's ironically funny.  However, on the national scale, the tea party is going to alienate moderates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no conspiracy, there doesn't need to be. This is the natural and logical next step for a government wishing to keep the status quo to take. Anytime a government becomes powerful it will seek to retain that power..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a "conspiracy", but the movement is not as transparent and "golly-gee, this just all fell together!" as its proponents would have you believe.
> 
> Also, if you all got your wish and the Tea Partiers all got in office, they would just become part of the system and eventually be viewed as "the problem".  What happened to the Republican revolution?
> 
> Americans love to be disgruntled about their elected officials.  It's almost as American as apple pie.  However, on election day, pragmatism usually wins out.
Click to expand...


You seem to forget when third parties get usurped by or melded into another party, that party changes.. Republicans of today are not like the republicans Jefferson was a part of. The Democrats went from adams to jackson and all points between and when they split and came together again they were forever changed. Two party system is not hardwired into our government, its a simple logical next step when two separate parties are both weaker than another and share enough similarities to compromise and join together. it has nothing to do with it being part of any system especially not one that wasn't designed with parties in mind at all.

Your statement where you said;_"You can argue that, but you don't see many "tea party" candidates running in DEM primaries."_ Dude thats just a silly statement really.... Of course not, first the Dems are in power and obviously part of the problem the tea party movement has. THat would be like running a reform campaign as an incumbent its just retarded... Second, a tea party candidate would need to be part of legitimate political party. Don't think I can register a tea party voter yet... its not a party in the sense of republicans and democrats. The left likes to pretend sarah palin or bachman are the tea party candidates but thats just nonsense. Anyone with any sense knows palin is a joke politically. Third, we won't see many running in republican primaries either... 

Your claim they were embraced by republicans in 2008 from fear of obama's popularity denies the fact at that time they were protesting Bush's economic policies predominately. At the time the tea parties were very small and not getting much attention. Again all I see is the standard liberal/progressive claims here... You dismiss them as right wing and that is a fallacy perpetrated in the media to keep people hemmed into the concept that two dimensional thinking. Either left or right is acceptable and only them. Anything else is obviously an extreme one way or another. Thats dismissive and categorically not true at all.... Most tea party movement followers are people who have had enough of the BS in government and they do not distinguish between the two kinds of BS, they simply recognize it as BS...

Dude your last statement was just silly generalities which we could say about any potential party...  Again its all based on your perception you get from your preferred media. If you do not go and see for yourself how can you simply dismiss them?


----------



## gslack

Stainmaster said:


> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> After all is said and done about taxes, the deficit, Tea Bagger hats, and all that red, white, and blue hoopla;
> 
> don't be fooled it is just a new face for racism.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow thats the only thing you have is a lie?   Poor show fool, poor show.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *The truth is out about you Tea Baggers, and it is everywhere.*
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if88PgI-vfU]YouTube - Bill Maher BECOMES a Teabagger - 4/23/10[/ame]
Click to expand...



Dude I have to say despite you're ignorant post, that has to be the gayest avatar I have seen here.....Seriously man, I don't care what your preference is but the avatar makes gay people cringe.....​


----------



## Stainmaster

gslack said:


> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLYMCO_PILGRIM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow thats the only thing you have is a lie?   Poor show fool, poor show.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The truth is out about you Tea Baggers, and it is everywhere.*
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=if88PgI-vfU]YouTube - Bill Maher BECOMES a Teabagger - 4/23/10[/ame]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude I have to say despite you're ignorant post, that has to be the gayest avatar I have seen here.....Seriously man, I don't care what your preference is but the avatar makes gay people cringe.....
Click to expand...


Thank you, the avatar has received a lot of comment.  It has been interesting to hear people react.  Prudes are upset, there has only been one gay commentator who said I was not his type.

So, I am keeping it.  And, by the way it is a Southern California statement that is not really gay.  But, if it makes you feel better to think of it that way, fine.  I am promoting that the rest of the country catch up with California.  The attitude toward sexuality here is WHO CARES!  Get used to it.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADDJwqqQbv8"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADDJwqqQbv8[/ame]


----------



## gslack

Stainmaster said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The truth is out about you Tea Baggers, and it is everywhere.*
> 
> YouTube - Bill Maher BECOMES a Teabagger - 4/23/10
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude I have to say despite you're ignorant post, that has to be the gayest avatar I have seen here.....Seriously man, I don't care what your preference is but the avatar makes gay people cringe.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you, the avatar has received a lot of comment.  It has been interesting to hear people react.  Prudes are upset, there has only been one gay commentator who said I was not his type.
> 
> So, I am keeping it.  And, by the way it is a Southern California statement that is not really gay.  But, if it makes you feel better to think of it that way, fine.  I am promoting that the rest of the country catch up with California.  The attitude toward sexuality here is WHO CARES!  Get used to it.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADDJwqqQbv8]YouTube - Big Wednesday[/ame]
Click to expand...


And my attitude towards people who have to use their sexuality as pedestal is "grow up the only one making a big deal of it is you"

Dude you can be as metro-sexual as you feel you need to be thats fine... However shoving it in peoples face and telling them to get over it isn't about anything other than your issues with it...


----------



## geauxtohell

gslack said:


> You seem to forget when third parties get usurped by or melded into another party, that party changes..



No, I basically stated as much.  My point is that we have two parties because the system is designed that way.  That's it.



> Republicans of today are not like the republicans Jefferson was a part of. The Democrats went from adams to jackson and all points between and when they split and came together again they were forever changed. Two party system is not hardwired into our government, its a simple logical next step when two separate parties are both weaker than another and share enough similarities to compromise and join together. it has nothing to do with it being part of any system especially not one that wasn't designed with parties in mind at all.



It is a part of our system.  Simply because there is no provision for political parties in the constitution doesn't mean that we weren't destined to be a two party system.  Again, it's the inevitability of a "winner takes all" system.  I've illustrated that and than contrasted a parliamentarian system with it to demonstrate how other systems work.

This isn't a matter of my opinion, it's basic poli sci. 



> Your statement where you said;_"You can argue that, but you don't see many "tea party" candidates running in DEM primaries."_ Dude thats just a silly statement really....



Dude, it's a true statement.  Really. 



> Of course not, first the Dems are in power and obviously part of the problem the tea party movement has. THat would be like running a reform campaign as an incumbent its just retarded...



And yet, Sestak just knocked out Specter.  Sestak didn't feel the need to run as a "Tea Party" candidate, nor was the tea party interested in him.  He did run as an outsider.   



> Second, a tea party candidate would need to be part of legitimate political party. Don't think I can register a tea party voter yet...



Now you are being deliberately obtuse.  Did or did not Rand Paul say he had a message from the "Tea Party" after he won the GOP primary?  Is or is not he considered a "Tea Party" candidate?



> its not a party in the sense of republicans and democrats. The left likes to pretend sarah palin or bachman are the tea party candidates



No we don't.  We claim they are shills for whatever the hell it is that the Tea Party is selling.  Palin isn't running for anything.  No one has claimed she is a candidate.



> but thats just nonsense. Anyone with any sense knows palin is a joke politically.



You should inform some people on here.



> Third, we won't see many running in republican primaries either...



But all the ones that are running are running in GOP primaries.  



> Your claim they were embraced by republicans in 2008 from fear of obama's popularity denies the fact at that time they were protesting Bush's economic policies predominately.



Yeah, about 1% of the current Tea Party was protesting Bush and those were the Paul people who had their movement co-opted by Dick Armey and other GOP operatives for an "astroturf" movement.



> At the time the tea parties were very small and not getting much attention. Again all I see is the standard liberal/progressive claims here... You dismiss them as right wing and that is a fallacy perpetrated in the media to keep people hemmed into the concept that two dimensional thinking. Either left or right is acceptable and only them. Anything else is obviously an extreme one way or another. Thats dismissive and categorically not true at all.... Most tea party movement followers are people who have had enough of the BS in government and they do not distinguish between the two kinds of BS, they simply recognize it as BS...



And I call B.S. on that statement.  By all the polling data, the tea party is right wing.  They weren't in the streets when Bush was in office because they voted for him.  Twice.



> Dude your last statement was just silly generalities which we could say about any potential party...  Again its all based on your perception you get from your preferred media. If you do not go and see for yourself how can you simply dismiss them?



I have neither the time or inclination to go to any protest, let alone a teabag protest.  The notion of "you can't comment if you don't go and see for yourself" is idiotic.  I don't have to bank my head into a wall to know it's going to suck.  

Dismissing my "perception" based on my "preferred media" is also an asinine dodge.


----------



## gslack

Dude I have asked you before to stop separating every dam line like that and you continue to do so... You do it because you think its a win.... No its not a win its a deliberate attempt to make debate with you too time consuming and monotonous for people to bother.. its lame and there is no legitimate reason for it.. 

One word for all you said..... MSNBC rhetoric all of it...... now you want a legit debate or shall I do what you do only shrunk to reasonable size?


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

gslack said:


> Dude I have asked you before to stop separating every dam line like that and you continue to do so... You do it because you think its a win.... No its not a win its a deliberate attempt to make debate with you too time consuming and monotonous for people to bother.. its lame and there is no legitimate reason for it..
> 
> One word for all you said..... MSNBC rhetoric all of it...... now you want a legit debate or shall I do what you do only shrunk to reasonable size?



Yeah it does make it hard to re-quote someone and respond directly when they do that, it always has annoyed me too.

On a side note


----------



## geauxtohell

gslack said:


> Dude I have asked you before to stop separating every dam line like that and you continue to do so...



I respond to points as they come to me.  I post the way I do so that things make sense, as opposed to a massive jumble at the bottom of the quote.  It's extra work for me too, but I am not doing it to be annoying.  At any rate, your annoyance isn't going to change the way I do business.  You, in the month or so that you've been here, seem to be under the mistaken impression that people are obligated to follow your orders.  

I've never demanded that someone respond to every single one of my points.  You can pick and choose.  That's what I usually do in these instances. 



> You do it because you think its a win.... No its not a win its a deliberate attempt to make debate with you too time consuming and monotonous for people to bother.. its lame and there is no legitimate reason for it..



I don't think anything is a "win" on a message board.  I think people who think they have won or lost anything on a message board are retards.  



> One word for all you said..... MSNBC rhetoric all of it...... now you want a legit debate or shall I do what you do only shrunk to reasonable size?



I don't get my news from MSNBC.  I generally avoid cable news altogether.  Your continued assertions that we all have to go be teabaggers for a day before we can comment is asinine and lame.  The link in my sig does a pretty good job of supporting my assertion about how the tea party went from a bunch of goofy Paul-bots to a ground swell movement.

The ground swell is the usual conservative suspects that were all Bush voters.  That's why they weren't protesting Bush.

In other words, this is astroturf.  Not grassroots.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM

Wise ass


----------



## gslack

geauxtohell said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude I have asked you before to stop separating every dam line like that and you continue to do so...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I respond to points as they come to me.  I post the way I do so that things make sense, as opposed to a massive jumble at the bottom of the quote.  It's extra work for me too, but I am not doing it to be annoying.  At any rate, your annoyance isn't going to change the way I do business.  You, in the month or so that you've been here, seem to be under the mistaken impression that people are obligated to follow your orders.
> 
> I've never demanded that someone respond to every single one of my points.  You can pick and choose.  That's what I usually do in these instances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do it because you think its a win.... No its not a win its a deliberate attempt to make debate with you too time consuming and monotonous for people to bother.. its lame and there is no legitimate reason for it..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think anything is a "win" on a message board.  I think people who think they have won or lost anything on a message board are retards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One word for all you said..... MSNBC rhetoric all of it...... now you want a legit debate or shall I do what you do only shrunk to reasonable size?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't get my news from MSNBC.  I generally avoid cable news altogether.  Your continued assertions that we all have to go be teabaggers for a day before we can comment is asinine and lame.  The link in my sig does a pretty good job of supporting my assertion about how the tea party went from a bunch of goofy Paul-bots to a ground swell movement.
> 
> The ground swell is the usual conservative suspects that were all Bush voters.  That's why they weren't protesting Bush.
> 
> In other words, this is astroturf.  Not grassroots.
Click to expand...


Well gee if you don't watch MSNBC, why all the rhetoric straight form their broadcasts? 

My assertion is not lame its a fair statement.. The only thing lame is lazy people who don't want to go and see for themselves and take the medias word on things like this... For all you know you could be right, but you are obviously too lazy and ditto-headed to even see for yourself.

So I will call out people who cite, quote, or repeat the liberal/progressive media spin on this.. You guys are able to vote and you are going to do so based on someone elses word. Someone with a vested interest in the left and proven track record of twisting the facts and stories to their own liking.

If you cant be bothered to go look for yourself, than why even bother voting at all? you are just wasting it anyway... Why not give it to MSNBC or CNN and let them do it for you... its what you're doing anyway....


----------



## geauxtohell

gslack said:


> Well gee if you don't watch MSNBC, why all the rhetoric straight form their broadcasts?



I have no idea.  You tell me.  Maybe it's because people can come to the same conclusions independently of each other? 



> My assertion is not lame its a fair statement.. The only thing lame is lazy people who don't want to go and see for themselves and take the medias word on things like this... For all you know you could be right, but you are obviously too lazy and ditto-headed to even see for yourself.



I think, short of a real wrong like civil rights, protesting is for losers.  Especially when it's feaux outrage like the teabaggers specialize in.

So, no, I am not going to a teabagger event.  No matter how much lame reverse psychology you try and employ or if you deem my opinion of the movement as worthless because I refuse to play raindeer games.  I could care less what you think of my opinion, frankly. 



> So I will call out people who cite, quote, or repeat the liberal/progressive media spin on this.. You guys are able to vote and you are going to do so based on someone elses word. Someone with a vested interest in the left and proven track record of twisting the facts and stories to their own liking.



You mean you will call out anyone that still cites the mainstream media as opposed to your anecdotes or teabagger propaganda cites.  

Okay, whatever.  Do what you want.  It doesn't matter to me. 



> If you cant be bothered to go look for yourself, than why even bother voting at all? you are just wasting it anyway... Why not give it to MSNBC or CNN and let them do it for you... its what you're doing anyway....



Oh STFU.  I don't vote a straight ticket.  You don't know a damn thing about me other than what I volunteer on this board.  Stop acting like you do.


----------



## Stainmaster

gslack said:


> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude I have to say despite you're ignorant post, that has to be the gayest avatar I have seen here.....Seriously man, I don't care what your preference is but the avatar makes gay people cringe.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, the avatar has received a lot of comment.  It has been interesting to hear people react.  Prudes are upset, there has only been one gay commentator who said I was not his type.
> 
> So, I am keeping it.  And, by the way it is a Southern California statement that is not really gay.  But, if it makes you feel better to think of it that way, fine.  I am promoting that the rest of the country catch up with California.  The attitude toward sexuality here is WHO CARES!  Get used to it.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADDJwqqQbv8]YouTube - Big Wednesday[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And my attitude towards people who have to use their sexuality as pedestal is "grow up the only one making a big deal of it is you"
> Dude you can be as metro-sexual as you feel you need to be thats fine... However shoving it in peoples face and telling them to get over it isn't about anything other than your issues with it...
Click to expand...


By the way the term 'metrosexual' went out of style five years ago, and you used it improperly anyway.  Metrosexual - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When I started on USMB, the only picture I had was shirtless.  Prudes like you made it an issue.  I've decided to push the issue.

Trust me, USMB members have greater concerns than my avatar, and seeing me shirtless.  

If the only one making a big deal about it is me, why did you bring up the subject?  





Straight, gay, or bi, nice abs are nice abs.  Wish these were mine!

------------------------------------​
The topic of this thread is:

*Why the tea party movement is so frightening...​*


----------



## Big Fitz

Nice airbrushing, Narcissus.


----------



## gslack

geauxtohell said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well gee if you don't watch MSNBC, why all the rhetoric straight form their broadcasts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea.  You tell me.  Maybe it's because people can come to the same conclusions independently of each other?
> 
> People already with a decided left or right slant will predominately lean left and twist things in their favor... Its no coincidence its a fact, and its certainly not a logical conclusion. Its political agenda based one..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My assertion is not lame its a fair statement.. The only thing lame is lazy people who don't want to go and see for themselves and take the medias word on things like this... For all you know you could be right, but you are obviously too lazy and ditto-headed to even see for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think, short of a real wrong like civil rights, protesting is for losers.  Especially when it's feaux outrage like the teabaggers specialize in.
> 
> Protesting for losers...nice... So the very people who brought you this government were losers.... And those French who protested before the all out Revolution? Yeah what a bunch of losers huh genius.... Of course you think they are losers, because you have never even looked into anything for yourself. Why protest what you cant be bothered to look into... Again lazy....
> 
> So, no, I am not going to a teabagger event.  No matter how much lame reverse psychology you try and employ or if you deem my opinion of the movement as worthless because I refuse to play raindeer games.  I could care less what you think of my opinion, frankly.
> 
> Reverse psychology? Dude reverse psychology would be if I told you to do the opposite of what I wanted... And so we see flat out you will vote as your liberal/progressive media tells you. Why go and actually discover something when its all given to you in proper perspective and just the way it will placate you... So thats one vote wasted thank you....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I will call out people who cite, quote, or repeat the liberal/progressive media spin on this.. You guys are able to vote and you are going to do so based on someone elses word. Someone with a vested interest in the left and proven track record of twisting the facts and stories to their own liking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean you will call out anyone that still cites the mainstream media as opposed to your anecdotes or teabagger propaganda cites.
> 
> Okay, whatever.  Do what you want.  It doesn't matter to me.
> 
> No dick I will call out what I said I will call out... I challenge you to show where I have cited  propaganda... THe OP was my thoughts based on my experience, you don't like it fine. But trying to dismiss it as propaganda is bullshit....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you cant be bothered to go look for yourself, than why even bother voting at all? you are just wasting it anyway... Why not give it to MSNBC or CNN and let them do it for you... its what you're doing anyway....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh STFU.  I don't vote a straight ticket.  You don't know a damn thing about me other than what I volunteer on this board.  Stop acting like you do.
Click to expand...


New if we waited long enough we would see your true nature come out again.... Thanks for not letting us down... And no I will not STFU child.... I based my opinion on what you volunteer on this board, so if its not accurate show it....


----------



## gslack

Stainmaster said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, the avatar has received a lot of comment.  It has been interesting to hear people react.  Prudes are upset, there has only been one gay commentator who said I was not his type.
> 
> So, I am keeping it.  And, by the way it is a Southern California statement that is not really gay.  But, if it makes you feel better to think of it that way, fine.  I am promoting that the rest of the country catch up with California.  The attitude toward sexuality here is WHO CARES!  Get used to it.
> 
> YouTube - Big Wednesday
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And my attitude towards people who have to use their sexuality as pedestal is "grow up the only one making a big deal of it is you"
> Dude you can be as metro-sexual as you feel you need to be thats fine... However shoving it in peoples face and telling them to get over it isn't about anything other than your issues with it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the way the term 'metrosexual' went out of style five years ago, and you used it improperly anyway.  Metrosexual - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> When I started on USMB, the only picture I had was shirtless.  Prudes like you made it an issue.  I've decided to push the issue.
> 
> Trust me, USMB members have greater concerns than my avatar, and seeing me shirtless.
> 
> If the only one making a big deal about it is me, why did you bring up the subject?
> 
> 
> Straight, gay, or bi, nice abs are nice abs.  Wish these were mine!
> 
> ------------------------------------[/CENTER]
> 
> The topic of this thread is:
> 
> *Why the tea party movement is so frightening...​*
Click to expand...


Metro was 5 years ago.... Well thats nice, now tell me why I should care? This isn't about being hip douchebag....

You posted a shirtless pic as avatar to be a douchebag plain and simple... People called you on it so now you are going to use shirtless man pics as avatars... Your problem here is you pretend its because its a mans picture or that you are...whatever you are.... well sorry tool but its the fact you tried to use a shirtless pic to pose and try to get attention.... Well ya got it it just wasn't what you thought it would be... The problem isnt your sexuality, its you... Dude you are primping, posing, narcissistic idiot and people will react to that regardless of your sexuality...

I told ya the avatar was gay, you tried to make statement of something about california and how we should all catch up.... yeah kinda made a big deal out of it there didnt ya....

Any dude who posts a shirtless pic of himself as an avatar is looking for attention.. And any tool who tries to use the excuse its the only pic he had is bullshitting....


----------



## Stainmaster

gslack said:


> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And my attitude towards people who have to use their sexuality as pedestal is "grow up the only one making a big deal of it is you"
> Dude you can be as metro-sexual as you feel you need to be thats fine... However shoving it in peoples face and telling them to get over it isn't about anything other than your issues with it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way the term 'metrosexual' went out of style five years ago, and you used it improperly anyway.  Metrosexual - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> When I started on USMB, the only picture I had was shirtless.  Prudes like you made it an issue.  I've decided to push the issue.
> 
> Trust me, USMB members have greater concerns than my avatar, and seeing me shirtless.
> 
> If the only one making a big deal about it is me, why did you bring up the subject?
> 
> 
> Straight, gay, or bi, nice abs are nice abs.  Wish these were mine!
> 
> ------------------------------------[/CENTER]
> 
> The topic of this thread is:
> 
> *Why the tea party movement is so frightening...​*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Metro was 5 years ago.... Well thats nice, now tell me why I should care? This isn't about being hip douchebag....
> 
> You posted a shirtless pic as avatar to be a douchebag plain and simple... People called you on it so now you are going to use shirtless man pics as avatars... Your problem here is you pretend its because its a mans picture or that you are...whatever you are.... well sorry tool but its the fact you tried to use a shirtless pic to pose and try to get attention.... Well ya got it it just wasn't what you thought it would be... The problem isnt your sexuality, its you... Dude you are primping, posing, narcissistic idiot and people will react to that regardless of your sexuality...
> 
> I told ya the avatar was gay, you tried to make statement of something about california and how we should all catch up.... yeah kinda made a big deal out of it there didnt ya....
> 
> Any dude who posts a shirtless pic of himself as an avatar is looking for attention.. And any tool who tries to use the excuse its the only pic he had is bullshitting....
Click to expand...


I didn't even know what meterosexual was, it is so out of date, I had to look it up!

gslak, I am enjoying watching you have a twinge of homosexuality.  I could explain to you that it is normal and does not mean you are gay.  But, I won't.  You talk about my shirtless status for a whole big paragraph, then threw in the slams!  I love to watch you sexual dinosaurs struggle through the reality of the 21st century.  It is so strange when you groan out your posts full of victorian thinking!  And it is funny, because it isn't even the topic of this thread!  You changed to subject to talk about my body.  Wake-up, NO ONE CARES!  




--------------------------------​
The topic of this thread is:

*Why the tea party movement is so frightening...​*


----------



## gslack

yeah...okay douchebag.... let me know when you want to have an adult discussion.. or when the pimples clear up and your voice lowers...


----------



## Baron

If the U.S. has a good party, it is only THE TEA PARTY!


----------



## mudwhistle

gslack said:


> Everyday I see a knew article in the news or a new post here on USMB regarding the tea party, partiers, whatever. I have noticed something very strange.... I see very little positive threads started on them, and far too many negative ones. of all the negative ones I have seen, the most of them are decidedly left sided, and prone to exaggerations, misleading claims, and outright lies about what they are doing or represent....
> 
> Most of the time the threads about the tea party movement resort to calling the partiers ignorant hicks, uneducated, or racist hate-filled mobs of angry people all trying to intimidate or threaten. I wonder if this were true, why has there not been any arrests or riots yet? All we see or hear are these extreme claims and yet nothing regarding what was done about it.. What is there no Cops at these things? Are there no security or anti-tea partiers to at least give a counter argument? I mean if half the things we hear are true, why are they still walking around free? This leads me to believe there is far more propaganda than truth in these claims.
> 
> Also, I wonder if they really are so ignorant and uneducated, and their meetings so filled with mindless hate; why do they fear them so much? I mean in order to dedicate so much time to attack something one must have a good reason for it.. And the only good reason I can imagine must have some sort of fear involved... Fear of dissent, fear of racial hatred, fear of crazy uneducated folk with guns, fear of something... And if it is fear, why all the fear?
> 
> Indeed what is to fear in groups of so-called uneducated folk venting? They have guns? Well so do the cops and the cops will be legally in their right to shoot them if they become dangerous. The fear of racial hatred? Well then why don't we arrest all the KKK or white supremest groups? maybe the fear of spreading stupidity? Well if its so stupid why would it spread? According to the left media, it is so ignorant and only serves the side of hatred and only an idiot would follow it... So if we are not all idiots, and we can easily see how ignorant it is, why all the bother and press time?
> 
> Its simple really, I think Louis Farrakhan is an idiot and only morons would follow him, so I don't pay attention to him. Problem solved and no fear at all... Sure he has some followers, but I do not fear them because I know they are limited by laws and have at least enough sense to know what they can get away with. So why do the media and so many left leaning people dedicate so much of their time on them?
> 
> The answer to that is simple... The tea party movement represents something government and left minded governments fear the most... Free thought... All things start with a thought, and from that thought can grow more critical thinking and then questions arise. Questions that no one who isn't thinking freely will ever ask. Then those freethinkers will gather and exchange information and share knowledge, ask questions and get answers. This gathering and exchange will be free of the media spin and biased political party nonsense. And without that spin, real knowledge and critical thought will empower those people.
> 
> If left alone this movement will allow left, right and center minded people to exchange ideas and talk without the media enhanced left vs right haze, without the absolutism of placating and throw away political ideologies, and without someone telling them how bad their neighbor is.... Soon that neighbor will no longer be left or right, but simply a neighbor just like themselves with many of the same fears and concerns..
> 
> This is the fear to end all fears of any government drunk with power, and desiring nothing more than their own well being. Look throughout history and see what exactly what I am talking about. Before the media became so powerful a political tool; before Hitler and so many since. Look and you will find free thought started revolutions that lead to the greatest changes in the world.
> 
> Right now the left has power hear in this country. But watch and when the right has power, see how they change their stance on the tea party movement... They will vilify them and say they were okay before the lefty socialists took it over, and any other excuse or reason they can find. They will fear them just as the left does now, but right now they serve a purpose for them. So they applaud them quietly and condemn the extreme examples.
> 
> In my opinion, the tea party movement could be the foundations of the next big national change, or even world change. Sure some of the bad elements may try and move in on it, but they will not live long amongst free thinkers. Those types never do. They hide in the shadows and prey on the weak. And people desiring to exchange directly with each other rather than accepting what they are told by media or politicians are not weak..
> 
> Perhaps the next time any of you condemn this movement off hand, you will take a closer look and realize these are possibly the Jeffersons, Adams, and Franklins of this era....



A liar will always fear exposure of the truth...no matter what form it takes.


----------



## geauxtohell

gslack said:


> People already with a decided left or right slant will predominately lean left and twist things in their favor... Its no coincidence its a fact, and its certainly not a logical conclusion. Its political agenda based one..



Everyone has a slant, whether they are honest enough to admit it or not is another issue.  I make no bones about what I believe.  Why do you?  

That doesn't mean their isn't logic involved in that process.  Feel free to demonstrate where I have been illogical.  



> Protesting for losers...nice... So the very people who brought you this government were losers.... And those French who protested before the all out Revolution? Yeah what a bunch of losers huh genius.... Of course you think they are losers, because you have never even looked into anything for yourself. Why protest what you cant be bothered to look into... Again lazy....



You conveniently omitted the "real wrongs" caveat.  Again, I think feaux outrage is fucking lame, and I think people who waste their own time participating in it are fucking losers.  It would take something pretty heinous for me to hit the street with a sign.  If that's what you do in your spare time, have a blast.  It's not my cup of tea.  

That also doesn't mean I haven't "looked into" the tea parties.  You just reject my analysis because it's from media outlets.  Apparently you only deal in anecdotes.  Again, completely illogical.  



> Reverse psychology? Dude reverse psychology would be if I told you to do the opposite of what I wanted... And so we see flat out you will vote as your liberal/progressive media tells you.




What-the-fuck-ever.  I vote based on my own opinions, not based on what some OPED jackass tells me.

Nonetheless, all the lame arguments you are making can be said about teabaggers like yoruself.  "You only vote the way your teabagger overlords tell you too!"

I doubt that's the truth, but see how easy (and lame) that was?  



> Why go and actually discover something when its all given to you in proper perspective and just the way it will placate you... So thats one vote wasted thank you....



How many times am I going to tell you that I think the teabag protests are feaux outrage that are filled with losers who are whining simply for the sake of whining?  Let me spell this out again for you so you can get it thought that chromed cranium of yours:  I am not going to a fucking teabag event.  I am also not going to accept that I have to go to a teabag event to have an opinion on teabaggers.  I don't care what you think about that.  Your opinion means jack and squat to me.  



> No dick I will call out what I said I will call out... I challenge you to show where I have cited  propaganda...



"Liberal/progressive media" is classic conservative propaganda.  Your notion that you can't get the straight scoop from the news is a particularly lame talking point that the right has been using for about ten years now.  



> THe OP was my thoughts based on my experience, you don't like it fine. But trying to dismiss it as propaganda is bullshit....



I didn't say your OP was propaganda.  I said you are prone to toss out propaganda in the same manner that the people you bitch about do.  



> New if we waited long enough we would see your true nature come out again.... Thanks for not letting us down... And no I will not STFU child.... I based my opinion on what you volunteer on this board, so if its not accurate show it....



"child"?


----------



## Stainmaster

gslack said:


> yeah...okay douchebag.... let me know when you want to have an adult discussion.. or when the pimples clear up and your voice lowers...



Thank you, George.


----------



## gslack

geauxtohell said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> People already with a decided left or right slant will predominately lean left and twist things in their favor... Its no coincidence its a fact, and its certainly not a logical conclusion. Its political agenda based one..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone has a slant, whether they are honest enough to admit it or not is another issue.  I make no bones about what I believe.  Why do you?
> 
> That doesn't mean their isn't logic involved in that process.  Feel free to demonstrate where I have been illogical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Protesting for losers...nice... So the very people who brought you this government were losers.... And those French who protested before the all out Revolution? Yeah what a bunch of losers huh genius.... Of course you think they are losers, because you have never even looked into anything for yourself. Why protest what you cant be bothered to look into... Again lazy....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You conveniently omitted the "real wrongs" caveat.  Again, I think feaux outrage is fucking lame, and I think people who waste their own time participating in it are fucking losers.  It would take something pretty heinous for me to hit the street with a sign.  If that's what you do in your spare time, have a blast.  It's not my cup of tea.
> 
> That also doesn't mean I haven't "looked into" the tea parties.  You just reject my analysis because it's from media outlets.  Apparently you only deal in anecdotes.  Again, completely illogical.
> 
> 
> 
> What-the-fuck-ever.  I vote based on my own opinions, not based on what some OPED jackass tells me.
> 
> Nonetheless, all the lame arguments you are making can be said about teabaggers like yoruself.  "You only vote the way your teabagger overlords tell you too!"
> 
> I doubt that's the truth, but see how easy (and lame) that was?
> 
> 
> 
> How many times am I going to tell you that I think the teabag protests are feaux outrage that are filled with losers who are whining simply for the sake of whining?  Let me spell this out again for you so you can get it thought that chromed cranium of yours:  I am not going to a fucking teabag event.  I am also not going to accept that I have to go to a teabag event to have an opinion on teabaggers.  I don't care what you think about that.  Your opinion means jack and squat to me.
> 
> 
> 
> "Liberal/progressive media" is classic conservative propaganda.  Your notion that you can't get the straight scoop from the news is a particularly lame talking point that the right has been using for about ten years now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THe OP was my thoughts based on my experience, you don't like it fine. But trying to dismiss it as propaganda is bullshit....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say your OP was propaganda.  I said you are prone to toss out propaganda in the same manner that the people you bitch about do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New if we waited long enough we would see your true nature come out again.... Thanks for not letting us down... And no I will not STFU child.... I based my opinion on what you volunteer on this board, so if its not accurate show it....
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "child"?
Click to expand...


All of that to simply say "unh-uh" like an idiot?

Seriously its 5 minutes of you finding ever elaborate ways to say "not true"...

Why bother separating it at all? Faux outrage? Like your bullshit posturing and pretense?

Dude you are a wasted vote.... You vote the way your preferred media tells you, with no further thought or even bothering to look for yourself. And whats worse is you admit it and then deny its a problem.. You admit each will have its own slant but you pretend its not an issue with you or your side.. Hows that ? Seriously just spare us the trouble and give your vote to real concerned citizens who want to understand the truth of what they support or oppose.


----------



## gslack

Stainmaster said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah...okay douchebag.... let me know when you want to have an adult discussion.. or when the pimples clear up and your voice lowers...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, George.
Click to expand...


Way to go dumazz..... Dont worry todays the day you will get lucky on here..


----------



## Stainmaster

gslack said:


> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah...okay douchebag.... let me know when you want to have an adult discussion.. or when the pimples clear up and your voice lowers...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, George.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Way to go dumazz..... Dont worry todays the day you will get lucky on here..
Click to expand...


It would be helpful if your put-downs had meaning to others beside yourself.


----------



## geauxtohell

gslack said:


> Dude you are a wasted vote....



Nothing is more patently insulting in this country then telling someone that their vote is a "wasted vote".  Why, because I don't vote the way you want me to vote?  Then what is the fucking point of voting?

We are all entitled to one vote in this country.  The fact that any person on this board spends more time than someone who snap votes (that is to say simply walks into the booth and pulls the level based on political ads, etc) means that we've done more due diligence than the vast majority of the country.  You many not like the way I vote, but you can't say I am "wasting my vote".  Who are you to make that determination anyways?  

Do you have to work at being this moronic?



> You vote the way your preferred media tells you, with no further thought or even bothering to look for yourself.



What is my "preferred media"?  I already told you that I don't watch cable news, and yet you keep tossing out these lame accusations.  So, since you know me so well, why don't you tell me where I get my news from?



> And whats worse is you admit it and then deny its a problem.. You admit each will have its own slant but you pretend its not an issue with you or your side.. Hows that ?[/qutoe]
> 
> I am honest enough to recognize that bias is inherent to everything.  Do you think you are getting the 100% version of the truth from your teabagging goon mouth-pieces?  What about the teabag favorite, Sarah Palin?  She's famous for bad info.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously just spare us the trouble and give your vote to real concerned citizens who want to understand the truth of what they support or oppose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I give my vote to someone that is going to support everything I disagree with?  I mean, that's basically your point, isn't it?  I shouldn't vote, because you don't like my opinions?  Or are you going to further amuse me by acting like only you and your fellow teabaggers get the straight shit without "bias"?  If it's the former, be honest enough to just say it.  If it's the latter, you are a complete dumb ass.
> 
> My vote is my right as an American.  On top of that, my happy ass got to go to Afghanistan for a year, so I think any claims that I don't deserve my vote are idiotic.
> 
> Once again, try and get that through your abnormally thick chromed cranium.
> 
> Dude.
Click to expand...


----------



## geauxtohell

Stainmaster said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, George.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Way to go dumazz..... Dont worry todays the day you will get lucky on here..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would be helpful if your put-downs had meaning to others beside yourself.
Click to expand...


Hey, he's a really important person.  Just ask him.

You should listen to him.


----------



## Foxfyre

Wading through the schoolyard taunts and insults, here, and finding a nugget or too of wisdom or at least debatable points expressed.

So Geauxtohell, I find myself agreeing that most people who say we shouldn't vote are sayng so because they think we won't vote for the candidate they want to win.   And you defend yourself not only in your Constitutional right to vote for whomever you choose, but also in your Constitutional right to choose that person using whatever information is available to you.

So help me understand here.  (Others can chime in too of course.)

Why are so many here convinced that the Tea Partiers are rightwing fringers who have not adequately informed themselves and are educated by rote from whatever sources are apparently most objectionable to the Tea Party critics?

Do they think everybody opposed to policies of the current Administration and the Democratically controlled Congress are uninformed idiots?   Have none looked at the issues and drawn informed conclusions?

If the Tea Partiers used the same sources that inform their critics, would they think like and agree with their critics?


----------



## gslack

Stainmaster said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you, George.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Way to go dumazz..... Dont worry todays the day you will get lucky on here..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would be helpful if your put-downs had meaning to others beside yourself.
Click to expand...


LOL, dude you posted a shirtless avatar pic of yourself, now your avatar is shirtless men... Advertising something or what?.. Thats why i said today is the day you will get lucky on here.. Thats the problem with insulting an idiot, the idiot thinks everyone else is as idiotic as he is...


----------



## Stainmaster

Foxfyre said:


> Wading through the schoolyard taunts and insults, here, and finding a nugget or too of wisdom or at least debatable points expressed.
> 
> So Geauxtohell, I find myself agreeing that most people who say we shouldn't vote are sayng so because they think we won't vote for the candidate they want to win.   And you defend yourself not only in your Constitutional right to vote for whomever you choose, but also in your Constitutional right to choose that person using whatever information is available to you.
> 
> So help me understand here.  (Others can chime in too of course.)
> 
> Why are so many here convinced that the Tea Partiers are rightwing fringers who have not adequately informed themselves and are educated by rote from whatever sources are apparently most objectionable to the Tea Party critics?
> 
> Do they think everybody opposed to policies of the current Administration and the Democratically controlled Congress are uninformed idiots?   Have none looked at the issues and drawn informed conclusions?
> 
> If the Tea Partiers used the same sources that inform their critics, would they think like and agree with their critics?



Tea Baggers are somewhat affluent, white people, whose goal is to hang on to whatever they have as they age and watch their lives slipping away.  These are not people who are used to losing, and they put everything they had into Bush and McCain.  Well, they lost, and lost big, 
(see the map in my signature).  

They are bitter.  They have no where to go.  Their party has no defined leadership.  They feel "their" country is slipping away from them.   Well, their ideas are out of touch with reality in today's America.  

They are Tea Baggers clawing desperately to prevail.  They can not accept that they are just sore losers, who are falling back on racism to justify their situation.  America has a black president, and their world is falling apart.  Frankly, after the way they have treated us independents I am enjoying the idea that "what goes around, comes around."






*Cuddly little bunch, these Tea Baggers, huh?*​


----------



## gslack

geauxtohell said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude you are a wasted vote....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing is more patently insulting in this country then telling someone that their vote is a "wasted vote".  Why, because I don't vote the way you want me to vote?  Then what is the fucking point of voting?
> 
> We are all entitled to one vote in this country.  The fact that any person on this board spends more time than someone who snap votes (that is to say simply walks into the booth and pulls the level based on political ads, etc) means that we've done more due diligence than the vast majority of the country.  You many not like the way I vote, but you can't say I am "wasting my vote".  Who are you to make that determination anyways?
> 
> Do you have to work at being this moronic?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You vote the way your preferred media tells you, with no further thought or even bothering to look for yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is my "preferred media"?  I already told you that I don't watch cable news, and yet you keep tossing out these lame accusations.  So, since you know me so well, why don't you tell me where I get my news from?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And whats worse is you admit it and then deny its a problem.. You admit each will have its own slant but you pretend its not an issue with you or your side.. Hows that ?[/qutoe]
> 
> I am honest enough to recognize that bias is inherent to everything.  Do you think you are getting the 100% version of the truth from your teabagging goon mouth-pieces?  What about the teabag favorite, Sarah Palin?  She's famous for bad info.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously just spare us the trouble and give your vote to real concerned citizens who want to understand the truth of what they support or oppose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I give my vote to someone that is going to support everything I disagree with?  I mean, that's basically your point, isn't it?  I shouldn't vote, because you don't like my opinions?  Or are you going to further amuse me by acting like only you and your fellow teabaggers get the straight shit without "bias"?  If it's the former, be honest enough to just say it.  If it's the latter, you are a complete dumb ass.
> 
> My vote is my right as an American.  On top of that, my happy ass got to go to Afghanistan for a year, so I think any claims that I don't deserve my vote are idiotic.
> 
> Once again, try and get that through your abnormally thick chromed cranium.
> 
> Dude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You already surrender your vote to your perceived betters... You go along with your political party period... They say the tea partys are full of hate and you don't bother to check you just figure it must be so and go along with it...
> 
> Thats my entire point.. I'm not asking you to vote the way I want you to, I want you to use your freaking head for more than a liberal PR storage device...
> 
> I don't tell ya not to vote because of YOUR opinions, I tell ya not to vote because yours comes straight from MSNBC. They aren't your opinions based on anything real they are MSNBC's opinions. And please spare me the douchebag reply about you don't watch MSNBC, its a name I used, could have used CNN, or Democracy Now! or the Huffpost, its all the same...
> 
> You have the ability to go and see for yourself about tea parties, and you flatly refused to do so, stating you didn't need to... Why is that? I mean isn't it responsible citizenship to not take political agendas or the word of politicians and biased media and look for yourself whenever you can?
> 
> If this were something you were unable to find out about on your own, thats one, but thats not thee case at all. You just refuse to do so. Why is that? Is it laziness? or is it a fear that you may find your party and their supportive media have been lying to you?
> 
> From your response I say its a little bit of both.....
Click to expand...


----------



## CrusaderFrank

I gave the OP a 10 minute standing ovation!

Brilliant!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Also, people who used the phrase "Tea Baggers" are fucking morons


----------



## Zona

Luissa said:


> Kind of goes both ways, doesn't it?
> 
> We are afraid of the Tea Party, they are afraid of liberals and Obama.
> It is called politics.



Here is the difference and I like being on this side of the fence..

We are" affraid" of the tea baggers...?  ok..

They are affraid of the people who are in control of the white house and the president of the united states.

I would rather be on my side.

Oh and us being affraid of he baggers?  the republicans are distancing themselves from them. Look what they did to Ol Rand and remember the MA. hero...lol Look how the baggers are treating him.  The real repblicans want nothing to do with them.  Nothing.  

Ol Sarah is a hero for them and that says everything.  We "fear" baggers?  lol  They are rudderless.  (Well, except for Armey.)


----------



## Stainmaster

CrusaderFrank said:


> Also, people who used the phrase "Tea Baggers" are fucking morons



Is that why the government, and CNN took a death threat on Anderson Cooper for using the words "Tea Bagger" so seriously.  Tea Bagger racisim and classism represent a threat to all Americans.  Tea Baggers should be dealt with as terrorists.


Teabagger
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Further information: Tea Party movement and Tea Party protests

....The verb to "tea bag", hence "tea bagger", to describe these protesters has been used by several pundits and journalists after it appeared *self-referentially* on signs at Tea Party rallies, distributed by "FReeRepublic.Com". Anderson Cooper apologized for using the term. Ridiculing the movement has produced death threats......


----------



## gslack

Stainmaster said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wading through the schoolyard taunts and insults, here, and finding a nugget or too of wisdom or at least debatable points expressed.
> 
> So Geauxtohell, I find myself agreeing that most people who say we shouldn't vote are sayng so because they think we won't vote for the candidate they want to win.   And you defend yourself not only in your Constitutional right to vote for whomever you choose, but also in your Constitutional right to choose that person using whatever information is available to you.
> 
> So help me understand here.  (Others can chime in too of course.)
> 
> Why are so many here convinced that the Tea Partiers are rightwing fringers who have not adequately informed themselves and are educated by rote from whatever sources are apparently most objectionable to the Tea Party critics?
> 
> Do they think everybody opposed to policies of the current Administration and the Democratically controlled Congress are uninformed idiots?   Have none looked at the issues and drawn informed conclusions?
> 
> If the Tea Partiers used the same sources that inform their critics, would they think like and agree with their critics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Baggers are somewhat affluent, white people, whose goal is to hang on to whatever they have as they age and watch their lives slipping away.  These are not people who are used to losing, and they put everything they had into Bush and McCain.  Well, they lost, and lost big,
> (see the map in my signature).
> 
> They are bitter.  They have no where to go.  Their party has no defined leadership.  They feel "their" country is slipping away from them.   Well, their ideas are out of touch with reality in today's America.
> 
> They are Tea Baggers clawing desperately to prevail.  They can not accept that they are just sore losers, who are falling back on racism to justify their situation.  America has a black president, and their world is falling apart.  Frankly, after the way they have treated us independents I am enjoying the idea that "what goes around, comes around."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Cuddly little bunch, these Tea Baggers, huh?*​
Click to expand...


Ok so you also parrot MSNBC and the other liberal media and then try and pretend you're not???

So far most of the response from the left has been this same thing over and over. You say you are informed on this, you say you know all about the tea party movement. yet in reality all you know is what you get from liberal media..... If ya knew anything else you wouldn't parrot them and all your posts wouldn't repeat the same tired old rhetoric and PR nonsense...

Another person too lazy or too cowardly to see for themselves.... Thank you so much for this mindless "do as you're told" attitude.... Just don't gripe or bullshit and excuse it later when you find they were wrong... Pathetic....


----------



## gslack

Zona said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of goes both ways, doesn't it?
> 
> We are afraid of the Tea Party, they are afraid of liberals and Obama.
> It is called politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the difference and I like being on this side of the fence..
> 
> We are" affraid" of the tea baggers...?  ok..
> 
> They are affraid of the people who are in control of the white house and the president of the united states.
> 
> I would rather be on my side.
> 
> Oh and us being affraid of he baggers?  the republicans are distancing themselves from them. Look what they did to Ol Rand and remember the MA. hero...lol Look how the baggers are treating him.  The real repblicans want nothing to do with them.  Nothing.
> 
> Ol Sarah is a hero for them and that says everything.  We "fear" baggers?  lol  They are rudderless.  (Well, except for Armey.)
Click to expand...


Afraid? No you and your liberal/progressives are petrified of free thought... A few years ago when Congress passed the patriot act, you weasels cried like babies and blamed the Bush Admin exclusively. Now that your president and congress are in they suddenly forget the patriot act... Yeah fucking fakes.... What was all that talk about repealing it, or revising or revoking it.. Hypocrites don't even realize how they have been duped, yet they are going to judge people based on the claims of the same media who got them in a frenzy over the patriot act, and now that the other party is in power they go deathly quiet on it...


----------



## Foxfyre

gslack said:


> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wading through the schoolyard taunts and insults, here, and finding a nugget or too of wisdom or at least debatable points expressed.
> 
> So Geauxtohell, I find myself agreeing that most people who say we shouldn't vote are sayng so because they think we won't vote for the candidate they want to win.   And you defend yourself not only in your Constitutional right to vote for whomever you choose, but also in your Constitutional right to choose that person using whatever information is available to you.
> 
> So help me understand here.  (Others can chime in too of course.)
> 
> Why are so many here convinced that the Tea Partiers are rightwing fringers who have not adequately informed themselves and are educated by rote from whatever sources are apparently most objectionable to the Tea Party critics?
> 
> Do they think everybody opposed to policies of the current Administration and the Democratically controlled Congress are uninformed idiots?   Have none looked at the issues and drawn informed conclusions?
> 
> If the Tea Partiers used the same sources that inform their critics, would they think like and agree with their critics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Baggers are somewhat affluent, white people, whose goal is to hang on to whatever they have as they age and watch their lives slipping away.  These are not people who are used to losing, and they put everything they had into Bush and McCain.  Well, they lost, and lost big,
> (see the map in my signature).
> 
> They are bitter.  They have no where to go.  Their party has no defined leadership.  They feel "their" country is slipping away from them.   Well, their ideas are out of touch with reality in today's America.
> 
> They are Tea Baggers clawing desperately to prevail.  They can not accept that they are just sore losers, who are falling back on racism to justify their situation.  America has a black president, and their world is falling apart.  Frankly, after the way they have treated us independents I am enjoying the idea that "what goes around, comes around."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Cuddly little bunch, these Tea Baggers, huh?*​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok so you also parrot MSNBC and the other liberal media and then try and pretend you're not???
> 
> So far most of the response from the left has been this same thing over and over. You say you are informed on this, you say you know all about the tea party movement. yet in reality all you know is what you get from liberal media..... If ya knew anything else you wouldn't parrot them and all your posts wouldn't repeat the same tired old rhetoric and PR nonsense...
> 
> Another person too lazy or too cowardly to see for themselves.... Thank you so much for this mindless "do as you're told" attitude.... Just don't gripe or bullshit and excuse it later when you find they were wrong... Pathetic....
Click to expand...


Yup.  Any time I see somebody describing the Tea Partiers as 'bitter' or 'affluent white folks', I know you're dealing with somebody brainwashed by the Left who doesn't have a clue who the Tea Partiers are or what they are all about.   Many Tea Partiers are by no means 'affluent' though I'm guessing they are probably better educated than your average leftwing protesters.  And they sure as hell aren't bitter.  You won't find company with more civil, gregarious, accommodating, inclusive, optimistic, and pleasant people anywhere.

But they are angry at what some would do to this country.  And they are determined to do what they can to preserve and/or restrore what they believe is the best that is in this country.  And all of you had better pray to God or whatever you worship that they succeed.  If they don't, I don't think you're going to like what you wind up with.


----------



## AllieBaba

Zona said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of goes both ways, doesn't it?
> 
> We are afraid of the Tea Party, they are afraid of liberals and Obama.
> It is called politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the difference and I like being on this side of the fence..
> 
> We are" affraid" of the tea baggers...?  ok..
> 
> They are affraid of the people who are in control of the white house and the president of the united states.
> 
> I would rather be on my side.
> 
> Oh and us being affraid of he baggers?  the republicans are distancing themselves from them. Look what they did to Ol Rand and remember the MA. hero...lol Look how the baggers are treating him.  The real repblicans want nothing to do with them.  Nothing.
> 
> Ol Sarah is a hero for them and that says everything.  We "fear" baggers?  lol  They are rudderless.  (Well, except for Armey.)
Click to expand...


Tea partiers are afraid of the people who control the White House because they are dishonest crooks. You should be afraid of them, too. The fact that you aren't tells me you think tranny is just fine and dandy.

But that's not news.


----------



## Bfgrn

gslack said:


> Everyday I see a knew article in the news or a new post here on USMB regarding the tea party, partiers, whatever. I have noticed something very strange.... I see very little positive threads started on them, and far too many negative ones. of all the negative ones I have seen, the most of them are decidedly left sided, and prone to exaggerations, misleading claims, and outright lies about what they are doing or represent....
> 
> Most of the time the threads about the tea party movement resort to calling the partiers ignorant hicks, uneducated, or racist hate-filled mobs of angry people all trying to intimidate or threaten. I wonder if this were true, why has there not been any arrests or riots yet? All we see or hear are these extreme claims and yet nothing regarding what was done about it.. What is there no Cops at these things? Are there no security or anti-tea partiers to at least give a counter argument? I mean if half the things we hear are true, why are they still walking around free? This leads me to believe there is far more propaganda than truth in these claims.
> 
> Also, I wonder if they really are so ignorant and uneducated, and their meetings so filled with mindless hate; why do they fear them so much? I mean in order to dedicate so much time to attack something one must have a good reason for it.. And the only good reason I can imagine must have some sort of fear involved... Fear of dissent, fear of racial hatred, fear of crazy uneducated folk with guns, fear of something... And if it is fear, why all the fear?
> 
> Indeed what is to fear in groups of so-called uneducated folk venting? They have guns? Well so do the cops and the cops will be legally in their right to shoot them if they become dangerous. The fear of racial hatred? Well then why don't we arrest all the KKK or white supremest groups? maybe the fear of spreading stupidity? Well if its so stupid why would it spread? According to the left media, it is so ignorant and only serves the side of hatred and only an idiot would follow it... So if we are not all idiots, and we can easily see how ignorant it is, why all the bother and press time?
> 
> Its simple really, I think Louis Farrakhan is an idiot and only morons would follow him, so I don't pay attention to him. Problem solved and no fear at all... Sure he has some followers, but I do not fear them because I know they are limited by laws and have at least enough sense to know what they can get away with. So why do the media and so many left leaning people dedicate so much of their time on them?
> 
> The answer to that is simple... The tea party movement represents something government and left minded governments fear the most... Free thought... All things start with a thought, and from that thought can grow more critical thinking and then questions arise. Questions that no one who isn't thinking freely will ever ask. Then those freethinkers will gather and exchange information and share knowledge, ask questions and get answers. This gathering and exchange will be free of the media spin and biased political party nonsense. And without that spin, real knowledge and critical thought will empower those people.
> 
> If left alone this movement will allow left, right and center minded people to exchange ideas and talk without the media enhanced left vs right haze, without the absolutism of placating and throw away political ideologies, and without someone telling them how bad their neighbor is.... Soon that neighbor will no longer be left or right, but simply a neighbor just like themselves with many of the same fears and concerns..
> 
> This is the fear to end all fears of any government drunk with power, and desiring nothing more than their own well being. Look throughout history and see what exactly what I am talking about. Before the media became so powerful a political tool; before Hitler and so many since. Look and you will find free thought started revolutions that lead to the greatest changes in the world.
> 
> Right now the left has power hear in this country. But watch and when the right has power, see how they change their stance on the tea party movement... They will vilify them and say they were okay before the lefty socialists took it over, and any other excuse or reason they can find. They will fear them just as the left does now, but right now they serve a purpose for them. So they applaud them quietly and condemn the extreme examples.
> 
> In my opinion, the tea party movement could be the foundations of the next big national change, or even world change. Sure some of the bad elements may try and move in on it, but they will not live long amongst free thinkers. Those types never do. They hide in the shadows and prey on the weak. And people desiring to exchange directly with each other rather than accepting what they are told by media or politicians are not weak..
> 
> Perhaps the next time any of you condemn this movement off hand, you will take a closer look and realize these are possibly the Jeffersons, Adams, and Franklins of this era....




Yea...here's the teabaggers named Adams, and Franklin...


----------



## gslack

Bfgrn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyday I see a knew article in the news or a new post here on USMB regarding the tea party, partiers, whatever. I have noticed something very strange.... I see very little positive threads started on them, and far too many negative ones. of all the negative ones I have seen, the most of them are decidedly left sided, and prone to exaggerations, misleading claims, and outright lies about what they are doing or represent....
> 
> Most of the time the threads about the tea party movement resort to calling the partiers ignorant hicks, uneducated, or racist hate-filled mobs of angry people all trying to intimidate or threaten. I wonder if this were true, why has there not been any arrests or riots yet? All we see or hear are these extreme claims and yet nothing regarding what was done about it.. What is there no Cops at these things? Are there no security or anti-tea partiers to at least give a counter argument? I mean if half the things we hear are true, why are they still walking around free? This leads me to believe there is far more propaganda than truth in these claims.
> 
> Also, I wonder if they really are so ignorant and uneducated, and their meetings so filled with mindless hate; why do they fear them so much? I mean in order to dedicate so much time to attack something one must have a good reason for it.. And the only good reason I can imagine must have some sort of fear involved... Fear of dissent, fear of racial hatred, fear of crazy uneducated folk with guns, fear of something... And if it is fear, why all the fear?
> 
> Indeed what is to fear in groups of so-called uneducated folk venting? They have guns? Well so do the cops and the cops will be legally in their right to shoot them if they become dangerous. The fear of racial hatred? Well then why don't we arrest all the KKK or white supremest groups? maybe the fear of spreading stupidity? Well if its so stupid why would it spread? According to the left media, it is so ignorant and only serves the side of hatred and only an idiot would follow it... So if we are not all idiots, and we can easily see how ignorant it is, why all the bother and press time?
> 
> Its simple really, I think Louis Farrakhan is an idiot and only morons would follow him, so I don't pay attention to him. Problem solved and no fear at all... Sure he has some followers, but I do not fear them because I know they are limited by laws and have at least enough sense to know what they can get away with. So why do the media and so many left leaning people dedicate so much of their time on them?
> 
> The answer to that is simple... The tea party movement represents something government and left minded governments fear the most... Free thought... All things start with a thought, and from that thought can grow more critical thinking and then questions arise. Questions that no one who isn't thinking freely will ever ask. Then those freethinkers will gather and exchange information and share knowledge, ask questions and get answers. This gathering and exchange will be free of the media spin and biased political party nonsense. And without that spin, real knowledge and critical thought will empower those people.
> 
> If left alone this movement will allow left, right and center minded people to exchange ideas and talk without the media enhanced left vs right haze, without the absolutism of placating and throw away political ideologies, and without someone telling them how bad their neighbor is.... Soon that neighbor will no longer be left or right, but simply a neighbor just like themselves with many of the same fears and concerns..
> 
> This is the fear to end all fears of any government drunk with power, and desiring nothing more than their own well being. Look throughout history and see what exactly what I am talking about. Before the media became so powerful a political tool; before Hitler and so many since. Look and you will find free thought started revolutions that lead to the greatest changes in the world.
> 
> Right now the left has power hear in this country. But watch and when the right has power, see how they change their stance on the tea party movement... They will vilify them and say they were okay before the lefty socialists took it over, and any other excuse or reason they can find. They will fear them just as the left does now, but right now they serve a purpose for them. So they applaud them quietly and condemn the extreme examples.
> 
> In my opinion, the tea party movement could be the foundations of the next big national change, or even world change. Sure some of the bad elements may try and move in on it, but they will not live long amongst free thinkers. Those types never do. They hide in the shadows and prey on the weak. And people desiring to exchange directly with each other rather than accepting what they are told by media or politicians are not weak..
> 
> Perhaps the next time any of you condemn this movement off hand, you will take a closer look and realize these are possibly the Jeffersons, Adams, and Franklins of this era....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea...here's the teabaggers named Adams, and Franklin...
Click to expand...


I seen those two at a Green party rally once..... They work for the Huffington post I believe.. or was it Democracy NOW!? I can't remember, all those leftist PR rags look the same after a while...


----------



## geauxtohell

Foxfyre said:


> So Geauxtohell, I find myself agreeing that most people who say we shouldn't vote are sayng so because they think we won't vote for the candidate they want to win.   And you defend yourself not only in your Constitutional right to vote for whomever you choose, but also in your Constitutional right to choose that person using whatever information is available to you.



Thank you.  I would think that such a simple fact of civics is so basic and simple that it "speaks for itself", but apparently not to some here. 



> So help me understand here.  (Others can chime in too of course.)
> 
> Why are so many here convinced that the Tea Partiers are rightwing fringers who have not adequately informed themselves and are educated by rote from whatever sources are apparently most objectionable to the Tea Party critics?
> 
> Do they think everybody opposed to policies of the current Administration and the Democratically controlled Congress are uninformed idiots?   Have none looked at the issues and drawn informed conclusions?
> 
> If the Tea Partiers used the same sources that inform their critics, would they think like and agree with their critics?



I don't think the vast majority of the Tea Party crew are fringe rightwingers, but I definitely think they are rightwingers.  It simply doesn't add up any other way.  Prior to Obama's election, the "tea party" was a small group of Ron Paul people who were mostly excoriated by the GOP (believe me, I watched the Paulites take both barrels on message boards from conservatives (liberals were less concerned with Paul as they knew he would never be in the general)).  So, let's just be frank and admit that the only people protesting government waste during the Bush administration (one of the most wasteful administrations in history) were the Paul-ites.  If there were regular Bush voters in the mix, they were a small minority.    

Then, like magic, virtually immediately after Obama was sworn in the movement started to grow.  You can buy the party line that "TARP was the straw that  broke the camels back and some futures trader/hedge fund manager's (who has more money than God) angry rant at the Chicago board of trade was the rhetoric that a bunch of middle class people needed to mobilize".  Frankly, it doesn't add up.  Then you have reports of Dick Armey and other PACs being involved in the group and it starts to look more astroturf than grass roots.

In reality, I think the tea party is a collection of conservative voters (many of whom are two time Bush voters) who are angry they lost the election.  

I mean, I would buy that this is a real political movement, but it still lacks any real leadership, vision, goal, or platform (and please spare me the "lame list" of vague platitudes like "Defend the Constitution" that someone slopped together).  

I don't think that the tea party adequately encapsulates every, or even most, Americans that disagree with the administration.  I also don't think they are uninformed about the issues.  I may disagree with their take on them, but they aren't mis-informed.

What I do think they are mis-informed about is the notion that they are a spontaneous grass roots organization that is going to win over moderates.  I doubt most people in the movement know who the puppet master is.


----------



## Bfgrn

gslack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyday I see a knew article in the news or a new post here on USMB regarding the tea party, partiers, whatever. I have noticed something very strange.... I see very little positive threads started on them, and far too many negative ones. of all the negative ones I have seen, the most of them are decidedly left sided, and prone to exaggerations, misleading claims, and outright lies about what they are doing or represent....
> 
> Most of the time the threads about the tea party movement resort to calling the partiers ignorant hicks, uneducated, or racist hate-filled mobs of angry people all trying to intimidate or threaten. I wonder if this were true, why has there not been any arrests or riots yet? All we see or hear are these extreme claims and yet nothing regarding what was done about it.. What is there no Cops at these things? Are there no security or anti-tea partiers to at least give a counter argument? I mean if half the things we hear are true, why are they still walking around free? This leads me to believe there is far more propaganda than truth in these claims.
> 
> Also, I wonder if they really are so ignorant and uneducated, and their meetings so filled with mindless hate; why do they fear them so much? I mean in order to dedicate so much time to attack something one must have a good reason for it.. And the only good reason I can imagine must have some sort of fear involved... Fear of dissent, fear of racial hatred, fear of crazy uneducated folk with guns, fear of something... And if it is fear, why all the fear?
> 
> Indeed what is to fear in groups of so-called uneducated folk venting? They have guns? Well so do the cops and the cops will be legally in their right to shoot them if they become dangerous. The fear of racial hatred? Well then why don't we arrest all the KKK or white supremest groups? maybe the fear of spreading stupidity? Well if its so stupid why would it spread? According to the left media, it is so ignorant and only serves the side of hatred and only an idiot would follow it... So if we are not all idiots, and we can easily see how ignorant it is, why all the bother and press time?
> 
> Its simple really, I think Louis Farrakhan is an idiot and only morons would follow him, so I don't pay attention to him. Problem solved and no fear at all... Sure he has some followers, but I do not fear them because I know they are limited by laws and have at least enough sense to know what they can get away with. So why do the media and so many left leaning people dedicate so much of their time on them?
> 
> The answer to that is simple... The tea party movement represents something government and left minded governments fear the most... Free thought... All things start with a thought, and from that thought can grow more critical thinking and then questions arise. Questions that no one who isn't thinking freely will ever ask. Then those freethinkers will gather and exchange information and share knowledge, ask questions and get answers. This gathering and exchange will be free of the media spin and biased political party nonsense. And without that spin, real knowledge and critical thought will empower those people.
> 
> If left alone this movement will allow left, right and center minded people to exchange ideas and talk without the media enhanced left vs right haze, without the absolutism of placating and throw away political ideologies, and without someone telling them how bad their neighbor is.... Soon that neighbor will no longer be left or right, but simply a neighbor just like themselves with many of the same fears and concerns..
> 
> This is the fear to end all fears of any government drunk with power, and desiring nothing more than their own well being. Look throughout history and see what exactly what I am talking about. Before the media became so powerful a political tool; before Hitler and so many since. Look and you will find free thought started revolutions that lead to the greatest changes in the world.
> 
> Right now the left has power hear in this country. But watch and when the right has power, see how they change their stance on the tea party movement... They will vilify them and say they were okay before the lefty socialists took it over, and any other excuse or reason they can find. They will fear them just as the left does now, but right now they serve a purpose for them. So they applaud them quietly and condemn the extreme examples.
> 
> In my opinion, the tea party movement could be the foundations of the next big national change, or even world change. Sure some of the bad elements may try and move in on it, but they will not live long amongst free thinkers. Those types never do. They hide in the shadows and prey on the weak. And people desiring to exchange directly with each other rather than accepting what they are told by media or politicians are not weak..
> 
> Perhaps the next time any of you condemn this movement off hand, you will take a closer look and realize these are possibly the Jeffersons, Adams, and Franklins of this era....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea...here's the teabaggers named Adams, and Franklin...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I seen those two at a Green party rally once..... They work for the Huffington post I believe.. or was it Democracy NOW!? I can't remember, all those leftist PR rags look the same after a while...
Click to expand...


Nice try, but the recent poll of teabaggers exposed them as pea brained Bushies living ON the public dole and unaware Obama lowered their taxes...

If you decide to go to a teabagger rally, 'nice tooth' is a good pickup line.


----------



## gslack

Bfgrn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea...here's the teabaggers named Adams, and Franklin...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I seen those two at a Green party rally once..... They work for the Huffington post I believe.. or was it Democracy NOW!? I can't remember, all those leftist PR rags look the same after a while...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice try, but the recent poll of teabaggers exposed them as pea brained Bushies living ON the public dole and unaware Obama lowered their taxes...
> 
> If you decide to go to a teabagger rally, 'nice tooth' is a good pickup line.
Click to expand...


Nah im pretty sure thats the two who host Democracy NOW!....

And from your simple minded response which matches the other simple minded responses from the moonbats on this so far; we can tell even the dumbest tea party goers are a lot sharper than you..


----------



## geauxtohell

gslack said:


> You already surrender your vote to your perceived betters... You go along with your political party period... They say the tea partys are full of hate and you don't bother to check you just figure it must be so and go along with it...



Now this is just getting fucking stupid.  I told you that I vote Democrat, but I am not beyond voting for a Republican (like my congressperson) if I feel they deserve my vote.

Other than that, yes, I vote Democratic, because, of the two major parties, I feel the Democratic Party more adequately sums up how I feel and represents my beliefs on issues. 

I mean, this isn't a fucking hard concept to grasp.  

I have no idea how this segways into the teabaggers.  However, since you want to make this a personal issue about me, feel free to quote me when I stated that the teaparty is "full of hate".  

And again, just because I have the feeling that you need to be reminded, I am not going to go to a teabagger event.  Like I said, I don't have to run into a brick wall to know the experience is going to suck.    



> Thats my entire point.. I'm not asking you to vote the way I want you to, I want you to use your freaking head for more than a liberal PR storage device...



Why don't you use your freaking head and demonstrate how I am "not using my head".  After you get done with that, I'll assess whether I give a damn enough about your opinion to value it or dismiss it. 

Though, I wouldn't put my chips on the "value" line.  



> I don't tell ya not to vote because of YOUR opinions, I tell ya not to vote because yours comes straight from MSNBC. They aren't your opinions based on anything real they are MSNBC's opinions. And please spare me the douchebag reply about you don't watch MSNBC, its a name I used, could have used CNN, or Democracy Now! or the Huffpost, its all the same...



Once again, this is getting fucking stupid.  I've already told you that I don't get my news from cable news.  It's only a "douchbag reply" to you, because it flies in the face of your pre-conceived notions.  I also don't get my news from the huffington post.  

So, since you are so concerned about this (albeit idiotic charade of an) issue, why don't you tell me where I get my news from?  I'll give you a hint, if the issue is Afghanistan, I get my news from Reuters since, IMO, they have the best coverage over that issue.  

At any rate, Since you are going to fail at predicting how I acquire information, maybe you can just give me your list of "approved news sources".

Weren't you whining about propaganda before?



> You have the ability to go and see for yourself about tea parties, and you flatly refused to do so, stating you didn't need to... Why is that? I mean isn't it responsible citizenship to not take political agendas or the word of politicians and biased media and look for yourself whenever you can?



Why: (again) I think feaux protest events are for losers.  I can also recognize a strawman argument when I see one "you can't really comment on the teabag movement until you go to an event!"  So I choose not to waste my time (which is rather limited these days) on the matter.  



> If this were something you were unable to find out about on your own, thats one, but thats not thee case at all. You just refuse to do so. Why is that? Is it laziness? or is it a fear that you may find your party and their supportive media have been lying to you?



Why:  (for the third time)  I think feaux protest events are for losers.  It has nothing to do with any amount of cognitive dissonance.  At any rate, the guy I supported won.  Why should I protest anything?  Obama has done reasonably well so far.  So why would I go join a crowd of people that have opposed him since day one, even if for the learning experience?  

So, just so we can move on from this issue, allow me to say it again:  I am not going to a tea party event, because I think they are lame.  



> From your response I say its a little bit of both.....



You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, so your opinion is valued for what it is worth.

At any rate, I highly encourage you and the rest of the teabaggers to adopt "you are too stupid to vote, so don't" as a talking point.  It in no way makes you all look like pretentious cocksuckers.


----------



## geauxtohell

CrusaderFrank said:


> Also, people who used the phrase "Tea Baggers" are fucking morons



Coming from the King of Penny-Ante Partisan Rhetoric, I'll take that as a complement.

Anymore cool pictures to post in honor of this event?


----------



## Bfgrn

gslack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seen those two at a Green party rally once..... They work for the Huffington post I believe.. or was it Democracy NOW!? I can't remember, all those leftist PR rags look the same after a while...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, but the recent poll of teabaggers exposed them as pea brained Bushies living ON the public dole and unaware Obama lowered their taxes...
> 
> If you decide to go to a teabagger rally, 'nice tooth' is a good pickup line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah im pretty sure thats the two who host Democracy NOW!....
> 
> And from your simple minded response which matches the other simple minded responses from the moonbats on this so far; we can tell even the dumbest tea party goers are a lot sharper than you..
Click to expand...


Here's an idea...I want to give you a golden opportunity...you pick a topic and we'll debate it...this way you can show everybody how smart you are and how dumb I am....

I'll be waiting............................................................


----------



## geauxtohell

Bfgrn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, but the recent poll of teabaggers exposed them as pea brained Bushies living ON the public dole and unaware Obama lowered their taxes...
> 
> If you decide to go to a teabagger rally, 'nice tooth' is a good pickup line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah im pretty sure thats the two who host Democracy NOW!....
> 
> And from your simple minded response which matches the other simple minded responses from the moonbats on this so far; we can tell even the dumbest tea party goers are a lot sharper than you..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's an idea...I want to give you a golden opportunity...you pick a topic and we'll debate it...this way you can show everybody how smart you are and how dumb I am....
> 
> I'll be waiting............................................................
Click to expand...


Don't be too hard on the boy.  He suffers from delusions of relevance.

It's a common problem on the internets.


----------



## gslack

geauxtohell said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You already surrender your vote to your perceived betters... You go along with your political party period... They say the tea partys are full of hate and you don't bother to check you just figure it must be so and go along with it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now this is just getting fucking stupid.  I told you that I vote Democrat, but I am not beyond voting for a Republican (like my congressperson) if I feel they deserve my vote.
> 
> Other than that, yes, I vote Democratic, because, of the two major parties, I feel the Democratic Party more adequately sums up how I feel and represents my beliefs on issues.
> 
> I mean, this isn't a fucking hard concept to grasp.
> 
> I have no idea how this segways into the teabaggers.  However, since you want to make this a personal issue about me, feel free to quote me when I stated that the teaparty is "full of hate".
> 
> And again, just because I have the feeling that you need to be reminded, I am not going to go to a teabagger event.  Like I said, I don't have to run into a brick wall to know the experience is going to suck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats my entire point.. I'm not asking you to vote the way I want you to, I want you to use your freaking head for more than a liberal PR storage device...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don't you use your freaking head and demonstrate how I am "not using my head".  After you get done with that, I'll assess whether I give a damn enough about your opinion to value it or dismiss it.
> 
> Though, I wouldn't put my chips on the "value" line.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, this is getting fucking stupid.  I've already told you that I don't get my news from cable news.  It's only a "douchbag reply" to you, because it flies in the face of your pre-conceived notions.  I also don't get my news from the huffington post.
> 
> So, since you are so concerned about this (albeit idiotic charade of an) issue, why don't you tell me where I get my news from?  I'll give you a hint, if the issue is Afghanistan, I get my news from Reuters since, IMO, they have the best coverage over that issue.
> 
> At any rate, Since you are going to fail at predicting how I acquire information, maybe you can just give me your list of "approved news sources".
> 
> Weren't you whining about propaganda before?
> 
> 
> 
> Why: (again) I think feaux protest events are for losers.  I can also recognize a strawman argument when I see one "you can't really comment on the teabag movement until you go to an event!"  So I choose not to waste my time (which is rather limited these days) on the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If this were something you were unable to find out about on your own, thats one, but thats not thee case at all. You just refuse to do so. Why is that? Is it laziness? or is it a fear that you may find your party and their supportive media have been lying to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why:  (for the third time)  I think feaux protest events are for losers.  It has nothing to do with any amount of cognitive dissonance.  At any rate, the guy I supported won.  Why should I protest anything?  Obama has done reasonably well so far.  So why would I go join a crowd of people that have opposed him since day one, even if for the learning experience?
> 
> So, just so we can move on from this issue, allow me to say it again:  I am not going to a tea party event, because I think they are lame.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your response I say its a little bit of both.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know your ass from a hole in the ground, so your opinion is valued for what it is worth.
> 
> At any rate, I highly encourage you and the rest of the teabaggers to adopt "you are too stupid to vote, so don't" as a talking point.  It in no way makes you all look like pretentious cocksuckers.
Click to expand...


Oh stop crying drama queen.. I didn't tell you what to do, I told you your vote was a wasted because you refuse to look for yourself. As I said it would be different id ya couldn't look and see for yourself. issues like healthcare you are limited on what you see of it. But an open tea party event? That can be going on anywhere and anyone can attend, and you tel us how you dont have to because you either just already know somehow, or the media you choose told you all you needed to know... And then you try and pretend you didn't do exactly that.... you are a fake....

 Faux outrage.... Yeah, faux like your little display here? yeah.... Another 15 minutes of you denying what you are doing and at the same time admitting it....


----------



## gslack

Bfgrn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try, but the recent poll of teabaggers exposed them as pea brained Bushies living ON the public dole and unaware Obama lowered their taxes...
> 
> If you decide to go to a teabagger rally, 'nice tooth' is a good pickup line.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nah im pretty sure thats the two who host Democracy NOW!....
> 
> And from your simple minded response which matches the other simple minded responses from the moonbats on this so far; we can tell even the dumbest tea party goers are a lot sharper than you..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here's an idea...I want to give you a golden opportunity...you pick a topic and we'll debate it...this way you can show everybody how smart you are and how dumb I am....
> 
> I'll be waiting............................................................
Click to expand...


Quick social lesson.... If ya are in a debate and then ya suddenly challenge the person you are debating to another debate to show how tough/good/smart/brilliant you are; it means you just made an ass of yourself and need to save face....

This is a debate, and so far all you have done is insult people and show your ass... I gave back what you tried to give, don't cry because your game was weak...


----------



## gslack

geauxtohell said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah im pretty sure thats the two who host Democracy NOW!....
> 
> And from your simple minded response which matches the other simple minded responses from the moonbats on this so far; we can tell even the dumbest tea party goers are a lot sharper than you..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an idea...I want to give you a golden opportunity...you pick a topic and we'll debate it...this way you can show everybody how smart you are and how dumb I am....
> 
> I'll be waiting............................................................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't be too hard on the boy.  He suffers from delusions of relevance.
> 
> It's a common problem on the internets.
Click to expand...


LOL, I remember you now.... you are the *internets* guy again..... HAHHAHAHHAHAAH!


----------



## Bfgrn

gslack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah im pretty sure thats the two who host Democracy NOW!....
> 
> And from your simple minded response which matches the other simple minded responses from the moonbats on this so far; we can tell even the dumbest tea party goers are a lot sharper than you..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an idea...I want to give you a golden opportunity...you pick a topic and we'll debate it...this way you can show everybody how smart you are and how dumb I am....
> 
> I'll be waiting............................................................
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quick social lesson.... If ya are in a debate and then ya suddenly challenge the person you are debating to another debate to show how tough/good/smart/brilliant you are; it means you just made an ass of yourself and need to save face....
> 
> This is a debate, and so far all you have done is insult people and show your ass... I gave back what you tried to give, don't cry because your game was weak...
Click to expand...


You can keep projecting or select a topic. I read your sophomoric emote and had to respond in kind. My response was concise. The teabaggers have earned that moniker, and so have you...


----------



## Foxfyre

geauxtohell said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Geauxtohell . . . .
> . . . .help me understand here.  (Others can chime in too of course.)
> 
> Why are so many here convinced that the Tea Partiers are rightwing fringers who have not adequately informed themselves and are educated by rote from whatever sources are apparently most objectionable to the Tea Party critics?
> 
> Do they think everybody opposed to policies of the current Administration and the Democratically controlled Congress are uninformed idiots?   Have none looked at the issues and drawn informed conclusions?
> 
> If the Tea Partiers used the same sources that inform their critics, would they think like and agree with their critics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the vast majority of the Tea Party crew are fringe rightwingers, but I definitely think they are rightwingers.  It simply doesn't add up any other way.  Prior to Obama's election, the "tea party" was a small group of Ron Paul people who were mostly excoriated by the GOP (believe me, I watched the Paulites take both barrels on message boards from conservatives (liberals were less concerned with Paul as they knew he would never be in the general)).  So, let's just be frank and admit that the only people protesting government waste during the Bush administration (one of the most wasteful administrations in history) were the Paul-ites.  If there were regular Bush voters in the mix, they were a small minority.
> 
> Then, like magic, virtually immediately after Obama was sworn in the movement started to grow.  You can buy the party line that "TARP was the straw that  broke the camels back and some futures trader/hedge fund manager's (who has more money than God) angry rant at the Chicago board of trade was the rhetoric that a bunch of middle class people needed to mobilize".  Frankly, it doesn't add up.  Then you have reports of Dick Armey and other PACs being involved in the group and it starts to look more astroturf than grass roots.
> 
> In reality, I think the tea party is a collection of conservative voters (many of whom are two time Bush voters) who are angry they lost the election.
> 
> I mean, I would buy that this is a real political movement, but it still lacks any real leadership, vision, goal, or platform (and please spare me the "lame list" of vague platitudes like "Defend the Constitution" that someone slopped together).
> 
> I don't think that the tea party adequately encapsulates every, or even most, Americans that disagree with the administration.  I also don't think they are uninformed about the issues.  I may disagree with their take on them, but they aren't mis-informed.
> 
> What I do think they are mis-informed about is the notion that they are a spontaneous grass roots organization that is going to win over moderates.  I doubt most people in the movement know who the puppet master is.
Click to expand...


And you show that you are misinformed by assuming that there IS a puppet master.  You, like many other misinformed Americans, can't believe that large groups of Americans could simply be unified in some basic concepts, could all be angry about the same corruption and incompetence they see in government, and could all be fed up with a broken system that they demand be repaired.

You can't accept that Tea Partiers represent almost all walks of life, ages, races,  ideologies, and socioeconomic groups.  In different parts of the country you see some differences of emphasis, but all Tea Partiers are agreed on three issues:
1)  Stopping the corruption of the U.S. Constitution,
2) Restoring fiscal responsibility and accountability,
3) Rejecting tax increases that are not earmarked to pay down the debt but rather are intended to expand the size, scope, and cost of government.

You may think that makes them all rightwingers, and if that's the way it is, then so be it.  But it is a sorry Left that does not support every one of those three principles.  That must be why I think there were probably as many Democrats as Republicans at our local Tea Party events.

Many Tea Party groups also agree with the expanded "Contract For America" that they hope all Congressional candidates will sign before the upcoming elections.  The ten points of the Contract are:

Protect the Constitution 
Reject Cap & Trade 
Demand a Balanced Budget 
Enact Fundamental Tax Reform 
Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government 
End Runaway Government Spending 
Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care 
Pass an &#8216;All-of-the-Above&#8221; Energy Policy 
Stop the Pork 
Stop the Tax Hikes 

For the life of me, I can see how some Americans might disagree with some of those points, but I can't see how any American who loved his/her country would be afraid of them.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Geauxtohell . . . .
> . . . .help me understand here.  (Others can chime in too of course.)
> 
> Why are so many here convinced that the Tea Partiers are rightwing fringers who have not adequately informed themselves and are educated by rote from whatever sources are apparently most objectionable to the Tea Party critics?
> 
> Do they think everybody opposed to policies of the current Administration and the Democratically controlled Congress are uninformed idiots?   Have none looked at the issues and drawn informed conclusions?
> 
> If the Tea Partiers used the same sources that inform their critics, would they think like and agree with their critics?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the vast majority of the Tea Party crew are fringe rightwingers, but I definitely think they are rightwingers.  It simply doesn't add up any other way.  Prior to Obama's election, the "tea party" was a small group of Ron Paul people who were mostly excoriated by the GOP (believe me, I watched the Paulites take both barrels on message boards from conservatives (liberals were less concerned with Paul as they knew he would never be in the general)).  So, let's just be frank and admit that the only people protesting government waste during the Bush administration (one of the most wasteful administrations in history) were the Paul-ites.  If there were regular Bush voters in the mix, they were a small minority.
> 
> Then, like magic, virtually immediately after Obama was sworn in the movement started to grow.  You can buy the party line that "TARP was the straw that  broke the camels back and some futures trader/hedge fund manager's (who has more money than God) angry rant at the Chicago board of trade was the rhetoric that a bunch of middle class people needed to mobilize".  Frankly, it doesn't add up.  Then you have reports of Dick Armey and other PACs being involved in the group and it starts to look more astroturf than grass roots.
> 
> In reality, I think the tea party is a collection of conservative voters (many of whom are two time Bush voters) who are angry they lost the election.
> 
> I mean, I would buy that this is a real political movement, but it still lacks any real leadership, vision, goal, or platform (and please spare me the "lame list" of vague platitudes like "Defend the Constitution" that someone slopped together).
> 
> I don't think that the tea party adequately encapsulates every, or even most, Americans that disagree with the administration.  I also don't think they are uninformed about the issues.  I may disagree with their take on them, but they aren't mis-informed.
> 
> What I do think they are mis-informed about is the notion that they are a spontaneous grass roots organization that is going to win over moderates.  I doubt most people in the movement know who the puppet master is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you show that you are misinformed by assuming that there IS a puppet master.  You, like many other misinformed Americans, can't believe that large groups of Americans could simply be unified in some basic concepts, could all be angry about the same corruption and incompetence they see in government, and could all be fed up with a broken system that they demand be repaired.
> 
> You can't accept that Tea Partiers represent almost all walks of life, ages, races,  ideologies, and socioeconomic groups.  In different parts of the country you see some differences of emphasis, but all Tea Partiers are agreed on three issues:
> 1)  Stopping the corruption of the U.S. Constitution,
> 2) Restoring fiscal responsibility and accountability,
> 3) Rejecting tax increases that are not earmarked to pay down the debt but rather are intended to expand the size, scope, and cost of government.
> 
> You may think that makes them all rightwingers, and if that's the way it is, then so be it.  But it is a sorry Left that does not support every one of those three principles.  That must be why I think there were probably as many Democrats as Republicans at our local Tea Party events.
> 
> Many Tea Party groups also agree with the expanded "Contract For America" that they hope all Congressional candidates will sign before the upcoming elections.  The ten points of the Contract are:
> 
> Protect the Constitution
> Reject Cap & Trade
> Demand a Balanced Budget
> Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
> Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government
> End Runaway Government Spending
> Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care
> Pass an All-of-the-Above Energy Policy
> Stop the Pork
> Stop the Tax Hikes
> 
> For the life of me, I can see how some Americans might disagree with some of those points, but I can't see how any American who loved his/her country would be afraid of them.
Click to expand...


WHERE were these teabaggers when Bush was in office??? OH, they LOVED him!


George W. Bush will always have the Tea Party
Washington Post

Remember a while back there was that billboard in Wyoming, Minn. with a picture of former President George W. Bush smiling and waving that read "Miss Me yet?" Well, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll, the only folks who have any love for Bush are self-identified Tea Partiers.





Among all adults, Bush is viewed "not favorabl[y]" by 58 percent. On the flip side, he is revered by Tea Partiers, with a 57 percent favorable rating. And that support carries over when it comes to assessing blame for our economic mess. Tea Partyers blast Obama over Bush for the current federal budget deficit (24 percent to 6 percent) and the for the current state of the nation's economy (10 percent to 5 percent).


----------



## Foxfyre

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think the vast majority of the Tea Party crew are fringe rightwingers, but I definitely think they are rightwingers.  It simply doesn't add up any other way.  Prior to Obama's election, the "tea party" was a small group of Ron Paul people who were mostly excoriated by the GOP (believe me, I watched the Paulites take both barrels on message boards from conservatives (liberals were less concerned with Paul as they knew he would never be in the general)).  So, let's just be frank and admit that the only people protesting government waste during the Bush administration (one of the most wasteful administrations in history) were the Paul-ites.  If there were regular Bush voters in the mix, they were a small minority.
> 
> Then, like magic, virtually immediately after Obama was sworn in the movement started to grow.  You can buy the party line that "TARP was the straw that  broke the camels back and some futures trader/hedge fund manager's (who has more money than God) angry rant at the Chicago board of trade was the rhetoric that a bunch of middle class people needed to mobilize".  Frankly, it doesn't add up.  Then you have reports of Dick Armey and other PACs being involved in the group and it starts to look more astroturf than grass roots.
> 
> In reality, I think the tea party is a collection of conservative voters (many of whom are two time Bush voters) who are angry they lost the election.
> 
> I mean, I would buy that this is a real political movement, but it still lacks any real leadership, vision, goal, or platform (and please spare me the "lame list" of vague platitudes like "Defend the Constitution" that someone slopped together).
> 
> I don't think that the tea party adequately encapsulates every, or even most, Americans that disagree with the administration.  I also don't think they are uninformed about the issues.  I may disagree with their take on them, but they aren't mis-informed.
> 
> What I do think they are mis-informed about is the notion that they are a spontaneous grass roots organization that is going to win over moderates.  I doubt most people in the movement know who the puppet master is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you show that you are misinformed by assuming that there IS a puppet master.  You, like many other misinformed Americans, can't believe that large groups of Americans could simply be unified in some basic concepts, could all be angry about the same corruption and incompetence they see in government, and could all be fed up with a broken system that they demand be repaired.
> 
> You can't accept that Tea Partiers represent almost all walks of life, ages, races,  ideologies, and socioeconomic groups.  In different parts of the country you see some differences of emphasis, but all Tea Partiers are agreed on three issues:
> 1)  Stopping the corruption of the U.S. Constitution,
> 2) Restoring fiscal responsibility and accountability,
> 3) Rejecting tax increases that are not earmarked to pay down the debt but rather are intended to expand the size, scope, and cost of government.
> 
> You may think that makes them all rightwingers, and if that's the way it is, then so be it.  But it is a sorry Left that does not support every one of those three principles.  That must be why I think there were probably as many Democrats as Republicans at our local Tea Party events.
> 
> Many Tea Party groups also agree with the expanded "Contract For America" that they hope all Congressional candidates will sign before the upcoming elections.  The ten points of the Contract are:
> 
> Protect the Constitution
> Reject Cap & Trade
> Demand a Balanced Budget
> Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
> Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government
> End Runaway Government Spending
> Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care
> Pass an &#8216;All-of-the-Above&#8221; Energy Policy
> Stop the Pork
> Stop the Tax Hikes
> 
> For the life of me, I can see how some Americans might disagree with some of those points, but I can't see how any American who loved his/her country would be afraid of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHERE were these teabaggers when Bush was in office??? OH, they LOVED him!
Click to expand...


We were all there and though many of us appreciated President Bush in some ways, we were mad as hell at him in others such as socialization of medicine creating another huge entitlement, his energy policy, his liberal illegal immigrant policy, his failure to rein in irresponsible spending intiated and passed by his own party and the opposing party, etc..

The straw that broke the camel's back of course was TARP and all of us were finally fed up, mad as hell, and ready to take to the streets brandishing angry signs over that.  But President Bush was in his last months of office and President Obama was solemnly and oh so sincerely promising to rein in the irresponsible spending, restore fiscal sanity, balance the budget, reduce the deficits, pay down the debt, etc. etc. etc.  So we waited for him to save us from the excesses of the previous eight years.

It was all lies of course.  And when that became obvious via the pork laden appropriations bill passed early on, the stimulus package, the takeover of financial institutions and major U.S. industries in a way that protected those who created the problem and corrected none of the problems, takeover of the U.S. healthcare system, and budgets that exacerbated a deficit approaching the entire GDP, THAT's when the Tea Partiers were born.

Republican, Democrat, Independent, nobody cared whose ox was being gored.  They were all culpable and they were all guilty and we wanted them to wake up and fix it or get out of the way and make room for an elected leadership who would.

You can continue to try to cast the Tea Party movement as partisan which only speaks to your own partisanship or perhaps ignorance of what you speak.  But the Tea Partiers are not partisan at all.  They are anything but.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you show that you are misinformed by assuming that there IS a puppet master.  You, like many other misinformed Americans, can't believe that large groups of Americans could simply be unified in some basic concepts, could all be angry about the same corruption and incompetence they see in government, and could all be fed up with a broken system that they demand be repaired.
> 
> You can't accept that Tea Partiers represent almost all walks of life, ages, races,  ideologies, and socioeconomic groups.  In different parts of the country you see some differences of emphasis, but all Tea Partiers are agreed on three issues:
> 1)  Stopping the corruption of the U.S. Constitution,
> 2) Restoring fiscal responsibility and accountability,
> 3) Rejecting tax increases that are not earmarked to pay down the debt but rather are intended to expand the size, scope, and cost of government.
> 
> You may think that makes them all rightwingers, and if that's the way it is, then so be it.  But it is a sorry Left that does not support every one of those three principles.  That must be why I think there were probably as many Democrats as Republicans at our local Tea Party events.
> 
> Many Tea Party groups also agree with the expanded "Contract For America" that they hope all Congressional candidates will sign before the upcoming elections.  The ten points of the Contract are:
> 
> Protect the Constitution
> Reject Cap & Trade
> Demand a Balanced Budget
> Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
> Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government
> End Runaway Government Spending
> Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care
> Pass an All-of-the-Above Energy Policy
> Stop the Pork
> Stop the Tax Hikes
> 
> For the life of me, I can see how some Americans might disagree with some of those points, but I can't see how any American who loved his/her country would be afraid of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHERE were these teabaggers when Bush was in office??? OH, they LOVED him!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We were all there and though many of us appreciated President Bush in some ways, we were mad as hell at him in others such as socialization of medicine creating another huge entitlement, his energy policy, his liberal illegal immigrant policy, his failure to rein in irresponsible spending intiated and passed by his own party and the opposing party, etc..
> 
> The straw that broke the camel's back of course was TARP and all of us were finally fed up, mad as hell, and ready to take to the streets brandishing angry signs over that.  But President Bush was in his last months of office and President Obama was solemnly and oh so sincerely promising to rein in the irresponsible spending, restore fiscal sanity, balance the budget, reduce the deficits, pay down the debt, etc. etc. etc.  So we waited for him to save us from the excesses of the previous eight years.
> 
> It was all lies of course.  And when that became obvious via the pork laden appropriations bill passed early on, the stimulus package, the takeover of financial institutions and major U.S. industries in a way that protected those who created the problem and corrected none of the problems, takeover of the U.S. healthcare system, and budgets that exacerbated a deficit approaching the entire GDP, THAT's when the Tea Partiers were born.
> 
> Republican, Democrat, Independent, nobody cared whose ox was being gored.  They were all culpable and they were all guilty and we wanted them to wake up and fix it or get out of the way and make room for an elected leadership who would.
> 
> You can continue to try to cast the Tea Party movement as partisan which only speaks to your own partisanship or perhaps ignorance of what you speak.  But the Tea Partiers are not partisan at all.  They are anything but.
Click to expand...


It amazes me how ignorant the right is. There is no adult thinking going on. TARP, the Stimulus Bill and loans to GM and Chrysler were NOT policy decisions based on ideology, they were based on REALITY. If the financial institutions had been allowed to fail, it would have sent this country into a economic tailspin that would have wiped out this nation and take every American's retirement account and 401K with it. Economists from BOTH sides of the political spectrum concurred that both were a necessary evil. If GM and Chrysler had been allowed to fail, not only thousands of auto workers would have hit the public dole, it would have wiped out suppliers to not only GM and Chrysler, but foreign manufacturers in the USA. All told, about 3 million workers would have hit the public dole. 

Health care reform started out with proposals of strong progressive reforms like single payer or a public option. The further it moved away from progressive reform, the less effective it became. It was torpedoed by a combination of powerful insurance lobbyists and Republicans that parroted Frank Luntz lies designed to kill any reform.

What amazes me the most, is there is NEVER a penny of human capital in any solution from the right. They always need human beings to just evaporate. Thankfully, enough adults with a conscience have prevented us from having to live and die through their simple minded and childish ideas.


----------



## Foxfyre

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHERE were these teabaggers when Bush was in office??? OH, they LOVED him!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were all there and though many of us appreciated President Bush in some ways, we were mad as hell at him in others such as socialization of medicine creating another huge entitlement, his energy policy, his liberal illegal immigrant policy, his failure to rein in irresponsible spending intiated and passed by his own party and the opposing party, etc..
> 
> The straw that broke the camel's back of course was TARP and all of us were finally fed up, mad as hell, and ready to take to the streets brandishing angry signs over that.  But President Bush was in his last months of office and President Obama was solemnly and oh so sincerely promising to rein in the irresponsible spending, restore fiscal sanity, balance the budget, reduce the deficits, pay down the debt, etc. etc. etc.  So we waited for him to save us from the excesses of the previous eight years.
> 
> It was all lies of course.  And when that became obvious via the pork laden appropriations bill passed early on, the stimulus package, the takeover of financial institutions and major U.S. industries in a way that protected those who created the problem and corrected none of the problems, takeover of the U.S. healthcare system, and budgets that exacerbated a deficit approaching the entire GDP, THAT's when the Tea Partiers were born.
> 
> Republican, Democrat, Independent, nobody cared whose ox was being gored.  They were all culpable and they were all guilty and we wanted them to wake up and fix it or get out of the way and make room for an elected leadership who would.
> 
> You can continue to try to cast the Tea Party movement as partisan which only speaks to your own partisanship or perhaps ignorance of what you speak.  But the Tea Partiers are not partisan at all.  They are anything but.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It amazes me how ignorant the right is. There is no adult thinking going on. TARP, the Stimulus Bill and loans to GM and Chrysler were NOT policy decisions based on ideology, they were based on REALITY. If the financial institutions had been allowed to fail, it would have sent this country into a economic tailspin that would have wiped out this nation and take every American's retirement account and 401K with it. Economists from BOTH sides of the political spectrum concurred that both were a necessary evil. If GM and Chrysler had been allowed to fail, not only thousands of auto workers would have hit the public dole, it would have wiped out suppliers to not only GM and Chrysler, but foreign manufacturers in the USA. All told, about 3 million workers would have hit the public dole.
> 
> Health care reform started out with proposals of strong progressive reforms like single payer or a public option. The further it moved away from progressive reform, the less effective it became. It was torpedoed by a combination of powerful insurance lobbyists and Republicans that parroted Frank Luntz lies designed to kill any reform.
> 
> What amazes me the most, is there is NEVER a penny of human capital in any solution from the right. They always need human beings to just evaporate. Thankfully, enough adults with a conscience have prevented us from having to live and die through their simple minded and childish ideas.
Click to expand...


The Tea Party protests against these things have not been partisan.  I'm sure your defense of the excesses of the last several years is absolutely non partisan as well and you don't blame a Republican president or the Republicans in congress for anything even as you defend Obama and the Democrats?

You are about the worst at hiding your hypocrisy as anybody I've seen here.  

Bottom line sir, is you may be so ideologically leftwing that you honestly believe government is good, moral, righteously motivated, and right on to take on every human problem, tax whatever it must to spend whatever it wants in the name of compassionate policy that will save us all from ourselves.  I believe that those who believe that are the ignorant ones.

It is people like you, and the people they elect to high office that motivate the Tea Partiers to march, speak, protest, and lobby for a government that knows that that the government nanny state solution to all human problems is the core of most of those problems in the first place.  Any attempt to tax and spend ourselves into prosperity and a more trouble-free society is doomed to render America weaker, less free, less  safe, and further removed from the noble experiment the Founders envisioned.

I think you could be one of those who is terrified of the Tea Partiers.  I think you are terrified because deep down you know they are right.  And that is just too terrible to even contemplate.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were all there and though many of us appreciated President Bush in some ways, we were mad as hell at him in others such as socialization of medicine creating another huge entitlement, his energy policy, his liberal illegal immigrant policy, his failure to rein in irresponsible spending intiated and passed by his own party and the opposing party, etc..
> 
> The straw that broke the camel's back of course was TARP and all of us were finally fed up, mad as hell, and ready to take to the streets brandishing angry signs over that.  But President Bush was in his last months of office and President Obama was solemnly and oh so sincerely promising to rein in the irresponsible spending, restore fiscal sanity, balance the budget, reduce the deficits, pay down the debt, etc. etc. etc.  So we waited for him to save us from the excesses of the previous eight years.
> 
> It was all lies of course.  And when that became obvious via the pork laden appropriations bill passed early on, the stimulus package, the takeover of financial institutions and major U.S. industries in a way that protected those who created the problem and corrected none of the problems, takeover of the U.S. healthcare system, and budgets that exacerbated a deficit approaching the entire GDP, THAT's when the Tea Partiers were born.
> 
> Republican, Democrat, Independent, nobody cared whose ox was being gored.  They were all culpable and they were all guilty and we wanted them to wake up and fix it or get out of the way and make room for an elected leadership who would.
> 
> You can continue to try to cast the Tea Party movement as partisan which only speaks to your own partisanship or perhaps ignorance of what you speak.  But the Tea Partiers are not partisan at all.  They are anything but.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It amazes me how ignorant the right is. There is no adult thinking going on. TARP, the Stimulus Bill and loans to GM and Chrysler were NOT policy decisions based on ideology, they were based on REALITY. If the financial institutions had been allowed to fail, it would have sent this country into a economic tailspin that would have wiped out this nation and take every American's retirement account and 401K with it. Economists from BOTH sides of the political spectrum concurred that both were a necessary evil. If GM and Chrysler had been allowed to fail, not only thousands of auto workers would have hit the public dole, it would have wiped out suppliers to not only GM and Chrysler, but foreign manufacturers in the USA. All told, about 3 million workers would have hit the public dole.
> 
> Health care reform started out with proposals of strong progressive reforms like single payer or a public option. The further it moved away from progressive reform, the less effective it became. It was torpedoed by a combination of powerful insurance lobbyists and Republicans that parroted Frank Luntz lies designed to kill any reform.
> 
> What amazes me the most, is there is NEVER a penny of human capital in any solution from the right. They always need human beings to just evaporate. Thankfully, enough adults with a conscience have prevented us from having to live and die through their simple minded and childish ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Tea Party protests against these things have not been partisan.  I'm sure your defense of the excesses of the last several years is absolutely non partisan as well and you don't blame a Republican president or the Republicans in congress for anything even as you defend Obama and the Democrats?
> 
> You are about the worst at hiding your hypocrisy as anybody I've seen here.
> 
> Bottom line sir, is you may be so ideologically leftwing that you honestly believe government is good, moral, righteously motivated, and right on to take on every human problem, tax whatever it must to spend whatever it wants in the name of compassionate policy that will save us all from ourselves.  I believe that those who believe that are the ignorant ones.
> 
> It is people like you, and the people they elect to high office that motivate the Tea Partiers to march, speak, protest, and lobby for a government that knows that that the government nanny state solution to all human problems is the core of most of those problems in the first place.  Any attempt to tax and spend ourselves into prosperity and a more trouble-free society is doomed to render America weaker, less free, less  safe, and further removed from the noble experiment the Founders envisioned.
> 
> I think you could be one of those who is terrified of the Tea Partiers.  I think you are terrified because deep down you know they are right.  And that is just too terrible to even contemplate.
Click to expand...


WOW, did you read ANYTHING I said, or were you too busy working on your partisan response? My contention is: IF Obama had inherited an economy like George W. Bush inherited from Clinton...NONE (that means ZERO) of these bailouts or stimulus plans would have been implemented out of NECESSITY ( that means NO CHOICE, CRUCIAL).

I don't believe in tax and spend, but I do believe in tax IF YOU DO spend. IF you start a war, you don't CUT taxes, you implement a war tax. You don't pay private soldiers 10 times what an enlisted man gets. You implement a draft, so everyone has skin in the game. And you DON'T try to pass the buck to the next administration by funding it through supplemental requests, with little time for congressional oversight or full disclosure of how the money is allocated. You OWN up to it.

It's called REAL personal responsibility, not phony propaganda and talking points.

If you want to cut spending, then social programs are LAST on the list. And you only cut what won't cause harm to We, the people. Start with military waste and fraud. End corporate welfare that costs Americans 3 trillion dollars per year in corporate cost externalizing. No bullshit solutions like tort reform which is a Trojan horse for insurance companies screwing people out of just settlements. Plus it is a state issue. No phony rants and raves about solving our economic problems by cutting out earmarks, which comprises about one half of one percent of the federal budget.

In a nutshell, you put adults in charge, not pea brains...teabaggers are pea brains


----------



## geauxtohell

gslack said:


> Oh stop crying drama queen.. I didn't tell you what to do, I told you your vote was a wasted because you refuse to look for yourself. As I said it would be different id ya couldn't look and see for yourself. issues like healthcare you are limited on what you see of it. But an open tea party event? That can be going on anywhere and anyone can attend, and you tel us how you dont have to because you either just already know somehow, or the media you choose told you all you needed to know... And then you try and pretend you didn't do exactly that.... you are a fake....
> 
> Faux outrage.... Yeah, faux like your little display here? yeah.... Another 15 minutes of you denying what you are doing and at the same time admitting it....



Drama queen?  Okay, whatever.  I don't care about your opinion of my vote.  You have obviously tried to project some wrong information upon me.  When called on it, you call me a "drama queen"?  Speaking of being fake (and since we are going to cut to the chase); why don't you just stop being a dishonest fuck?

On that note, for the fourth time, I am not going to teabag events because I think they are lame not because I "can't handle the truthiness" of the events.  I find it patently hilarious that you presume to lecture me on bias while at the same time holding up a political rally as a beacon of transparency.


----------



## geauxtohell

Foxfyre said:


> And you show that you are misinformed by assuming that there IS a puppet master.



And yet, you can click on the link in my sig and read all about it.  



> You, like many other misinformed Americans, can't believe that large groups of Americans could simply be unified in some basic concepts, could all be angry about the same corruption and incompetence they see in government, and could all be fed up with a broken system that they demand be repaired.



Actually you are right.  It all adds up too conveniently in teabagger folk-lore.  It's so convenient it strains belief.  Again, where was the outrage through 8 years of deficit spending and borrowing from China to fund wars in Iraq?  

I tend to believe that, like in chemistry, reactions generally don't occur without a catalyst.  You obviously think the catalyst was TARP or the accepted TB talking point.  I think it was GOP operatives creating an astroturf movement and calling it grassroots.  

Neither you nor I know with 100% accuracy that we are right and the other is wrong or vice versa. 

Therefore, we are left with opinions.  



> You can't accept that Tea Partiers represent almost all walks of life, ages, races,  ideologies, and socioeconomic groups.  In different parts of the country you see some differences of emphasis, but all Tea Partiers are agreed on three issues:
> 1)  Stopping the corruption of the U.S. Constitution,
> 2) Restoring fiscal responsibility and accountability,
> 3) Rejecting tax increases that are not earmarked to pay down the debt but rather are intended to expand the size, scope, and cost of government.



I accept that the teabaggers are what the demographics make them out to be:  White, male, upper-middle class Republicans.



> A poll is cited by Bloomberg to obtain the results noted, and is the most current with the article by Bloomberg just four days ago. The poll not only presents the results but cites its margin of error and the details of that poll. The poll of 1,002 U.S. adults was conducted March 19-22 by Selzer & Co. of Des Moines, Iowa. The results had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. What Bloomberg observes from the poll is this:
> "Tea Party supporters are likely to be older, white and male. Forty percent are age 55 and over, compared with 32 percent of all poll respondents; just 22 percent are under the age of 35, 79 percent are white, and 61 percent are men. Many are also Christian fundamentalists, with 44 percent identifying themselves as born-again, compared with 33 percent of all respondents."



Tea Party Demographics: White, Republican, Older Male with Money

That would further be evidenced by the fact that all the teabagger candidates are running or ran in GOP primaries.  Funny that.

As for your three planks:  1 and 2 are basically useless "feel good" platforms that would be virtually impossible to legislate.  I mean "stopping the corruption of the Constitution"?  Seriously?  Give me a break.  If the Constitution was so obvious that every American agreed about every little issue 100% of the time, we wouldn't need the Supreme Court.  You guys are going to have to come up with something a little more workable than that.  #2 is more of the same.  What exactly does that mean?  #3 is a little more workable, however, I've yet to hear the Obama administration say they were going to increase taxes.  Did you?  



> You may think that makes them all rightwingers, and if that's the way it is, then so be it.  But it is a sorry Left that does not support every one of those three principles.  That must be why* I think* there were probably as many Democrats as Republicans at our local Tea Party events.



Bolded emphasis is mine.  Anecdotes are terribly convincing.  Sorry.  



> Many Tea Party groups also agree with the expanded "Contract For America" that they hope all Congressional candidates will sign before the upcoming elections.  The ten points of the Contract are:
> 
> Protect the Constitution
> Reject Cap & Trade
> Demand a Balanced Budget
> Enact Fundamental Tax Reform
> Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government
> End Runaway Government Spending
> Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care
> Pass an All-of-the-Above Energy Policy
> Stop the Pork
> Stop the Tax Hikes
> 
> For the life of me, I can see how some Americans might disagree with some of those points, but I can't see how any American who loved his/her country would be afraid of them.



I've addressed this before.  It isn't that Americans "don't agree" with this stuff, it's that most people see this as uselessly vague wording that has no real meaning.  You might as well add "Free Chocolate Milkshakes for Everyone!" in there for as much as these are worth.  

As for you last point, I am not "afraid" of the teabaggers or their goofy ideals.  Frankly, I find the whole concept laughable.


----------



## geauxtohell

gslack said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an idea...I want to give you a golden opportunity...you pick a topic and we'll debate it...this way you can show everybody how smart you are and how dumb I am....
> 
> I'll be waiting............................................................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be too hard on the boy.  He suffers from delusions of relevance.
> 
> It's a common problem on the internets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, I remember you now.... you are the *internets* guy again..... HAHHAHAHHAHAAH!
Click to expand...


No idea what you are talking about.


----------



## geauxtohell

Bfgrn said:


> WHERE were these teabaggers when Bush was in office??? OH, they LOVED him!
> 
> 
> George W. Bush will always have the Tea Party
> Washington Post



I mean, it's so patently obvious I can't really see why it's still even being debated.  

It would be one thing if Bush and his GOP congress was this beacon of fiscal conservatism.  However, they spent like drunken sailors too.  

Like I said, the conservatives renewed sense of fiscal responsibility once their guy left office might play in their own circles.

However, my memory isn't that short.


----------



## geauxtohell

Foxfyre said:


> We were all there and though many of us appreciated President Bush in some ways, we were mad as hell at him in others such as socialization of medicine creating another huge entitlement, his energy policy, his liberal illegal immigrant policy, his failure to rein in irresponsible spending intiated and passed by his own party and the opposing party, etc..



Yeah, you guys were so mad at him, you re-elected him.  Now be honest:  you are a two time Bush voter aren't you?  



> The straw that broke the camel's back of course was TARP and all of us were finally fed up, mad as hell, and ready to take to the streets brandishing angry signs over that.  But President Bush was in his last months of office and President Obama was solemnly and oh so sincerely promising to rein in the irresponsible spending, restore fiscal sanity, balance the budget, reduce the deficits, pay down the debt, etc. etc. etc.  So we waited for him to save us from the excesses of the previous eight years.



Wow, this is just so convenient.  I know I was mad when Obama got elected and didn't become a fiscal conservative.  I mean, that's what he promised to do in his election, didn't he?  Didn't he???????????????

Seriously, give it a rest.  If you guys want to get the boo boo face, you should have done it when the guy who proclaimed he was fiscally conservative became one of the biggest spenders in office.  Yet, there was hardly a peep from you guys through *eight* years of his policies.  Then, when the guy who everyone expects will spend money gets elected and spends money you guys have a fit?  Yeah, that makes sense.  

Well, it wouldn't make sense if any of this were truly about fiscal stewardship.  However, we know it is not.  



> You can continue to try to cast the Tea Party movement as partisan which only speaks to your own partisanship or perhaps ignorance of what you speak.  But the Tea Partiers are not partisan at all.  They are anything but.



Why are their no Democrat Tea Party candidates?  

I mean, I don't recall the Tea Party courting Admiral Sestak.


----------



## geauxtohell

Bfgrn said:


> I don't believe in tax and spend, but I do believe in tax IF YOU DO spend. IF you start a war, you don't CUT taxes, you implement a war tax. You don't pay private soldiers 10 times what an enlisted man gets. You implement a draft, so everyone has skin in the game. And you DON'T try to pass the buck to the next administration by funding it through supplemental requests, with little time for congressional oversight or full disclosure of how the money is allocated. You OWN up to it.
> 
> .....
> 
> If you want to cut spending, then social programs are LAST on the list. And you only cut what won't cause harm to We, the people. Start with military waste and fraud.



And that about sums it up.  Though I disagree on the issue of a draft.  I think military conscription is morally reprehensible.


----------



## Bfgrn

geauxtohell said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in tax and spend, but I do believe in tax IF YOU DO spend. IF you start a war, you don't CUT taxes, you implement a war tax. You don't pay private soldiers 10 times what an enlisted man gets. You implement a draft, so everyone has skin in the game. And you DON'T try to pass the buck to the next administration by funding it through supplemental requests, with little time for congressional oversight or full disclosure of how the money is allocated. You OWN up to it.
> 
> .....
> 
> If you want to cut spending, then social programs are LAST on the list. And you only cut what won't cause harm to We, the people. Start with military waste and fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that about sums it up.  Though I disagree on the issue of a draft.  I think military conscription is morally reprehensible.
Click to expand...


EXACTLY...Military conscription is morally reprehensible. But it's no where near as morally reprehensible as WAR. A draft serves to hold people's feet to the fire. All the warmongers that called people that opposed the war in Iraq unAmerican never served or had any children that were serving. It's a lot easier to send someone else's kid off to die.

"Why should we hear about body bags, and deaths...I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"
Barbara Bush


----------



## Foxfyre

Bfgrn said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe in tax and spend, but I do believe in tax IF YOU DO spend. IF you start a war, you don't CUT taxes, you implement a war tax. You don't pay private soldiers 10 times what an enlisted man gets. You implement a draft, so everyone has skin in the game. And you DON'T try to pass the buck to the next administration by funding it through supplemental requests, with little time for congressional oversight or full disclosure of how the money is allocated. You OWN up to it.
> 
> .....
> 
> If you want to cut spending, then social programs are LAST on the list. And you only cut what won't cause harm to We, the people. Start with military waste and fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that about sums it up.  Though I disagree on the issue of a draft.  I think military conscription is morally reprehensible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> EXACTLY...Military conscription is morally reprehensible. But it's no where near as morally reprehensible as WAR. A draft serves to hold people's feet to the fire. All the warmongers that called people that opposed the war in Iraq unAmerican never served or had any children that were serving. It's a lot easier to send someone else's kid off to die.
> 
> "Why should we hear about body bags, and deaths...I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"
> Barbara Bush
Click to expand...


The leftwing wackos have had a field day since somebody dug up that pre-Iraq invasion quotation attributed to Barbara Bush and they gleefully post it every chance they get.  Too bad they lack the intellectual honesty to put it into its full context and honestly portray it as she intended it.  At least Snopes did:
snopes.com: Barbara Bush 'Beautiful Mind' Quote


----------



## gslack

Bfgrn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's an idea...I want to give you a golden opportunity...you pick a topic and we'll debate it...this way you can show everybody how smart you are and how dumb I am....
> 
> I'll be waiting............................................................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quick social lesson.... If ya are in a debate and then ya suddenly challenge the person you are debating to another debate to show how tough/good/smart/brilliant you are; it means you just made an ass of yourself and need to save face....
> 
> This is a debate, and so far all you have done is insult people and show your ass... I gave back what you tried to give, don't cry because your game was weak...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can keep projecting or select a topic. I read your sophomoric emote and had to respond in kind. My response was concise. The teabaggers have earned that moniker, and so have you...
Click to expand...


Nah we saw what happened... You wanted to go find a way to save face.... All your pick a topic nonsense; I already did, this one... 

Aww now I have a sophomoric emote... How quaint.... Here is another one crybaby...


----------



## gslack

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHERE were these teabaggers when Bush was in office??? OH, they LOVED him!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were all there and though many of us appreciated President Bush in some ways, we were mad as hell at him in others such as socialization of medicine creating another huge entitlement, his energy policy, his liberal illegal immigrant policy, his failure to rein in irresponsible spending intiated and passed by his own party and the opposing party, etc..
> 
> The straw that broke the camel's back of course was TARP and all of us were finally fed up, mad as hell, and ready to take to the streets brandishing angry signs over that.  But President Bush was in his last months of office and President Obama was solemnly and oh so sincerely promising to rein in the irresponsible spending, restore fiscal sanity, balance the budget, reduce the deficits, pay down the debt, etc. etc. etc.  So we waited for him to save us from the excesses of the previous eight years.
> 
> It was all lies of course.  And when that became obvious via the pork laden appropriations bill passed early on, the stimulus package, the takeover of financial institutions and major U.S. industries in a way that protected those who created the problem and corrected none of the problems, takeover of the U.S. healthcare system, and budgets that exacerbated a deficit approaching the entire GDP, THAT's when the Tea Partiers were born.
> 
> Republican, Democrat, Independent, nobody cared whose ox was being gored.  They were all culpable and they were all guilty and we wanted them to wake up and fix it or get out of the way and make room for an elected leadership who would.
> 
> You can continue to try to cast the Tea Party movement as partisan which only speaks to your own partisanship or perhaps ignorance of what you speak.  But the Tea Partiers are not partisan at all.  They are anything but.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It amazes me how ignorant the right is. There is no adult thinking going on. TARP, the Stimulus Bill and loans to GM and Chrysler were NOT policy decisions based on ideology, they were based on REALITY. If the financial institutions had been allowed to fail, it would have sent this country into a economic tailspin that would have wiped out this nation and take every American's retirement account and 401K with it. Economists from BOTH sides of the political spectrum concurred that both were a necessary evil. If GM and Chrysler had been allowed to fail, not only thousands of auto workers would have hit the public dole, it would have wiped out suppliers to not only GM and Chrysler, but foreign manufacturers in the USA. All told, about 3 million workers would have hit the public dole.
> 
> Health care reform started out with proposals of strong progressive reforms like single payer or a public option. The further it moved away from progressive reform, the less effective it became. It was torpedoed by a combination of powerful insurance lobbyists and Republicans that parroted Frank Luntz lies designed to kill any reform.
> 
> What amazes me the most, is there is NEVER a penny of human capital in any solution from the right. They always need human beings to just evaporate. Thankfully, enough adults with a conscience have prevented us from having to live and die through their simple minded and childish ideas.
Click to expand...


And it amazes me how much your ignorant partisanship makes you blind to reality even when people tell you straight up.....

I am not a right winger, fool.... In fact until a year before the last election I was Democrat. Know what happened? I used my freaking head for a change.... You suffer from believing what they tell you. Well here is some reality for ya..

1. Healthcare is more about keeping Doctors and medical professionals and Pharmaceutical companies safe from having to charge themselves out of the professions than it ever will be about insuring people. Insuring people was a way to sell it. Fact is  the biggest problem facing the medical industries were rising insurance costs on both ends of the spectrum. It wasn't about insuring the poor directly it was just a nice way to pull the heart strings.

Not only insurance costs to the end user, or companies for their employees, but costs for medical malpractice insurance. This was the next step in the system they started with the patient bill of rights under Bush. That bill had a framework making it more difficult to sue for malpractice by making HMO's a much more viable alternative than simple insurance. That way instead of insurance and medical pros being separate entities in all cases and bound to seek their own best interests. They could merge and work as a unit. This would lead to far less frivolous lawsuits, much more responsible settlements, and made it very difficult to sue for malpractice. If the insurer was in a deal with certain medical pros, and their insurance only paid for those medical pros; they function in effect as one unit. making a lawsuit for malfeasance or malpractice much more difficult.

This latest Healthcare bill was the next logical step. We would have gotten it anyway. Don't buy into all the BS, this was coming and no way around it. They had to keep doctors in the field. Malpractice insurance costs were skyrocketing with every single lawsuit. Doctors were opting to go into research and other fields rather than medical application. Remember the big hooplah over other countries making more doctors than we were a few years ago? yeah there was a reason for that, it was costs for insurance... But all you leftist twits saw from liberal media was it was due to a failed medical system... Failed because of rising costs but you weren't told that and god forbid one of your lazy asses had to go and look into it....

2. NAFTA, CAFTA, and all those wonderful trade agreements which sold out the American working class come from both sides... Clinton was the man behind NAFTA so don't even try and deny it.. He sold out the American worker for corporations and that fact is undeniable. That was about profits and nothing more, so you can take your "we are the good guys" BS and shove it....

3. We are in Afghanistan because of the Ural mountains reserves... make no mistake on this, that is the only reason we are there. People are brutalized all over the planet everyday and we do not go in there guns blazing, and why not? Well its simple they don't all have rich mineral, oil and gas deposits waiting to be tapped next door, and they don't all have a pipeline deal waiting in the wings.

4. The patriot act is nothing more than insurance for the government against its people. Both sides voted it in, and despite the left crying over it and playing the role all over the TV for 8 years, we still have it as it was... All their big talk about freedom and all of it means squat in reality. They have no intention of touching it, and thats not me saying it its their own actions..

The only real substantial difference in left or right is the right says "so what" and the left tries to pretend they are against it to the press... One is power mad and deliberate, and the other is power mad and a liar.. Take your pick....

This is too multi-dimensional for more than 87% of the public to bother with, so they vote the way a perceived better tells them. That 87% is you..... The 13% or so left over are the people who do not buy into the bullshit and want to see for themselves and make their own decisions. Thats not my bullshit its common knowledge any PR man could tell you.. Think I'm bullshitting you? Well then watch 5 minutes of ads on a TV or online and see for yourself. 87% of the people on this planet buy things and vote in agreement with their peers. And if you tell them their peers believe this way, than they will. Why? Because if the lions share of them get their opinions from the same magic box, and they mostly follow the trends of their peers, the majority will set the tone and you have just manufactured consensus or consent. 87% voting the way they are told that 87% is voting by the media, and it really is that simple.....

Now, I hope you can grasp some of this. And if you come back separating every other sentence like a douchebag again, we will know beyond all doubt you are part of the 87%...


----------



## geauxtohell

Bfgrn said:


> EXACTLY...Military conscription is morally reprehensible. But it's no where near as morally reprehensible as WAR. A draft serves to hold people's feet to the fire. All the warmongers that called people that opposed the war in Iraq unAmerican never served or had any children that were serving. It's a lot easier to send someone else's kid off to die.
> 
> "Why should we hear about body bags, and deaths...I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"
> Barbara Bush



I agree with the sentiment, just not the methodology.  The only thing American history has shown us about the draft is that the sons of the rich and powerful will find ways to avoid it (as they did in 1863 and 1967), the numbers will still need to be filled, and it will downskew the selection towards the poor and disadvantaged.  It ends up doing the exact opposite of what it is intended to do.  Few sons of the rich and powerful are idealistic enough to say "If I skip out of this, some poor bastard will go for me".  

On the flip side, it's morally reprehensible to take someone who has no desire to kill, stick a rifle in their hands, and put them in a "kill or be killed" situation.  It is also unfair to professional soldiers who don't want to be burdened with the un-motivated as those types of soldiers are dangerous in combat situations.

I think a more practical situation is to mandate an income tax hike prior to engaging in any hostilities (not just declared wars) to pay for it (or a fraction of it) up front.  That will make people think twice about the matter.  If you really want to strike a chord with Americans, don't guilt them.  Hit them in the wallet.


----------



## geauxtohell

gslack said:


> Remember the big hooplah over other countries making more doctors than we were a few years ago? yeah there was a reason for that, it was costs for insurance... But all you leftist twits saw from liberal media was it was due to a failed medical system... Failed because of rising costs but you weren't told that and god forbid one of your lazy asses had to go and look into it....



What the hell are you talking about?  Medical school and residency slots have remained fixed for decades and every year every single chair in medical school is filled and every residency slot is also filled.  In fact, some poor bastards don't even match and there is an absurd number of FMG (foreign medical graduates) also competing for residency slots.  Medical school admissions have skyrocketed over the past decades as well.  There hasn't been a "decline" in the number of medical school graduates to any degree for any reason, not the least of which is "insurance costs".  

If you are talking about a shortage of general practitioners, that's a separate issue and also has little to do with insurance.  Too many Doctors are just specializing out of general practice.  



> 3. We are in Afghanistan because of the Ural mountains reserves... make no mistake on this, that is the only reason we are there. People are brutalized all over the planet everyday and we do not go in there guns blazing, and why not? Well its simple they don't all have rich mineral, oil and gas deposits waiting to be tapped next door, and they don't all have a pipeline deal waiting in the wings.



Utter bullshit that is right up there with the rest of the conspiracy theories that permeate the conspiracy zone.  You should take this b.s. over there.  How is the U.S. going to get a cut out of a deal that involves Turkministan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India?  

BTW, we didn't go into Afghanistan because the people were being brutalized.  We went in because they refused to give up AQ.  We automatically inherit "reconstruction" when we invade any nation.


----------



## gslack

geauxtohell said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember the big hooplah over other countries making more doctors than we were a few years ago? yeah there was a reason for that, it was costs for insurance... But all you leftist twits saw from liberal media was it was due to a failed medical system... Failed because of rising costs but you weren't told that and god forbid one of your lazy asses had to go and look into it....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell are you talking about?  Medical school and residency slots have remained fixed for decades and every year every single chair in medical school is filled and every residency slot is also filled.  In fact, some poor bastards don't even match and there is an absurd number of FMG (foreign medical graduates) also competing for residency slots.  Medical school admissions have skyrocketed over the past decades as well.  There hasn't been a "decline" in the number of medical school graduates to any degree for any reason, not the least of which is "insurance costs".
> 
> If you are talking about a shortage of general practitioners, that's a separate issue and also has little to do with insurance.  Too many Doctors are just specializing out of general practice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. We are in Afghanistan because of the Ural mountains reserves... make no mistake on this, that is the only reason we are there. People are brutalized all over the planet everyday and we do not go in there guns blazing, and why not? Well its simple they don't all have rich mineral, oil and gas deposits waiting to be tapped next door, and they don't all have a pipeline deal waiting in the wings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Utter bullshit that is right up there with the rest of the conspiracy theories that permeate the conspiracy zone.  You should take this b.s. over there.  How is the U.S. going to get a cut out of a deal that involves Turkministan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India?
> 
> BTW, we didn't go into Afghanistan because the people were being brutalized.  We went in because they refused to give up AQ.  We automatically inherit "reconstruction" when we invade any nation.
Click to expand...


Why did your side tell us we were losing doctors if we didnt pass healthcare? We were bombarded with lists and stats up the wazoo all telling us europe makes more doctors and how much we suck in the medical profession...

Thats the problem with living in a bullshit fantasy world.. You forget which bullshit you used and how or why.... That was one of the gripes from the liberals on this and you dam well know it.....

The US isn't cutting the deal moron its universal... And ya better take your head out of MSNBC's ass and read something, because its common knowledge there is a pipeline deal in place. Its not a conspiracy theory tool, its a known fact and no one denies it. Only a true tool wouldn't know this..... We went in fro Al Qaeda? LOL thought you libs didnt believe that? Remember the cruel taliban? Yeah, we kicked them out dumazz.... We stayed and did that because they wanted freedom and all that happy rhetoric you guys lap up...

I rest my case... you are exactly as I said you were before and you just showed it. Another tool and mindless liberal sheep... Don't lift your head out of the chosen path, just keep marching fool...

Pipeline-stan: No Blood for Oil Pipeline Routes

The Pursuit of Black Gold: Pipeline Politics on the Caspian Sea [Rush Transcript; Federal News Service] - Council on Foreign Relations

Tomgram: Pepe Escobar, Welcome to Pipelineistan | TomDispatch

Asia Times Online :: Central Asian News and current affairs, Russia, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan

Want a pic to show what they are talking about tool?







Now, I am done with your ignorant bullshit... you don't know shit about this yet you try and claim i was spouting a conspiracy theory.... Grow the fuck up and read something not liberal approved first tool....


----------



## geauxtohell

gslack said:


> The US isn't cutting the deal moron its universal... And ya better take your head out of MSNBC's ass and read something, because its common knowledge there is a pipeline deal in place. Its not a conspiracy theory tool, its a known fact and no one denies it. Only a true tool wouldn't know this.....



No fucking shit, jackass.  I didn't deny that the pipeline deal is in place.  It was in place under the Taliban.  I am denying your massive mental leap from that factoid into causation for going to war in Afghanistan.   



> We went in fro Al Qaeda?



Uh, yeah.  That was why SF was embedded with the Northern Alliance and little events like Anaconda went down.  Or was that all just a ruse?



> Remember the cruel taliban? Yeah, we kicked them out dumazz.... We stayed and did that because they wanted freedom and all that happy rhetoric you guys lap up...



Don't presume to lecture me on the ground realities of Afghanistan.  I was there from March of '04 to March of '05.  I would venture to say at that time, you were sitting at home watching your hairline recede.

Hey, maybe I'll just apply the "gslack debate standard":

"Until you go to Afghanistan, your are only getting biased reporting on it and are incapable of debating the issue logically."



> I rest my case...



What fucking case?  You still have done zilch to show that we invaded Afghanistan over the pipeline.  



> Want a pic to show what they are talking about tool?



Wow.  A map of Afghanistan.  Thanks, I had never seen one of those.  Wow!  It even has the gaslines drawn in!  Surely this is inconclusive proof that the Afghanistan invasion was all about the pipeline.  

BTW, with the exception of the CFR link, your sources are laughable.  You piss and moan about my "biased news" and then have the moxie to link OPED from a blogger about "Pipeline-stan" or link to "oilempire.us"?  What a fucking joke you are.  Here's a hint:  if the URL is itself biased, then the source is probably biased as well.  Just some simple logic for you.  

I still have seen you provide no credible evidence that we invaded Afghanistan to secure the pipeline deal that was already in place under the Taliban.  



> Now, I am done with your ignorant bullshit... you don't know shit about this yet you try and claim i was spouting a conspiracy theory.... Grow the fuck up and read something not liberal approved first tool....



You are spouting a conspiracy theory.  Don't believe me?  Put it to the taste test.  Make a thread about how we invaded Afghanistan for the pipeline and see where it ends up.


----------



## geauxtohell

gslack said:


> Why did your side tell us we were losing doctors if we didnt pass healthcare? We were bombarded with lists and stats up the wazoo all telling us europe makes more doctors and how much we suck in the medical profession...



Wow.  That was a fancy attempt at slight of hand.  Unfortunately, you just aren't that clever.   ^ that is not what you said.  \/ This is:



> Remember the big hooplah over other countries making more doctors than we were a few years ago? yeah there was a reason for that, it was costs for insurance...



The number of doctors we "make" in this country is relatively fixed and the bottle neck is on the number of residencies, which are always maxed out.  It doesn't fluctuate with the politics of the day.  Furthermore, when I applied to medical school about 50% of the applicants did not get in (which is the norm).  The problem is not on the "supply and demand" side.  

So, instead of whining about my "liberal sources", why don't you provide some of your own sources that show that we are producing less doctors than the norm and that it's all because of insurance companies.  



> Thats the problem with living in a bullshit fantasy world.. You forget which bullshit you used and how or why.... That was one of the gripes from the liberals on this and you dam well know it.....



LMAO.  Yeah.  I am the one living in "bullshit fantasy world".  This thread basically consists of you tossing out your opinion and then refusing to support it.


----------



## uscitizen

Lonestar_logic said:


> uscitizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Claiming the Tea party is Bush's party is YOUR idea of a thoughtful well reasoned post? And you claim THEY are idiots?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every Tea Partier I personally know.  Perhaps a dozen.  Were avid Bush supporters to the end.
> 
> Where did I say they were idiots?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You label an entire movement because of a dozen people? Are you really that fucking stupid?
> 
> About forty percent of the tea partiers are either Democrats or Independents according to a poll done by David Winston, polling director of the Winston Group that did the poll for an education advocacy group. The Winston poll also says 80% of total Tea Party supporters dislike Obama's job performance.
Click to expand...


Yeah those same dems that voted for Bush twice?


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that about sums it up.  Though I disagree on the issue of a draft.  I think military conscription is morally reprehensible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXACTLY...Military conscription is morally reprehensible. But it's no where near as morally reprehensible as WAR. A draft serves to hold people's feet to the fire. All the warmongers that called people that opposed the war in Iraq unAmerican never served or had any children that were serving. It's a lot easier to send someone else's kid off to die.
> 
> "Why should we hear about body bags, and deaths...I mean, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"
> Barbara Bush
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The leftwing wackos have had a field day since somebody dug up that pre-Iraq invasion quotation attributed to Barbara Bush and they gleefully post it every chance they get.  Too bad they lack the intellectual honesty to put it into its full context and honestly portray it as she intended it.  At least Snopes did:
> snopes.com: Barbara Bush 'Beautiful Mind' Quote
Click to expand...


Yea, in full context it only sounds _half _as aloof, callous, cold-hearted, detached and haughty. So maybe us 'leftwing wackos' should give her a pass...

Instead, let's hear what Mrs. FULL aloof, callous, cold-hearted, detached and haughty had to say about Katrina victims...

Comments about Hurricane Katrina victims by the mother of President George Bush have fuelled the ire of some Americans, who see the Bush family as out-of-touch patricians.

The refugees in Houston, Texas, were "underprivileged anyway" and life in the Astrodome sports arena is "working very well for them", former first lady Barbara Bush said in a radio interview.

"Almost everyone I've talked to says: 'We're going to move to Houston,' " Mrs Bush said late on Monday after visiting evacuees at the Astrodome with her husband, former president George Bush.

"What I'm hearing, which is sort of scary, is they all want to stay in Texas. Everyone is so overwhelmed by the hospitality," she said.

"And so many of the people in the arena here, you know, were underprivileged anyway, so this - this is working very well for them."

Her comments were aired on Marketplace, an American Public Radio show broadcast nationwide.

Barbara Bush comments on survivors spark outrage - World - smh.com.au






Our enemies...never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.
George W. Bush

Our nation is somewhat sad, but were angry. Theres a certain level of blood lust, but we wont let it drive our reaction. Were steady, clear-eyed and patient, but pretty soon well have to start displaying scalps.
George W. Bush

If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.
George W. Bush

I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace.
George W. Bush

If we dont stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, were going to have a serious problem coming down the road.
George W. Bush

Free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction.
George W. Bush


----------



## Foxfyre

Well no way I would want to interrupt your little quote fest--all of them taken out of context--there.  I notice none of them had anything whatsoever to do with the quote that you initially posted and tried to make look like something it wasn't.

I don't care to play that game.  And I figure anybody who would approve of your doing that like what you're doing.  Those who know better don't need to have it explained by me.

Do have a nice day.


----------



## Bfgrn

gslack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> We were all there and though many of us appreciated President Bush in some ways, we were mad as hell at him in others such as socialization of medicine creating another huge entitlement, his energy policy, his liberal illegal immigrant policy, his failure to rein in irresponsible spending intiated and passed by his own party and the opposing party, etc..
> 
> The straw that broke the camel's back of course was TARP and all of us were finally fed up, mad as hell, and ready to take to the streets brandishing angry signs over that.  But President Bush was in his last months of office and President Obama was solemnly and oh so sincerely promising to rein in the irresponsible spending, restore fiscal sanity, balance the budget, reduce the deficits, pay down the debt, etc. etc. etc.  So we waited for him to save us from the excesses of the previous eight years.
> 
> It was all lies of course.  And when that became obvious via the pork laden appropriations bill passed early on, the stimulus package, the takeover of financial institutions and major U.S. industries in a way that protected those who created the problem and corrected none of the problems, takeover of the U.S. healthcare system, and budgets that exacerbated a deficit approaching the entire GDP, THAT's when the Tea Partiers were born.
> 
> Republican, Democrat, Independent, nobody cared whose ox was being gored.  They were all culpable and they were all guilty and we wanted them to wake up and fix it or get out of the way and make room for an elected leadership who would.
> 
> You can continue to try to cast the Tea Party movement as partisan which only speaks to your own partisanship or perhaps ignorance of what you speak.  But the Tea Partiers are not partisan at all.  They are anything but.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It amazes me how ignorant the right is. There is no adult thinking going on. TARP, the Stimulus Bill and loans to GM and Chrysler were NOT policy decisions based on ideology, they were based on REALITY. If the financial institutions had been allowed to fail, it would have sent this country into a economic tailspin that would have wiped out this nation and take every American's retirement account and 401K with it. Economists from BOTH sides of the political spectrum concurred that both were a necessary evil. If GM and Chrysler had been allowed to fail, not only thousands of auto workers would have hit the public dole, it would have wiped out suppliers to not only GM and Chrysler, but foreign manufacturers in the USA. All told, about 3 million workers would have hit the public dole.
> 
> Health care reform started out with proposals of strong progressive reforms like single payer or a public option. The further it moved away from progressive reform, the less effective it became. It was torpedoed by a combination of powerful insurance lobbyists and Republicans that parroted Frank Luntz lies designed to kill any reform.
> 
> What amazes me the most, is there is NEVER a penny of human capital in any solution from the right. They always need human beings to just evaporate. Thankfully, enough adults with a conscience have prevented us from having to live and die through their simple minded and childish ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it amazes me how much your ignorant partisanship makes you blind to reality even when people tell you straight up.....
> 
> I am not a right winger, fool.... In fact until a year before the last election I was Democrat. Know what happened? I used my freaking head for a change.... You suffer from believing what they tell you. Well here is some reality for ya..
> 
> 1. Healthcare is more about keeping Doctors and medical professionals and Pharmaceutical companies safe from having to charge themselves out of the professions than it ever will be about insuring people. Insuring people was a way to sell it. Fact is  the biggest problem facing the medical industries were rising insurance costs on both ends of the spectrum. It wasn't about insuring the poor directly it was just a nice way to pull the heart strings.
> 
> Not only insurance costs to the end user, or companies for their employees, but costs for medical malpractice insurance. This was the next step in the system they started with the patient bill of rights under Bush. That bill had a framework making it more difficult to sue for malpractice by making HMO's a much more viable alternative than simple insurance. That way instead of insurance and medical pros being separate entities in all cases and bound to seek their own best interests. They could merge and work as a unit. This would lead to far less frivolous lawsuits, much more responsible settlements, and made it very difficult to sue for malpractice. If the insurer was in a deal with certain medical pros, and their insurance only paid for those medical pros; they function in effect as one unit. making a lawsuit for malfeasance or malpractice much more difficult.
> 
> This latest Healthcare bill was the next logical step. We would have gotten it anyway. Don't buy into all the BS, this was coming and no way around it. They had to keep doctors in the field. Malpractice insurance costs were skyrocketing with every single lawsuit. Doctors were opting to go into research and other fields rather than medical application. Remember the big hooplah over other countries making more doctors than we were a few years ago? yeah there was a reason for that, it was costs for insurance... But all you leftist twits saw from liberal media was it was due to a failed medical system... Failed because of rising costs but you weren't told that and god forbid one of your lazy asses had to go and look into it....
> 
> 2. NAFTA, CAFTA, and all those wonderful trade agreements which sold out the American working class come from both sides... Clinton was the man behind NAFTA so don't even try and deny it.. He sold out the American worker for corporations and that fact is undeniable. That was about profits and nothing more, so you can take your "we are the good guys" BS and shove it....
> 
> 3. We are in Afghanistan because of the Ural mountains reserves... make no mistake on this, that is the only reason we are there. People are brutalized all over the planet everyday and we do not go in there guns blazing, and why not? Well its simple they don't all have rich mineral, oil and gas deposits waiting to be tapped next door, and they don't all have a pipeline deal waiting in the wings.
> 
> 4. The patriot act is nothing more than insurance for the government against its people. Both sides voted it in, and despite the left crying over it and playing the role all over the TV for 8 years, we still have it as it was... All their big talk about freedom and all of it means squat in reality. They have no intention of touching it, and thats not me saying it its their own actions..
> 
> The only real substantial difference in left or right is the right says "so what" and the left tries to pretend they are against it to the press... One is power mad and deliberate, and the other is power mad and a liar.. Take your pick....
> 
> This is too multi-dimensional for more than 87% of the public to bother with, so they vote the way a perceived better tells them. That 87% is you..... The 13% or so left over are the people who do not buy into the bullshit and want to see for themselves and make their own decisions. Thats not my bullshit its common knowledge any PR man could tell you.. Think I'm bullshitting you? Well then watch 5 minutes of ads on a TV or online and see for yourself. 87% of the people on this planet buy things and vote in agreement with their peers. And if you tell them their peers believe this way, than they will. Why? Because if the lions share of them get their opinions from the same magic box, and they mostly follow the trends of their peers, the majority will set the tone and you have just manufactured consensus or consent. 87% voting the way they are told that 87% is voting by the media, and it really is that simple.....
> 
> Now, I hope you can grasp some of this. And if you come back separating every other sentence like a douchebag again, we will know beyond all doubt you are part of the 87%...
Click to expand...


Well, I've heard of people who jumped off the Titanic, but now I've met the 'Einstein' who 'used his head', swam out to the sinking vessel and jumped ON board...pea brain would be a major step up for you...

You have penchant for "KNOWING" other people's intentions. You may believe you are just more 'informed' than the next guy. The reality is you continue to 'emote', 'project' and provide concrete proof you are a right wing moron.

If your tiny little brain needs a one size fits all 'conspiracy theory' to explain away a very complex problem like skyrocketing health care costs, let's start at childhood. From an early age, we were all taught right from wrong. Ronbo Reagan, 30 years of Republican dominated legislation, economics and cultural dogma have delivered 'wrong' as now being LAWFUL. Doctors, insurance cartels, Wall Street bankers and corporate CEO's all got the 'memo'...sorry pal, looks like you were left off the list.

Here's your homework assignment, educate yourself on: 
medical loss ratio
The Medical Malpractice Myth
Ronbo Reagan, the pied piper on the road to serfdom
Frank Luntz
Grover Norquist
Lee Atwater
Karl Rove
The Heritage Foundation
Koch Industries
Scaife Family Foundations

Get back to me when you have an adult brain...OK?

BTW..."Clinton was the man behind NAFTA so don't even try and deny it.."

I DENY it...

NAFTA...North American Free Trade Agreement

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1991 between the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H.W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada.


----------



## geauxtohell

Bfgrn said:


> The Medical Malpractice Myth



As a med student, I take special interest in that one.  All of my research into the matter shows that it's somewhat of a red herring.  IMO, the medical profession uses this as a scapegoat issue to blame all the wrongs of medicine on.  

It's absurd.  They could outlaw all medical torts tonight and the same problems would exist tomorrow.  

It's not a popular notion, but it's a logical one.  

BTW, I am not fully up on my conspiracy lore:  can you connect the dots for me on the logic behind going into Afghanistan over the pipeline deal?  I mean, I think Michael Moore made a stink out of it, but I think Michael Moore is 90% full of shit and 10% decent.  

Slacker could only provide links that were akin to "creative dreams" so, needless to say, the issue remains unexplained.


----------



## gslack

geauxtohell said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The US isn't cutting the deal moron its universal... And ya better take your head out of MSNBC's ass and read something, because its common knowledge there is a pipeline deal in place. Its not a conspiracy theory tool, its a known fact and no one denies it. Only a true tool wouldn't know this.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No fucking shit, jackass.  I didn't deny that the pipeline deal is in place.  It was in place under the Taliban.  I am denying your massive mental leap from that factoid into causation for going to war in Afghanistan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We went in fro Al Qaeda?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, yeah.  That was why SF was embedded with the Northern Alliance and little events like Anaconda went down.  Or was that all just a ruse?
> 
> 
> 
> Don't presume to lecture me on the ground realities of Afghanistan.  I was there from March of '04 to March of '05.  I would venture to say at that time, you were sitting at home watching your hairline recede.
> 
> Hey, maybe I'll just apply the "gslack debate standard":
> 
> "Until you go to Afghanistan, your are only getting biased reporting on it and are incapable of debating the issue logically."
> 
> 
> 
> What fucking case?  You still have done zilch to show that we invaded Afghanistan over the pipeline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want a pic to show what they are talking about tool?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.  A map of Afghanistan.  Thanks, I had never seen one of those.  Wow!  It even has the gaslines drawn in!  Surely this is inconclusive proof that the Afghanistan invasion was all about the pipeline.
> 
> BTW, with the exception of the CFR link, your sources are laughable.  You piss and moan about my "biased news" and then have the moxie to link OPED from a blogger about "Pipeline-stan" or link to "oilempire.us"?  What a fucking joke you are.  Here's a hint:  if the URL is itself biased, then the source is probably biased as well.  Just some simple logic for you.
> 
> I still have seen you provide no credible evidence that we invaded Afghanistan to secure the pipeline deal that was already in place under the Taliban.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, I am done with your ignorant bullshit... you don't know shit about this yet you try and claim i was spouting a conspiracy theory.... Grow the fuck up and read something not liberal approved first tool....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are spouting a conspiracy theory.  Don't believe me?  Put it to the taste test.  Make a thread about how we invaded Afghanistan for the pipeline and see where it ends up.
Click to expand...


Why did you leave out my links tool??

Fucking little coward lying douchebag.... ya left out my links and then tried to pretend it was all my unfounded and unbacked claims..... Dude you are a liar...

Where is my links tool? Fucking busted yourself again just like you always do.... I didn't back my claims? HA! then why did you leave the evidence out? Unbelievable....


----------



## gslack

geauxtohell said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did your side tell us we were losing doctors if we didnt pass healthcare? We were bombarded with lists and stats up the wazoo all telling us europe makes more doctors and how much we suck in the medical profession...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  That was a fancy attempt at slight of hand.  Unfortunately, you just aren't that clever.   ^ that is not what you said.  \/ This is:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember the big hooplah over other countries making more doctors than we were a few years ago? yeah there was a reason for that, it was costs for insurance...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The number of doctors we "make" in this country is relatively fixed and the bottle neck is on the number of residencies, which are always maxed out.  It doesn't fluctuate with the politics of the day.  Furthermore, when I applied to medical school about 50% of the applicants did not get in (which is the norm).  The problem is not on the "supply and demand" side.
> 
> So, instead of whining about my "liberal sources", why don't you provide some of your own sources that show that we are producing less doctors than the norm and that it's all because of insurance companies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the problem with living in a bullshit fantasy world.. You forget which bullshit you used and how or why.... That was one of the gripes from the liberals on this and you dam well know it.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO.  Yeah.  I am the one living in "bullshit fantasy world".  This thread basically consists of you tossing out your opinion and then refusing to support it.
Click to expand...


Excuses excuses.... Dude everytime you get caught you give one excuse after another..

Want me to remind you liar?

You said in the very post I quoted earlier...

_"Utter bullshit that is right up there with the rest of the conspiracy theories that permeate the conspiracy zone. You should take this b.s. over there. How is the U.S. going to get a cut out of a deal that involves Turkministan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India? "_

Then you tried this little bunch of excuse making....

_"No fucking shit, jackass. I didn't deny that the pipeline deal is in place. It was in place under the Taliban. I am denying your massive mental leap from that factoid into causation for going to war in Afghanistan. "_


AH NO! you didn't liar! Fucking lying little weasel you are busted dude.. You know dam good and well what you meant douchebag.... you said;

_"How is the U.S. going to get a cut out of a deal that involves Turkministan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India? "_

Whats that tell ya tool? It tells me you didn't know about the Pipeline you piece of shit.... YOUR words punk own them....

And your little semantics excuse making over your sides argument regarding doctors is even more bullshit....

This has been one more example of you thinking you know more than you really do... You didn't know about the pipeline, and you didn't even remember the BS more doctors in europe excuse your own side used just a year ago.... You aren't even informed of your own sides bullshit how in the hell can you even pretend you know anything?

SHowed your ass again didn't ya dumbass.... Nice work...

And BTW, try and use two out of context quotes from me from two separate posts and pretend the contradict one another.... Thats a douchebag tactic and everyone knows it...


----------



## gslack

Bfgrn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It amazes me how ignorant the right is. There is no adult thinking going on. TARP, the Stimulus Bill and loans to GM and Chrysler were NOT policy decisions based on ideology, they were based on REALITY. If the financial institutions had been allowed to fail, it would have sent this country into a economic tailspin that would have wiped out this nation and take every American's retirement account and 401K with it. Economists from BOTH sides of the political spectrum concurred that both were a necessary evil. If GM and Chrysler had been allowed to fail, not only thousands of auto workers would have hit the public dole, it would have wiped out suppliers to not only GM and Chrysler, but foreign manufacturers in the USA. All told, about 3 million workers would have hit the public dole.
> 
> Health care reform started out with proposals of strong progressive reforms like single payer or a public option. The further it moved away from progressive reform, the less effective it became. It was torpedoed by a combination of powerful insurance lobbyists and Republicans that parroted Frank Luntz lies designed to kill any reform.
> 
> What amazes me the most, is there is NEVER a penny of human capital in any solution from the right. They always need human beings to just evaporate. Thankfully, enough adults with a conscience have prevented us from having to live and die through their simple minded and childish ideas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it amazes me how much your ignorant partisanship makes you blind to reality even when people tell you straight up.....
> 
> I am not a right winger, fool.... In fact until a year before the last election I was Democrat. Know what happened? I used my freaking head for a change.... You suffer from believing what they tell you. Well here is some reality for ya..
> 
> 1. Healthcare is more about keeping Doctors and medical professionals and Pharmaceutical companies safe from having to charge themselves out of the professions than it ever will be about insuring people. Insuring people was a way to sell it. Fact is  the biggest problem facing the medical industries were rising insurance costs on both ends of the spectrum. It wasn't about insuring the poor directly it was just a nice way to pull the heart strings.
> 
> Not only insurance costs to the end user, or companies for their employees, but costs for medical malpractice insurance. This was the next step in the system they started with the patient bill of rights under Bush. That bill had a framework making it more difficult to sue for malpractice by making HMO's a much more viable alternative than simple insurance. That way instead of insurance and medical pros being separate entities in all cases and bound to seek their own best interests. They could merge and work as a unit. This would lead to far less frivolous lawsuits, much more responsible settlements, and made it very difficult to sue for malpractice. If the insurer was in a deal with certain medical pros, and their insurance only paid for those medical pros; they function in effect as one unit. making a lawsuit for malfeasance or malpractice much more difficult.
> 
> This latest Healthcare bill was the next logical step. We would have gotten it anyway. Don't buy into all the BS, this was coming and no way around it. They had to keep doctors in the field. Malpractice insurance costs were skyrocketing with every single lawsuit. Doctors were opting to go into research and other fields rather than medical application. Remember the big hooplah over other countries making more doctors than we were a few years ago? yeah there was a reason for that, it was costs for insurance... But all you leftist twits saw from liberal media was it was due to a failed medical system... Failed because of rising costs but you weren't told that and god forbid one of your lazy asses had to go and look into it....
> 
> 2. NAFTA, CAFTA, and all those wonderful trade agreements which sold out the American working class come from both sides... Clinton was the man behind NAFTA so don't even try and deny it.. He sold out the American worker for corporations and that fact is undeniable. That was about profits and nothing more, so you can take your "we are the good guys" BS and shove it....
> 
> 3. We are in Afghanistan because of the Ural mountains reserves... make no mistake on this, that is the only reason we are there. People are brutalized all over the planet everyday and we do not go in there guns blazing, and why not? Well its simple they don't all have rich mineral, oil and gas deposits waiting to be tapped next door, and they don't all have a pipeline deal waiting in the wings.
> 
> 4. The patriot act is nothing more than insurance for the government against its people. Both sides voted it in, and despite the left crying over it and playing the role all over the TV for 8 years, we still have it as it was... All their big talk about freedom and all of it means squat in reality. They have no intention of touching it, and thats not me saying it its their own actions..
> 
> The only real substantial difference in left or right is the right says "so what" and the left tries to pretend they are against it to the press... One is power mad and deliberate, and the other is power mad and a liar.. Take your pick....
> 
> This is too multi-dimensional for more than 87% of the public to bother with, so they vote the way a perceived better tells them. That 87% is you..... The 13% or so left over are the people who do not buy into the bullshit and want to see for themselves and make their own decisions. Thats not my bullshit its common knowledge any PR man could tell you.. Think I'm bullshitting you? Well then watch 5 minutes of ads on a TV or online and see for yourself. 87% of the people on this planet buy things and vote in agreement with their peers. And if you tell them their peers believe this way, than they will. Why? Because if the lions share of them get their opinions from the same magic box, and they mostly follow the trends of their peers, the majority will set the tone and you have just manufactured consensus or consent. 87% voting the way they are told that 87% is voting by the media, and it really is that simple.....
> 
> Now, I hope you can grasp some of this. And if you come back separating every other sentence like a douchebag again, we will know beyond all doubt you are part of the 87%...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I've heard of people who jumped off the Titanic, but now I've met the 'Einstein' who 'used his head', swam out to the sinking vessel and jumped ON board...pea brain would be a major step up for you...
> 
> You have penchant for "KNOWING" other people's intentions. You may believe you are just more 'informed' than the next guy. The reality is you continue to 'emote', 'project' and provide concrete proof you are a right wing moron.
> 
> If your tiny little brain needs a one size fits all 'conspiracy theory' to explain away a very complex problem like skyrocketing health care costs, let's start at childhood. From an early age, we were all taught right from wrong. Ronbo Reagan, 30 years of Republican dominated legislation, economics and cultural dogma have delivered 'wrong' as now being LAWFUL. Doctors, insurance cartels, Wall Street bankers and corporate CEO's all got the 'memo'...sorry pal, looks like you were left off the list.
> 
> Here's your homework assignment, educate yourself on:
> medical loss ratio
> The Medical Malpractice Myth
> Ronbo Reagan, the pied piper on the road to serfdom
> Frank Luntz
> Grover Norquist
> Lee Atwater
> Karl Rove
> The Heritage Foundation
> Koch Industries
> Scaife Family Foundations
> 
> Get back to me when you have an adult brain...OK?
> 
> BTW..."Clinton was the man behind NAFTA so don't even try and deny it.."
> 
> I DENY it...
> 
> NAFTA...North American Free Trade Agreement
> 
> Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1991 between the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H.W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.
> 
> Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada.
Click to expand...


All of your talk and all you did was confirm that Bill CLinton did ratify NAFTA just as I claimed......

above your cited article reads....

_"The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada."_

Whats that? it had to be ratified by whom? Who ratified it? Come on punk don't be weasel say it..... Bill Clinton ratified it...

And the fact it was both parties who did the deal only proves my point even further....Thats one reason for tea parties you fucking imbecile......


----------



## gslack

geauxtohell said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Medical Malpractice Myth
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a med student, I take special interest in that one.  All of my research into the matter shows that it's somewhat of a red herring.  IMO, the medical profession uses this as a scapegoat issue to blame all the wrongs of medicine on.
> 
> It's absurd.  They could outlaw all medical torts tonight and the same problems would exist tomorrow.
> 
> It's not a popular notion, but it's a logical one.
> 
> BTW, I am not fully up on my conspiracy lore:  can you connect the dots for me on the logic behind going into Afghanistan over the pipeline deal?  I mean, I think Michael Moore made a stink out of it, but I think Michael Moore is 90% full of shit and 10% decent.
> 
> Slacker could only provide links that were akin to "creative dreams" so, needless to say, the issue remains unexplained.
Click to expand...


Well then why did you deliberately leave my links out if they were so laughable tool?

I gave you a wide range of independent links just so you couldn't claim i was using biased sources, and your excuse is they weren't biased sources? WTF dude you're an idiot....

Asia times online was one link...Asia Times Online :: Central Asian News and current affairs, Russia, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan

Funny but thats not right wing or a conspiracy site is it tool.... I think AsiaTimes will have a better and more neutral perspective on this than you and the lib media don't you.....

Another link you left out but talked about, was tomdispatch, a project from The Nation Institute

From their about us page...


> "About The Nation Institute
> 
> A nonprofit media center, The Nation Institute was established to extend the reach of progressive ideas and strengthen the independent press. Our dynamic range of programs include a bestselling book publishing imprint, Nation Books; our award-winning Investigative Fund, which supports groundbreaking investigative journalism; our nationally televised town hall meetings and debates; the widely read and syndicated website TomDispatch; our internship program at The Nation magazine; and Journalism Fellowships that fund up to 25 high-profile reporters every year. Work produced by The Nation Institute has sparked Congressional hearings, new legislation, FBI investigations and the resignation of government officials, has changed the debate and has a regular impact on the most urgent social and political issues of our day.
> 
> Board of Trustees
> 
> Ellen Chesler
> Ron Daniels
> Howard Dodson
> Nancy Dunlap
> Paula Giddings
> Danny Goldberg
> David Jones
> Jeffrey Levy-Hinte
> Victor Navasky
> Tim Robbins
> Cynthia Ryan
> Howard Shapiro
> Domna Stanton
> Catharine Stimpson
> Rose Styron
> Katrina vanden Heuvel
> Davis Weinstock"



Fucking busted again being a liar....... my god man wtf is up with you?  

And don't tell me you are a med student again... It ruins my faith in medical students... you may be a med student but you are an idiot and a liar, so its not exactly gonna save your ass now fool...


----------



## Bfgrn

gslack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it amazes me how much your ignorant partisanship makes you blind to reality even when people tell you straight up.....
> 
> I am not a right winger, fool.... In fact until a year before the last election I was Democrat. Know what happened? I used my freaking head for a change.... You suffer from believing what they tell you. Well here is some reality for ya..
> 
> 1. Healthcare is more about keeping Doctors and medical professionals and Pharmaceutical companies safe from having to charge themselves out of the professions than it ever will be about insuring people. Insuring people was a way to sell it. Fact is  the biggest problem facing the medical industries were rising insurance costs on both ends of the spectrum. It wasn't about insuring the poor directly it was just a nice way to pull the heart strings.
> 
> Not only insurance costs to the end user, or companies for their employees, but costs for medical malpractice insurance. This was the next step in the system they started with the patient bill of rights under Bush. That bill had a framework making it more difficult to sue for malpractice by making HMO's a much more viable alternative than simple insurance. That way instead of insurance and medical pros being separate entities in all cases and bound to seek their own best interests. They could merge and work as a unit. This would lead to far less frivolous lawsuits, much more responsible settlements, and made it very difficult to sue for malpractice. If the insurer was in a deal with certain medical pros, and their insurance only paid for those medical pros; they function in effect as one unit. making a lawsuit for malfeasance or malpractice much more difficult.
> 
> This latest Healthcare bill was the next logical step. We would have gotten it anyway. Don't buy into all the BS, this was coming and no way around it. They had to keep doctors in the field. Malpractice insurance costs were skyrocketing with every single lawsuit. Doctors were opting to go into research and other fields rather than medical application. Remember the big hooplah over other countries making more doctors than we were a few years ago? yeah there was a reason for that, it was costs for insurance... But all you leftist twits saw from liberal media was it was due to a failed medical system... Failed because of rising costs but you weren't told that and god forbid one of your lazy asses had to go and look into it....
> 
> 2. NAFTA, CAFTA, and all those wonderful trade agreements which sold out the American working class come from both sides... Clinton was the man behind NAFTA so don't even try and deny it.. He sold out the American worker for corporations and that fact is undeniable. That was about profits and nothing more, so you can take your "we are the good guys" BS and shove it....
> 
> 3. We are in Afghanistan because of the Ural mountains reserves... make no mistake on this, that is the only reason we are there. People are brutalized all over the planet everyday and we do not go in there guns blazing, and why not? Well its simple they don't all have rich mineral, oil and gas deposits waiting to be tapped next door, and they don't all have a pipeline deal waiting in the wings.
> 
> 4. The patriot act is nothing more than insurance for the government against its people. Both sides voted it in, and despite the left crying over it and playing the role all over the TV for 8 years, we still have it as it was... All their big talk about freedom and all of it means squat in reality. They have no intention of touching it, and thats not me saying it its their own actions..
> 
> The only real substantial difference in left or right is the right says "so what" and the left tries to pretend they are against it to the press... One is power mad and deliberate, and the other is power mad and a liar.. Take your pick....
> 
> This is too multi-dimensional for more than 87% of the public to bother with, so they vote the way a perceived better tells them. That 87% is you..... The 13% or so left over are the people who do not buy into the bullshit and want to see for themselves and make their own decisions. Thats not my bullshit its common knowledge any PR man could tell you.. Think I'm bullshitting you? Well then watch 5 minutes of ads on a TV or online and see for yourself. 87% of the people on this planet buy things and vote in agreement with their peers. And if you tell them their peers believe this way, than they will. Why? Because if the lions share of them get their opinions from the same magic box, and they mostly follow the trends of their peers, the majority will set the tone and you have just manufactured consensus or consent. 87% voting the way they are told that 87% is voting by the media, and it really is that simple.....
> 
> Now, I hope you can grasp some of this. And if you come back separating every other sentence like a douchebag again, we will know beyond all doubt you are part of the 87%...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I've heard of people who jumped off the Titanic, but now I've met the 'Einstein' who 'used his head', swam out to the sinking vessel and jumped ON board...pea brain would be a major step up for you...
> 
> You have penchant for "KNOWING" other people's intentions. You may believe you are just more 'informed' than the next guy. The reality is you continue to 'emote', 'project' and provide concrete proof you are a right wing moron.
> 
> If your tiny little brain needs a one size fits all 'conspiracy theory' to explain away a very complex problem like skyrocketing health care costs, let's start at childhood. From an early age, we were all taught right from wrong. Ronbo Reagan, 30 years of Republican dominated legislation, economics and cultural dogma have delivered 'wrong' as now being LAWFUL. Doctors, insurance cartels, Wall Street bankers and corporate CEO's all got the 'memo'...sorry pal, looks like you were left off the list.
> 
> Here's your homework assignment, educate yourself on:
> medical loss ratio
> The Medical Malpractice Myth
> Ronbo Reagan, the pied piper on the road to serfdom
> Frank Luntz
> Grover Norquist
> Lee Atwater
> Karl Rove
> The Heritage Foundation
> Koch Industries
> Scaife Family Foundations
> 
> Get back to me when you have an adult brain...OK?
> 
> BTW..."Clinton was the man behind NAFTA so don't even try and deny it.."
> 
> I DENY it...
> 
> NAFTA...North American Free Trade Agreement
> 
> Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1991 between the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H.W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.
> 
> Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of your talk and all you did was confirm that Bill CLinton did ratify NAFTA just as I claimed......
> 
> above your cited article reads....
> 
> _"The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.
> 
> Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada."_
> 
> Whats that? it had to be ratified by whom? Who ratified it? Come on punk don't be weasel say it..... Bill Clinton ratified it...
> 
> And the fact it was both parties who did the deal only proves my point even further....Thats one reason for tea parties you fucking imbecile......
Click to expand...


It appears that either you don't read your own assertions, or you don't comprehend their meaning. YOU said: *"Clinton was the man behind NAFTA *

I will highlight the words you need look up in a dictionary...

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1991 between the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. *U.S. President George H.W. Bush*, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each *responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement*

Yes, Clinton did ratify NAFTA, BUT, Clinton WASN'T the man behind NAFTA...President George H.W. Bush *was the man behind NAFTA*...................so don't even try and deny it.. 

You could try to make a case that Brian Mulroney or Carlos Salinas was really Bill Clinton incognito...


----------



## gslack

Bfgrn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I've heard of people who jumped off the Titanic, but now I've met the 'Einstein' who 'used his head', swam out to the sinking vessel and jumped ON board...pea brain would be a major step up for you...
> 
> You have penchant for "KNOWING" other people's intentions. You may believe you are just more 'informed' than the next guy. The reality is you continue to 'emote', 'project' and provide concrete proof you are a right wing moron.
> 
> If your tiny little brain needs a one size fits all 'conspiracy theory' to explain away a very complex problem like skyrocketing health care costs, let's start at childhood. From an early age, we were all taught right from wrong. Ronbo Reagan, 30 years of Republican dominated legislation, economics and cultural dogma have delivered 'wrong' as now being LAWFUL. Doctors, insurance cartels, Wall Street bankers and corporate CEO's all got the 'memo'...sorry pal, looks like you were left off the list.
> 
> Here's your homework assignment, educate yourself on:
> medical loss ratio
> The Medical Malpractice Myth
> Ronbo Reagan, the pied piper on the road to serfdom
> Frank Luntz
> Grover Norquist
> Lee Atwater
> Karl Rove
> The Heritage Foundation
> Koch Industries
> Scaife Family Foundations
> 
> Get back to me when you have an adult brain...OK?
> 
> BTW..."Clinton was the man behind NAFTA so don't even try and deny it.."
> 
> I DENY it...
> 
> NAFTA...North American Free Trade Agreement
> 
> Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1991 between the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. U.S. President George H.W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement, ceremonially signed it. The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.
> 
> Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of your talk and all you did was confirm that Bill CLinton did ratify NAFTA just as I claimed......
> 
> above your cited article reads....
> 
> _"The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.
> 
> Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada."_
> 
> Whats that? it had to be ratified by whom? Who ratified it? Come on punk don't be weasel say it..... Bill Clinton ratified it...
> 
> And the fact it was both parties who did the deal only proves my point even further....Thats one reason for tea parties you fucking imbecile......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appears that either you don't read your own assertions, or you don't comprehend their meaning. YOU said: *"Clinton was the man behind NAFTA *
> 
> I will highlight the words you need look up in a dictionary...
> 
> Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1991 between the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. *U.S. President George H.W. Bush*, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each *responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement*
> 
> Yes, Clinton did ratify NAFTA, BUT, Clinton WASN'T the man behind NAFTA...President George H.W. Bush *was the man behind NAFTA*...................so don't even try and deny it..
> 
> You could try to make a case that Brian Mulroney or Carlos Salinas was really Bill Clinton incognito...
Click to expand...


Want to play fool? You picked the wrong guy to try and lie to....

North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) &mdash;

See that link? Says .gov on the end. Know what that means? Means its a government site... here is what it says...


> North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
> 
> * Implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) began on January 1, 1994.* This agreement will remove most barriers to trade and investment among the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
> 
> Under the NAFTA, all non-tariff barriers to agricultural trade between the United States and Mexico were eliminated. In addition, many tariffs were eliminated immediately, with others being phased out over periods of 5 to 15 years.  This allowed for an orderly adjustment to free trade with Mexico, with full implementation beginning January 1, 2008.
> 
> *The agricultural provisions of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, in effect since 1989, were incorporated into the NAFTA. *Under these provisions, all tariffs affecting agricultural trade between the United States and Canada, with a few exceptions for items covered by tariff-rate quotas, were removed by January 1, 1998.
> 
> Mexico and Canada reached a separate bilateral NAFTA agreement on market access for agricultural products. The Mexican-Canadian agreement eliminated most tariffs either immediately or over 5, 10, or 15 years. Tariffs between the two countries affecting trade in dairy, poultry, eggs, and sugar are maintained.



See the bolded underlined sentences? The first one tells us NAFTA was implemented in 1994. When did Clinton take office? Hmm seems he was elected in 92' and took office in 93' A full YEAR BEFORE NAFTA was implemented... Yeah, want to try a semantics game tool? Man behind, man who signed it , what the fuck ever moron, makes no difference he signed the piece of shit and spent a year going over it. Why didn't he veto it after it came back to him from the house and senate?

Bottom line that was a cross party deal.. like it or not, agree with it or not, or argue about what ever semantical BS you can, Bill Clinton signed the POS, congress passed the thing, and both parties pushed it through... Now go and cry and say it ain't so....

Your link is to wikkipedia, in the very section you cited it says the following at the end.. _"This section requires expansion."_ Know what that means? it means that wikkipedia has issues with that section of it..
Your link: North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your own link has wikkipedia warnings on it.... So save us the semantics argument..


----------



## Bfgrn

gslack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of your talk and all you did was confirm that Bill CLinton did ratify NAFTA just as I claimed......
> 
> above your cited article reads....
> 
> _"The agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.
> 
> Before the negotiations were finalized, Bill Clinton came into office in the U.S. and Kim Campbell in Canada, and before the agreement became law, Jean Chrétien had taken office in Canada."_
> 
> Whats that? it had to be ratified by whom? Who ratified it? Come on punk don't be weasel say it..... Bill Clinton ratified it...
> 
> And the fact it was both parties who did the deal only proves my point even further....Thats one reason for tea parties you fucking imbecile......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that either you don't read your own assertions, or you don't comprehend their meaning. YOU said: *"Clinton was the man behind NAFTA *
> 
> I will highlight the words you need look up in a dictionary...
> 
> Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1991 between the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. *U.S. President George H.W. Bush*, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each *responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement*
> 
> Yes, Clinton did ratify NAFTA, BUT, Clinton WASN'T the man behind NAFTA...President George H.W. Bush *was the man behind NAFTA*...................so don't even try and deny it..
> 
> You could try to make a case that Brian Mulroney or Carlos Salinas was really Bill Clinton incognito...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Want to play fool? You picked the wrong guy to try and lie to....
> 
> North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) &mdash;
> 
> See that link? Says .gov on the end. Know what that means? Means its a government site... here is what it says...
> 
> 
> 
> North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
> 
> * Implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) began on January 1, 1994.* This agreement will remove most barriers to trade and investment among the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
> 
> Under the NAFTA, all non-tariff barriers to agricultural trade between the United States and Mexico were eliminated. In addition, many tariffs were eliminated immediately, with others being phased out over periods of 5 to 15 years.  This allowed for an orderly adjustment to free trade with Mexico, with full implementation beginning January 1, 2008.
> 
> *The agricultural provisions of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, in effect since 1989, were incorporated into the NAFTA. *Under these provisions, all tariffs affecting agricultural trade between the United States and Canada, with a few exceptions for items covered by tariff-rate quotas, were removed by January 1, 1998.
> 
> Mexico and Canada reached a separate bilateral NAFTA agreement on market access for agricultural products. The Mexican-Canadian agreement eliminated most tariffs either immediately or over 5, 10, or 15 years. Tariffs between the two countries affecting trade in dairy, poultry, eggs, and sugar are maintained.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the bolded underlined sentences? The first one tells us NAFTA was implemented in 1994. When did Clinton take office? Hmm seems he was elected in 92' and took office in 93' A full YEAR BEFORE NAFTA was implemented... Yeah, want to try a semantics game tool? Man behind, man who signed it , what the fuck ever moron, makes no difference he signed the piece of shit and spent a year going over it. Why didn't he veto it after it came back to him from the house and senate?
> 
> Bottom line that was a cross party deal.. like it or not, agree with it or not, or argue about what ever semantical BS you can, Bill Clinton signed the POS, congress passed the thing, and both parties pushed it through... Now go and cry and say it ain't so....
> 
> Your link is to wikkipedia, in the very section you cited it says the following at the end.. _"This section requires expansion."_ Know what that means? it means that wikkipedia has issues with that section of it..
> Your link: North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Your own link has wikkipedia warnings on it.... So save us the semantics argument..
Click to expand...


Hey, I was wrong, George H.W. Bush was not *the man behind NAFTA*

*Ronbo Reagan was...*






NAFTA Timeline

November 13, 1979
While officially declaring his candidacy for President, Ronald Reagan proposes a North American Agreement which will produce a North American continent in which the goods and people of the three countries will cross boundaries more freely.

January 1981
President Ronald Reagan proposes a North American common market.

December 10, 1985
President Reagan officially informs Congress about his intention to negotiate a free trade agreement with Canada under the authority of trade promotion. Referred to as fast track, trade promotion authority is an accelerated legislative procedure which obliges the House of Representatives and the Senate to decide within 90 days whether or not to establish a trade trade unit. No amendments are permitted.
*

Canada-US Free Trade Agreement (FTA)*





October 3, 1987
Conclusion of the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement (FTA) in Washington.

January 2, 1988
Prime Minister Mulroney and President Reagan sign the FTA.

January 1, 1989
The FTA takes effect.


*Mexico and the US drawing closer together*





November 6, 1987
Signing of a framework agreement between the US and Mexico.

June 10, 1990
Presidents Bush and Salinas announce that they will begin discussions aimed at liberalizing trade between their countries.

August 21, 1990
President Salinas officially proposes to the US president the negotiation of a free trade agreement between Mexico and the US.


*North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)*





February 5, 1991
Negotiations between the US and Mexico aimed at liberalizing trade between the two countries officially become trilateral at the request of the Canadian government.

April 7 to 10, 1991
Cooperation agreements are signed between Mexico and Canada covering taxation, cultural production and exports.

May 24, 1991
The American Senate endorses the extension of fast track authority in order to facilitate the negotiation of free trade with Mexico.

June 12, 1991
Start of trade negotiations between Canada, the US and Mexico.

April 4, 1992
Signing in Mexico by Canada and Mexico of a protocol agreement on cooperation projects regarding labour.

August 12, 1992
Signing of an agreement in principle on NAFTA.

September 17, 1992
Creation of a trilateral commission responsible for examining cooperation in the area of the environment.

October 7, 1992
Official signing of NAFTA by Michaël Wilson of Canada (minister), American ambassador Carla Hills and Mexican secretary Jaime Serra Puche, in San Antonio (Texas).

December 17, 1992
Official signing of NAFTA by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, US president George Bush, and Mexican president Carlos Salinas de Gortari, subject to its final approval by the federal Parliaments of the three countries.
NAFTA Timeline


----------



## gslack

Who signed it again? Come on tool you cans say it...... LOL too funny watching you try and semantic your way out of this....LOL


----------



## Foxfyre

NAFTA or at least the principles behind it have been seriously discussed since at least the Carter administration, began gaining momentun in the Reagan Administration, and was finalized and ratified by Congress in the Bush 41 Administration.  It was signed into law, including several side agreements, under Clinton who supported it during the campaign and made it a top priority after the election.  NAFTA is one of the truly bipartisan issues the government has accomplished and there is no one party or group to 'blame' for it or to 'give credit' for it depending on how you view NAFTA.

However, I don't know what that has to do with why the 'Tea Parties are so frightening', however, as I am unware of NAFTA being a targeted issue with any of the Tea Party groups in any state. 

The Tea Parties are focused on fiscal responsibility and accountability, respect for the Constitution and the freedoms it was intended to protect, and free markets unimpeded by too large, too overreaching, too expensive, and too authoritarian government.

So to get back on topic, my theory:

The Tea Parties are 'terrifying' to at least some on the Left who have nothing credible with which to argue with the Tea Partiers.  They can't very well admit that they want the government to have and control all the money and assets without admitting that they are socialists guided by Marxist principles.

They can't very well admit that they despise the Constitution and the constraints it puts on government that prevent government from becoming the authority over all human existence and activity without admitting that they despise freedom, personal responsibility and accountablility, and unlimited opportunity.

They can't very well admit that they don't want free markets and favor government becoming every bigger and more authoritarian on the theory it will be to their liking once it squelches all individualism and private enterprise.  They might look like the totalitarian minded advocates that they actually are.

So, they try to demonize the Tea Partiers by accusing them with all kinds of ridiculous lies.  Otherwise their fear is that the Tea Parties will accomplish their goal of smaller, more efficient, more effective government based on solid Constitutional principles, more individual freedom, and the people controlling their own resources rather than handing over more and more to an all reaching nanny state.  And should most Americans find that they prefer it that way, the Lefitst dream of total government control of everything will be dashed for generations.


----------



## Bfgrn

gslack said:


> Who signed it again? Come on tool you cans say it...... LOL too funny watching you try and semantic your way out of this....LOL



WOW...are you really THAT stupid? The only one trying to twist history with semantics is YOU.

So tell me pea brain, it is your contention that Bill Clinton was 'the man behind NAFTA'. 

Maybe you really are THAT stupid. The definition of 'the man behind' any policy is genesis. That would be the person who had the idea, proposed the policy and negotiated the terms. 

OK Einstein...please give me the historical information on how the Governor of Arkansas created a federal policy...


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Bfgrn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that either you don't read your own assertions, or you don't comprehend their meaning. YOU said: *"Clinton was the man behind NAFTA *
> 
> I will highlight the words you need look up in a dictionary...
> 
> Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1991 between the three nations, the leaders met in San Antonio, Texas, on December 17, 1992, to sign NAFTA. *U.S. President George H.W. Bush*, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas, each *responsible for spearheading and promoting the agreement*
> 
> Yes, Clinton did ratify NAFTA, BUT, Clinton WASN'T the man behind NAFTA...President George H.W. Bush *was the man behind NAFTA*...................so don't even try and deny it..
> 
> You could try to make a case that Brian Mulroney or Carlos Salinas was really Bill Clinton incognito...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Want to play fool? You picked the wrong guy to try and lie to....
> 
> North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) &mdash;
> 
> See that link? Says .gov on the end. Know what that means? Means its a government site... here is what it says...
> 
> 
> 
> North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
> 
> * Implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) began on January 1, 1994.* This agreement will remove most barriers to trade and investment among the United States, Canada, and Mexico.
> 
> Under the NAFTA, all non-tariff barriers to agricultural trade between the United States and Mexico were eliminated. In addition, many tariffs were eliminated immediately, with others being phased out over periods of 5 to 15 years.  This allowed for an orderly adjustment to free trade with Mexico, with full implementation beginning January 1, 2008.
> 
> *The agricultural provisions of the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, in effect since 1989, were incorporated into the NAFTA. *Under these provisions, all tariffs affecting agricultural trade between the United States and Canada, with a few exceptions for items covered by tariff-rate quotas, were removed by January 1, 1998.
> 
> Mexico and Canada reached a separate bilateral NAFTA agreement on market access for agricultural products. The Mexican-Canadian agreement eliminated most tariffs either immediately or over 5, 10, or 15 years. Tariffs between the two countries affecting trade in dairy, poultry, eggs, and sugar are maintained.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the bolded underlined sentences? The first one tells us NAFTA was implemented in 1994. When did Clinton take office? Hmm seems he was elected in 92' and took office in 93' A full YEAR BEFORE NAFTA was implemented... Yeah, want to try a semantics game tool? Man behind, man who signed it , what the fuck ever moron, makes no difference he signed the piece of shit and spent a year going over it. Why didn't he veto it after it came back to him from the house and senate?
> 
> Bottom line that was a cross party deal.. like it or not, agree with it or not, or argue about what ever semantical BS you can, Bill Clinton signed the POS, congress passed the thing, and both parties pushed it through... Now go and cry and say it ain't so....
> 
> Your link is to wikkipedia, in the very section you cited it says the following at the end.. _"This section requires expansion."_ Know what that means? it means that wikkipedia has issues with that section of it..
> Your link: North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Your own link has wikkipedia warnings on it.... So save us the semantics argument..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, I was wrong, George H.W. Bush was not *the man behind NAFTA*
> 
> *Ronbo Reagan was...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NAFTA Timeline
> 
> November 13, 1979
> While officially declaring his candidacy for President, Ronald Reagan proposes a North American Agreement which will produce a North American continent in which the goods and people of the three countries will cross boundaries more freely.
> 
> January 1981
> President Ronald Reagan proposes a North American common market.
> 
> December 10, 1985
> President Reagan officially informs Congress about his intention to negotiate a free trade agreement with Canada under the authority of trade promotion. Referred to as fast track, trade promotion authority is an accelerated legislative procedure which obliges the House of Representatives and the Senate to decide within 90 days whether or not to establish a trade trade unit. No amendments are permitted.
> *
> 
> Canada-US Free Trade Agreement (FTA)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> October 3, 1987
> Conclusion of the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement (FTA) in Washington.
> 
> January 2, 1988
> Prime Minister Mulroney and President Reagan sign the FTA.
> 
> January 1, 1989
> The FTA takes effect.
> 
> 
> *Mexico and the US drawing closer together*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> November 6, 1987
> Signing of a framework agreement between the US and Mexico.
> 
> June 10, 1990
> Presidents Bush and Salinas announce that they will begin discussions aimed at liberalizing trade between their countries.
> 
> August 21, 1990
> President Salinas officially proposes to the US president the negotiation of a free trade agreement between Mexico and the US.
> 
> 
> *North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> February 5, 1991
> Negotiations between the US and Mexico aimed at liberalizing trade between the two countries officially become trilateral at the request of the Canadian government.
> 
> April 7 to 10, 1991
> Cooperation agreements are signed between Mexico and Canada covering taxation, cultural production and exports.
> 
> May 24, 1991
> The American Senate endorses the extension of fast track authority in order to facilitate the negotiation of free trade with Mexico.
> 
> June 12, 1991
> Start of trade negotiations between Canada, the US and Mexico.
> 
> April 4, 1992
> Signing in Mexico by Canada and Mexico of a protocol agreement on cooperation projects regarding labour.
> 
> August 12, 1992
> Signing of an agreement in principle on NAFTA.
> 
> September 17, 1992
> Creation of a trilateral commission responsible for examining cooperation in the area of the environment.
> 
> October 7, 1992
> Official signing of NAFTA by Michaël Wilson of Canada (minister), American ambassador Carla Hills and Mexican secretary Jaime Serra Puche, in San Antonio (Texas).
> 
> December 17, 1992
> Official signing of NAFTA by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, US president George Bush, and Mexican president Carlos Salinas de Gortari, subject to its final approval by the federal Parliaments of the three countries.
> NAFTA Timeline
Click to expand...


Bush41 was one of the most evil scumbags in human history.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> NAFTA or at least the principles behind it have been seriously discussed since at least the Carter administration, began gaining momentun in the Reagan Administration, and was finalized and ratified by Congress in the Bush 41 Administration.  It was signed into law, including several side agreements, under Clinton who supported it during the campaign and made it a top priority after the election.  NAFTA is one of the truly bipartisan issues the government has accomplished and there is no one party or group to 'blame' for it or to 'give credit' for it depending on how you view NAFTA.
> 
> However, I don't know what that has to do with why the 'Tea Parties are so frightening', however, as I am unware of NAFTA being a targeted issue with any of the Tea Party groups in any state.
> 
> The Tea Parties are focused on fiscal responsibility and accountability, respect for the Constitution and the freedoms it was intended to protect, and free markets unimpeded by too large, too overreaching, too expensive, and too authoritarian government.
> 
> So to get back on topic, my theory:
> 
> The Tea Parties are 'terrifying' to at least some on the Left who have nothing credible with which to argue with the Tea Partiers.  They can't very well admit that they want the government to have and control all the money and assets without admitting that they are socialists guided by Marxist principles.
> 
> They can't very well admit that they despise the Constitution and the constraints it puts on government that prevent government from becoming the authority over all human existence and activity without admitting that they despise freedom, personal responsibility and accountablility, and unlimited opportunity.
> 
> They can't very well admit that they don't want free markets and favor government becoming every bigger and more authoritarian on the theory it will be to their liking once it squelches all individualism and private enterprise.  They might look like the totalitarian minded advocates that they actually are.
> 
> So, they try to demonize the Tea Partiers by accusing them with all kinds of ridiculous lies.  Otherwise their fear is that the Tea Parties will accomplish their goal of smaller, more efficient, more effective government based on solid Constitutional principles, more individual freedom, and the people controlling their own resources rather than handing over more and more to an all reaching nanny state.  And should most Americans find that they prefer it that way, the Lefitst dream of total government control of everything will be dashed for generations.



Foxfyre, usually your posts contain some semblance of reason. But this polarized argument is unbelievably childish. 

What IS scary; polarized thinking (all or none, black or white) has reached epidemic proportions on the right. I've honestly come to the conclusion that right wingers are either genetically deficient or so brainwashed and traumatized by the fear-mongering propaganda they've been spoon fed that they could easily be convince to run out in traffic by someone at Fox News.

What IS scary...what YOU and the teabaggers are calling for is exactly what got us into this economic crisis!

To me, conservatism should embrace the wisdom and lessons learned in the past. Our predecessors faced policies, ideologies and the lack of government regulations that led to the 1929 Stock Market crash and the great depression. Our predecessors, Democrats and Republicans crafted regulations and policies over a number of years that kept stock markets and corporations from causing another crash.. 

Enter Ronbo Reagan and the failed Reagan revolution. All the wisdom and lessons learned in the past were thrown away. Miraculously, human nature and human foible like greed suddenly only applied to our predecessors and dead people. These guys were smarter than anyone that ever lived. The regulations and policies the evolved from hard earned lessons over all those years were dismissed and PR'ed to the public as 'leftist total government control of everything crafted by socialists guided by Marxist principles.

SO, today's 'conservatives' want to REPEAT the mind-numbingly stupid failed policies and ideologies that got us in this mess. THAT is scary.

Honestly, what you just posted falls into the category of 'know nothingism'


----------



## gslack

Bfgrn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who signed it again? Come on tool you cans say it...... LOL too funny watching you try and semantic your way out of this....LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW...are you really THAT stupid? The only one trying to twist history with semantics is YOU.
> 
> So tell me pea brain, it is your contention that Bill Clinton was 'the man behind NAFTA'.
> 
> Maybe you really are THAT stupid. The definition of 'the man behind' any policy is genesis. That would be the person who had the idea, proposed the policy and negotiated the terms.
> 
> OK Einstein...please give me the historical information on how the Governor of Arkansas created a federal policy...
Click to expand...


Who signed it shithead..... Come on coward say it.... Who ratified that POS..... You refuse to say it why?

Come on coward tell us who ratified it? When I said "man behind" just like anyone else I meant man who ratified it... When you think of the healthcare bill do you think about the guys who wrote it or the guy who signed it into action? now don't be such a little coward and semantics weasel... You dam good and well what that meant and just as I said before it makes no dam difference who helped push it along, he signed and ratified the POS....

Thats twice now I said that now you little coward, and twice you have refused to admit clinton ratified it.....

Once again we see your true nature tool.... you are a little punk who tries to argue meaningless semantics that have no bearing to confound the point... The point still remains  bill clinton could have vetoed it and he didn't he signed it... So again where is that so-called party difference tool?

There is no real difference and tea party movement tries to address this issue..

now you can cry till you have no tears left, and it will still amount to dick.... Bil clinton ratified NAFTA, he could have vetoed it and he didn't. one party helped lay the groundwork and the other party came in and drove it home and finalized it.... Both fucking parties did it, and that is one of the many reasons why the tea parties even exist....


----------



## Foxfyre

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> NAFTA or at least the principles behind it have been seriously discussed since at least the Carter administration, began gaining momentun in the Reagan Administration, and was finalized and ratified by Congress in the Bush 41 Administration.  It was signed into law, including several side agreements, under Clinton who supported it during the campaign and made it a top priority after the election.  NAFTA is one of the truly bipartisan issues the government has accomplished and there is no one party or group to 'blame' for it or to 'give credit' for it depending on how you view NAFTA.
> 
> However, I don't know what that has to do with why the 'Tea Parties are so frightening', however, as I am unware of NAFTA being a targeted issue with any of the Tea Party groups in any state.
> 
> The Tea Parties are focused on fiscal responsibility and accountability, respect for the Constitution and the freedoms it was intended to protect, and free markets unimpeded by too large, too overreaching, too expensive, and too authoritarian government.
> 
> So to get back on topic, my theory:
> 
> The Tea Parties are 'terrifying' to at least some on the Left who have nothing credible with which to argue with the Tea Partiers.  They can't very well admit that they want the government to have and control all the money and assets without admitting that they are socialists guided by Marxist principles.
> 
> They can't very well admit that they despise the Constitution and the constraints it puts on government that prevent government from becoming the authority over all human existence and activity without admitting that they despise freedom, personal responsibility and accountablility, and unlimited opportunity.
> 
> They can't very well admit that they don't want free markets and favor government becoming every bigger and more authoritarian on the theory it will be to their liking once it squelches all individualism and private enterprise.  They might look like the totalitarian minded advocates that they actually are.
> 
> So, they try to demonize the Tea Partiers by accusing them with all kinds of ridiculous lies.  Otherwise their fear is that the Tea Parties will accomplish their goal of smaller, more efficient, more effective government based on solid Constitutional principles, more individual freedom, and the people controlling their own resources rather than handing over more and more to an all reaching nanny state.  And should most Americans find that they prefer it that way, the Lefitst dream of total government control of everything will be dashed for generations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre, usually your posts contain some semblance of reason. But this polarized argument is unbelievably childish.
> 
> What IS scary; polarized thinking (all or none, black or white) has reached epidemic proportions on the right. I've honestly come to the conclusion that right wingers are either genetically deficient or so brainwashed and traumatized by the fear-mongering propaganda they've been spoon fed that they could easily be convince to run out in traffic by someone at Fox News.
> 
> What IS scary...what YOU and the teabaggers are calling for is exactly what got us into this economic crisis!
> 
> To me, conservatism should embrace the wisdom and lessons learned in the past. Our predecessors faced policies, ideologies and the lack of government regulations that led to the 1929 Stock Market crash and the great depression. Our predecessors, Democrats and Republicans crafted regulations and policies over a number of years that kept stock markets and corporations from causing another crash..
> 
> Enter Ronbo Reagan and the failed Reagan revolution. All the wisdom and lessons learned in the past were thrown away. Miraculously, human nature and human foible like greed suddenly only applied to our predecessors and dead people. These guys were smarter than anyone that ever lived. The regulations and policies the evolved from hard earned lessons over all those years were dismissed and PR'ed to the public as 'leftist total government control of everything crafted by socialists guided by Marxist principles.
> 
> SO, today's 'conservatives' want to REPEAT the mind-numbingly stupid failed policies and ideologies that got us in this mess. THAT is scary.
> 
> Honestly, what you just posted falls into the category of 'know nothingism'
Click to expand...


Sorry, but I suspect I've read a whole lot more of the histories of this stuff than you have.  If not, at least I was able to comprehend what I have read.

And I have read absolutely nothing - nada - zip - zilch - that suggests that what the Tea Partiers are advocating has EVER failed.  However, the evidence of the failure of socialism and a lot of other leftwing notions is glaring.

Perhaps if you could just make a real good effort to remove all ad hominem, red herrings, straw men, and other non applicable logical fallacies from your repetoire of debate tools just for a little bit, and actually focus on each of those principles, you might even agree.  If not at least you would be debating the same thing I'm debating instead of a whole bunch of unrelated stuff.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> NAFTA or at least the principles behind it have been seriously discussed since at least the Carter administration, began gaining momentun in the Reagan Administration, and was finalized and ratified by Congress in the Bush 41 Administration.  It was signed into law, including several side agreements, under Clinton who supported it during the campaign and made it a top priority after the election.  NAFTA is one of the truly bipartisan issues the government has accomplished and there is no one party or group to 'blame' for it or to 'give credit' for it depending on how you view NAFTA.
> 
> However, I don't know what that has to do with why the 'Tea Parties are so frightening', however, as I am unware of NAFTA being a targeted issue with any of the Tea Party groups in any state.
> 
> The Tea Parties are focused on fiscal responsibility and accountability, respect for the Constitution and the freedoms it was intended to protect, and free markets unimpeded by too large, too overreaching, too expensive, and too authoritarian government.
> 
> So to get back on topic, my theory:
> 
> The Tea Parties are 'terrifying' to at least some on the Left who have nothing credible with which to argue with the Tea Partiers.  They can't very well admit that they want the government to have and control all the money and assets without admitting that they are socialists guided by Marxist principles.
> 
> They can't very well admit that they despise the Constitution and the constraints it puts on government that prevent government from becoming the authority over all human existence and activity without admitting that they despise freedom, personal responsibility and accountablility, and unlimited opportunity.
> 
> They can't very well admit that they don't want free markets and favor government becoming every bigger and more authoritarian on the theory it will be to their liking once it squelches all individualism and private enterprise.  They might look like the totalitarian minded advocates that they actually are.
> 
> So, they try to demonize the Tea Partiers by accusing them with all kinds of ridiculous lies.  Otherwise their fear is that the Tea Parties will accomplish their goal of smaller, more efficient, more effective government based on solid Constitutional principles, more individual freedom, and the people controlling their own resources rather than handing over more and more to an all reaching nanny state.  And should most Americans find that they prefer it that way, the Lefitst dream of total government control of everything will be dashed for generations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre, usually your posts contain some semblance of reason. But this polarized argument is unbelievably childish.
> 
> What IS scary; polarized thinking (all or none, black or white) has reached epidemic proportions on the right. I've honestly come to the conclusion that right wingers are either genetically deficient or so brainwashed and traumatized by the fear-mongering propaganda they've been spoon fed that they could easily be convince to run out in traffic by someone at Fox News.
> 
> What IS scary...what YOU and the teabaggers are calling for is exactly what got us into this economic crisis!
> 
> To me, conservatism should embrace the wisdom and lessons learned in the past. Our predecessors faced policies, ideologies and the lack of government regulations that led to the 1929 Stock Market crash and the great depression. Our predecessors, Democrats and Republicans crafted regulations and policies over a number of years that kept stock markets and corporations from causing another crash..
> 
> Enter Ronbo Reagan and the failed Reagan revolution. All the wisdom and lessons learned in the past were thrown away. Miraculously, human nature and human foible like greed suddenly only applied to our predecessors and dead people. These guys were smarter than anyone that ever lived. The regulations and policies the evolved from hard earned lessons over all those years were dismissed and PR'ed to the public as 'leftist total government control of everything crafted by socialists guided by Marxist principles.
> 
> SO, today's 'conservatives' want to REPEAT the mind-numbingly stupid failed policies and ideologies that got us in this mess. THAT is scary.
> 
> Honestly, what you just posted falls into the category of 'know nothingism'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I suspect I've read a whole lot more of the histories of this stuff than you have.  If not, at least I was able to comprehend what I have read.
> 
> And I have read absolutely nothing - nada - zip - zilch - that suggests that what the Tea Partiers are advocating has EVER failed.  However, the evidence of the failure of socialism and a lot of other leftwing notions is glaring.
> 
> Perhaps if you could just make a real good effort to remove all ad hominem, red herrings, straw men, and other non applicable logical fallacies from your repetoire of debate tools just for a little bit, and actually focus on each of those principles, you might even agree.  If not at least you would be debating the same thing I'm debating instead of a whole bunch of unrelated stuff.
Click to expand...


Clearly you and I are on a different intellectual level. So here is _some_ of the education you will need to catch up.

There's nothing wrong with _some_ of the ideas you teabaggers howl about, it's just that you folks are so totally oblivious to the REAL threats to the America our founding fathers envisioned... 

Here's a short list to get you started...
Learn what a TRUE free market IS...
Learn what corporate cost externalization is...
Learn how corporate cost externalization undermines and destroys a true free market...
Learn how our founding fathers viewed corporations...
Learn how our founding fathers placed VERY strict regulations, constraints and responsibilities ON those corporations...

Try to get back to me in the next decade, I'm not as young as I used to be...


----------



## Foxfyre

NOTING:  Bfgrn said this:  "There's nothing wrong with some of the ideas you teabaggers howl about,. . ."

That was the same day he said this:  "What IS scary...what YOU and the teabaggers are calling for is exactly what got us into this economic crisis!"

And when asked to just for a little bit set aside the straw men, red herrings, and other additional topics and focus on the three basic principles the Tea partiers promote, he says this:



> . . . .you folks are so totally oblivious to the REAL threats to the America our founding fathers envisioned...
> 
> Here's a short list to get you started...
> Learn what a TRUE free market IS...
> Learn what corporate cost externalization is...
> Learn how corporate cost externalization undermines and destroys a true free market...
> Learn how our founding fathers viewed corporations...
> Learn how our founding fathers placed VERY strict regulations, constraints and responsibilities ON those corporations...



Now if all this computes in a coherent way to the rest of you, okay.  I'm getting a huge disconnect myself.  

Bfgrn, I'm sorry.  But if you cannot focus on the simplest concept and discuss that before veering off into myriad different topics, it is unlikely that any useful exchange of ideas will happen. 

It IS possible to discuss a pencil or a tree without including all the different ways that pencil or tree has gone wrong or has been abused.  Also you can discuss those thngs without also discussing pencil factories and the logging industry.

And it is possible to discuss the core principles promoted by the Tea Partiers without including all the ways that things  have gone wrong or the abuses that have occurred when those principles are corrupted.  Or to conclude that the Tea Partiers are ignorant of such deviances or abuses.  Or swerve off into a discussion of corporations.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> NOTING:  Bfgrn said this:  "There's nothing wrong with some of the ideas you teabaggers howl about,. . ."
> 
> That was the same day he said this:  "What IS scary...what YOU and the teabaggers are calling for is exactly what got us into this economic crisis!"
> 
> And when asked to just for a little bit set aside the straw men, red herrings, and other additional topics and focus on the three basic principles the Tea partiers promote, he says this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . . . .you folks are so totally oblivious to the REAL threats to the America our founding fathers envisioned...
> 
> Here's a short list to get you started...
> Learn what a TRUE free market IS...
> Learn what corporate cost externalization is...
> Learn how corporate cost externalization undermines and destroys a true free market...
> Learn how our founding fathers viewed corporations...
> Learn how our founding fathers placed VERY strict regulations, constraints and responsibilities ON those corporations...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now if all this computes in a coherent way to the rest of you, okay.  I'm getting a huge disconnect myself.
> 
> Bfgrn, I'm sorry.  But if you cannot focus on the simplest concept and discuss that before veering off into myriad different topics, it is unlikely that any useful exchange of ideas will happen.
> 
> It IS possible to discuss a pencil or a tree without including all the different ways that pencil or tree has gone wrong or has been abused.  Also you can discuss those thngs without also discussing pencil factories and the logging industry.
> 
> And it is possible to discuss the core principles promoted by the Tea Partiers without including all the ways that things  have gone wrong or the abuses that have occurred when those principles are corrupted.  Or to conclude that the Tea Partiers are ignorant of such deviances or abuses.  Or swerve off into a discussion of corporations.
Click to expand...


The fact that you are so oblivious to the REAL threats to our democratic society and the vision of our founding fathers IS scary.

You say you've 'read a whole lot more of the histories of this stuff than I have'...REALLY?

Then let's start with the feud between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Tell me what the core of their differences were? 

When I say "There's nothing wrong with _some_ of the ideas you teabaggers howl about"....I'm all for freedom, personal responsibility and accountability, and unlimited opportunity. And I want to live in a TRUE free market economy, because in a true free market, no one can get rich by making other people poor.

BUT, for that society to exist, EVERYONE must be held to the same personal responsibility and accountability.

But you have decided to confront me without doing any research to catch up. So, here's some help...

THE EVOLVING CORPORATION 


Mere parsimony (frugality, stinginess) is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
Edmund Burke


----------



## gslack

Every argument with Bfgrn starts out with him telling you how much smarter,more educated, etc, he is, and ends with him telling you how dumb you are... or he rotates the two... The problem is all the garbage between those two points doesn't back up his claims... Also you may have noticed he has a bit of a cowardly streak in him. He avoids posts directed at himself whenever they get too much, and will try to divert, confound or obfuscate a point with semantics and inconsequentials... oh and do not forget he is a med student, or else he will tell you...over and over again...


----------



## AllieBaba

Med student my ass. Med students don't have time to hang out on message boards.


----------



## Bfgrn

gslack said:


> Every argument with Bfgrn starts out with him telling you how much smarter,more educated, etc, he is, and ends with him telling you how dumb you are... or he rotates the two... The problem is all the garbage between those two points doesn't back up his claims... Also you may have noticed he has a bit of a cowardly streak in him. He avoids posts directed at himself whenever they get too much, and will try to divert, confound or obfuscate a point with semantics and inconsequentials... oh and do not forget he is a med student, or else he will tell you...over and over again...



WOW, I'm a med student? I better get my ass to class, I've missed ALL of it for almost 60 years!

Hey slacker, you are right about one thing...I am much smarter than pea brains like you. 

I don't usually question when someone says who they are, but I am very skeptical that you were EVER a Democrat. You don't have the cognitive ability to tell chocolate from dogshit without tasting it.

"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen


----------



## Foxfyre

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOTING:  Bfgrn said this:  "There's nothing wrong with some of the ideas you teabaggers howl about,. . ."
> 
> That was the same day he said this:  "What IS scary...what YOU and the teabaggers are calling for is exactly what got us into this economic crisis!"
> 
> And when asked to just for a little bit set aside the straw men, red herrings, and other additional topics and focus on the three basic principles the Tea partiers promote, he says this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . . . .you folks are so totally oblivious to the REAL threats to the America our founding fathers envisioned...
> 
> Here's a short list to get you started...
> Learn what a TRUE free market IS...
> Learn what corporate cost externalization is...
> Learn how corporate cost externalization undermines and destroys a true free market...
> Learn how our founding fathers viewed corporations...
> Learn how our founding fathers placed VERY strict regulations, constraints and responsibilities ON those corporations...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now if all this computes in a coherent way to the rest of you, okay.  I'm getting a huge disconnect myself.
> 
> Bfgrn, I'm sorry.  But if you cannot focus on the simplest concept and discuss that before veering off into myriad different topics, it is unlikely that any useful exchange of ideas will happen.
> 
> It IS possible to discuss a pencil or a tree without including all the different ways that pencil or tree has gone wrong or has been abused.  Also you can discuss those thngs without also discussing pencil factories and the logging industry.
> 
> And it is possible to discuss the core principles promoted by the Tea Partiers without including all the ways that things  have gone wrong or the abuses that have occurred when those principles are corrupted.  Or to conclude that the Tea Partiers are ignorant of such deviances or abuses.  Or swerve off into a discussion of corporations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you are so oblivious to the REAL threats to our democratic society and the vision of our founding fathers IS scary.
> 
> You say you've 'read a whole lot more of the histories of this stuff than I have'...REALLY?
> 
> Then let's start with the feud between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Tell me what the core of their differences were?
> 
> When I say "There's nothing wrong with _some_ of the ideas you teabaggers howl about"....I'm all for freedom, personal responsibility and accountability, and unlimited opportunity. And I want to live in a TRUE free market economy, because in a true free market, no one can get rich by making other people poor.
> 
> BUT, for that society to exist, EVERYONE must be held to the same personal responsibility and accountability.
> 
> But you have decided to confront me without doing any research to catch up. So, here's some help...
> 
> THE EVOLVING CORPORATION
> 
> 
> Mere parsimony (frugality, stinginess) is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
> Edmund Burke
Click to expand...


Sigh.  I refer to my previous post and rest my case.


----------



## gslack

Bfgrn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every argument with Bfgrn starts out with him telling you how much smarter,more educated, etc, he is, and ends with him telling you how dumb you are... or he rotates the two... The problem is all the garbage between those two points doesn't back up his claims... Also you may have noticed he has a bit of a cowardly streak in him. He avoids posts directed at himself whenever they get too much, and will try to divert, confound or obfuscate a point with semantics and inconsequentials... oh and do not forget he is a med student, or else he will tell you...over and over again...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, I'm a med student? I better get my ass to class, I've missed ALL of it for almost 60 years!
> 
> Hey slacker, you are right about one thing...I am much smarter than pea brains like you.
> 
> I don't usually question when someone says who they are, but I am very skeptical that you were EVER a Democrat. You don't have the cognitive ability to tell chocolate from dogshit without tasting it.
> 
> "Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
> Ted Sorensen
Click to expand...


Oh I'm sorry I got you confused with the guy who posts just like you... you know the other one using the same BS argument you are, using the same lame insults, and the same "I am smart and you're not" line of nonsense... yeah seems you two are team so I got ya mixed up...

I voted Bill CLinton and Al Gore believe it or not... Also entertained the idea of voting John Kerry once till i found out he and bush hang in the same crowd... Glad he didn't win.... hate to have to apologize for that as well.

Try to get your proxies straight will ya....


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOTING:  Bfgrn said this:  "There's nothing wrong with some of the ideas you teabaggers howl about,. . ."
> 
> That was the same day he said this:  "What IS scary...what YOU and the teabaggers are calling for is exactly what got us into this economic crisis!"
> 
> And when asked to just for a little bit set aside the straw men, red herrings, and other additional topics and focus on the three basic principles the Tea partiers promote, he says this:
> 
> 
> 
> Now if all this computes in a coherent way to the rest of you, okay.  I'm getting a huge disconnect myself.
> 
> Bfgrn, I'm sorry.  But if you cannot focus on the simplest concept and discuss that before veering off into myriad different topics, it is unlikely that any useful exchange of ideas will happen.
> 
> It IS possible to discuss a pencil or a tree without including all the different ways that pencil or tree has gone wrong or has been abused.  Also you can discuss those thngs without also discussing pencil factories and the logging industry.
> 
> And it is possible to discuss the core principles promoted by the Tea Partiers without including all the ways that things  have gone wrong or the abuses that have occurred when those principles are corrupted.  Or to conclude that the Tea Partiers are ignorant of such deviances or abuses.  Or swerve off into a discussion of corporations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you are so oblivious to the REAL threats to our democratic society and the vision of our founding fathers IS scary.
> 
> You say you've 'read a whole lot more of the histories of this stuff than I have'...REALLY?
> 
> Then let's start with the feud between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Tell me what the core of their differences were?
> 
> When I say "There's nothing wrong with _some_ of the ideas you teabaggers howl about"....I'm all for freedom, personal responsibility and accountability, and unlimited opportunity. And I want to live in a TRUE free market economy, because in a true free market, no one can get rich by making other people poor.
> 
> BUT, for that society to exist, EVERYONE must be held to the same personal responsibility and accountability.
> 
> But you have decided to confront me without doing any research to catch up. So, here's some help...
> 
> THE EVOLVING CORPORATION
> 
> 
> Mere parsimony (frugality, stinginess) is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sigh.  I refer to my previous post and rest my case.
Click to expand...


The proverbial right wing *yawn*...hallmark of the dogmatic, incurious mind. My initial impression of you was that you were above the average right wing pea brain...I was wrong.

It has to be genetic deficiency.

Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.
Edmund Burke


----------



## AllieBaba

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you are so oblivious to the REAL threats to our democratic society and the vision of our founding fathers IS scary.
> 
> You say you've 'read a whole lot more of the histories of this stuff than I have'...REALLY?
> 
> Then let's start with the feud between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Tell me what the core of their differences were?
> 
> When I say "There's nothing wrong with _some_ of the ideas you teabaggers howl about"....I'm all for freedom, personal responsibility and accountability, and unlimited opportunity. And I want to live in a TRUE free market economy, because in a true free market, no one can get rich by making other people poor.
> 
> BUT, for that society to exist, EVERYONE must be held to the same personal responsibility and accountability.
> 
> But you have decided to confront me without doing any research to catch up. So, here's some help...
> 
> THE EVOLVING CORPORATION
> 
> 
> Mere parsimony (frugality, stinginess) is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.  I refer to my previous post and rest my case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The proverbial right wing *yawn*...hallmark of the dogmatic, incurious mind. My initial impression of you was that you were above the average right wing pea brain...I was wrong.
> 
> It has to be genetic deficiency.
> 
> Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.
> Edmund Burke
Click to expand...


You need to study the history of the Nazi regime, nitwit.


----------



## Mr Natural

AllieBaba said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.  I refer to my previous post and rest my case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The proverbial right wing *yawn*...hallmark of the dogmatic, incurious mind. My initial impression of you was that you were above the average right wing pea brain...I was wrong.
> 
> It has to be genetic deficiency.
> 
> Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to study the history of the Nazi regime, nitwit.
Click to expand...


Oh geez, another one with Nazi Tourette's.


----------



## gslack

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you are so oblivious to the REAL threats to our democratic society and the vision of our founding fathers IS scary.
> 
> You say you've 'read a whole lot more of the histories of this stuff than I have'...REALLY?
> 
> Then let's start with the feud between Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Tell me what the core of their differences were?
> 
> When I say "There's nothing wrong with _some_ of the ideas you teabaggers howl about"....I'm all for freedom, personal responsibility and accountability, and unlimited opportunity. And I want to live in a TRUE free market economy, because in a true free market, no one can get rich by making other people poor.
> 
> BUT, for that society to exist, EVERYONE must be held to the same personal responsibility and accountability.
> 
> But you have decided to confront me without doing any research to catch up. So, here's some help...
> 
> THE EVOLVING CORPORATION
> 
> 
> Mere parsimony (frugality, stinginess) is not economy. Expense, and great expense, may be an essential part in true economy.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.  I refer to my previous post and rest my case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The proverbial right wing *yawn*...hallmark of the dogmatic, incurious mind. My initial impression of you was that you were above the average right wing pea brain...I was wrong.
> 
> It has to be genetic deficiency.
> 
> Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.
> Edmund Burke
Click to expand...


yeah its a lack of an IDIOT GENE...... Some have it, some don't.... Obviously you do...


----------



## AllieBaba

Mr Clean said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The proverbial right wing *yawn*...hallmark of the dogmatic, incurious mind. My initial impression of you was that you were above the average right wing pea brain...I was wrong.
> 
> It has to be genetic deficiency.
> 
> Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need to study the history of the Nazi regime, nitwit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh geez, another one with Nazi Tourette's.
Click to expand...


"Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."

How funny you'll use that quote, then sneer at any reference to history.


----------



## Bfgrn

AllieBaba said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.  I refer to my previous post and rest my case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The proverbial right wing *yawn*...hallmark of the dogmatic, incurious mind. My initial impression of you was that you were above the average right wing pea brain...I was wrong.
> 
> It has to be genetic deficiency.
> 
> Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to study the history of the Nazi regime, nitwit.
Click to expand...


Do you mean the REAL history of the Nazi regime, or Jonah Goldberg's bizzaro history?


----------



## Mr Natural

AllieBaba said:


> Mr Clean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to study the history of the Nazi regime, nitwit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh geez, another one with Nazi Tourette's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."
> 
> How funny you'll use that quote, then sneer at any reference to history.
Click to expand...



Let me know when Obama starts talking world domination and the subjugation of ethnic/religous groups and I'll be the first to put on a goofy hat and carry an Obama=Nazi sign.

Until then I'll continue to have a good chuckle at the teabagger's expense.


----------



## geauxtohell

gslack said:


> Excuses excuses.... Dude everytime you get caught you give one excuse after another..
> 
> Want me to remind you liar?
> 
> You said in the very post I quoted earlier...
> 
> _"Utter bullshit that is right up there with the rest of the conspiracy theories that permeate the conspiracy zone. You should take this b.s. over there. How is the U.S. going to get a cut out of a deal that involves Turkministan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India? "_
> 
> Then you tried this little bunch of excuse making....
> 
> _"No fucking shit, jackass. I didn't deny that the pipeline deal is in place. It was in place under the Taliban. I am denying your massive mental leap from that factoid into causation for going to war in Afghanistan. "_
> 
> 
> AH NO! you didn't liar! Fucking lying little weasel you are busted dude.. You know dam good and well what you meant douchebag.... you said;
> 
> _"How is the U.S. going to get a cut out of a deal that involves Turkministan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India? "_
> 
> Whats that tell ya tool? It tells me you didn't know about the Pipeline you piece of shit.... YOUR words punk own them....



My God, you are a fucking dimwit and that's putting it nicely.  I acknowledged that the pipeline deal exists in the quote you linked.  That's why I directly referenced the four nations involved in the deal, scrotum-head.  

What I dispute is your goofball conspiracy-minded belief that we are in Afghanistan because of the pipeline.  I asked you to justify that.  You can not.   



> And your little semantics excuse making over your sides argument regarding doctors is even more bullshit....
> 
> This has been one more example of you thinking you know more than you really do... You didn't know about the pipeline, and you didn't even remember the BS more doctors in europe excuse your own side used just a year ago....



I called you on trying to adjust your own claim.  Now I see you are just going to ignore that.  Fine.  Just so there are no more misunderstandings, why don't you directly quote and link to whatever the hell you are talking about?  



> And BTW, try and use two out of context quotes from me from two separate posts and pretend the contradict one another.... Thats a douchebag tactic and everyone knows it...



What in the fuck are you talking about?


----------



## geauxtohell

gslack said:


> Why did you leave out my links tool??



Why not?  It's a relatively easy manner to scroll back and access them.  Was there something specific about your links that you wanted to discuss?  Simply sticking links up doesn't lend itself to much.  



> Fucking little coward lying douchebag.... ya left out my links and then tried to pretend it was all my unfounded and unbacked claims..... Dude you are a liar...



Uh, no.  I specifically addressed your links and said they were bullshit.  The only legit link was the CFR link, (the rest was a bunch of blogger-bullshit) and the CFR link hardly was proof that we are in Afghanistan because of an oil pipeline.  



> Where is my links tool? Fucking busted yourself again just like you always do.... I didn't back my claims? HA! then why did you leave the evidence out? Unbelievable....



A link isn't evidence of anything other than a link.  If you want to discuss something specific about your links, then by all means do so and we'll go forward.  

Other than that, I am beginning to think you do belong in the conspiracy corner.  Like the dumbasses that hang out over there, you think providing four jillion links without any commentary is the gold standard for proof.  

Keep up the bad work, knucklehead.


----------



## gslack

geauxtohell said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuses excuses.... Dude everytime you get caught you give one excuse after another..
> 
> Want me to remind you liar?
> 
> You said in the very post I quoted earlier...
> 
> _"Utter bullshit that is right up there with the rest of the conspiracy theories that permeate the conspiracy zone. You should take this b.s. over there. How is the U.S. going to get a cut out of a deal that involves Turkministan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India? "_
> 
> Then you tried this little bunch of excuse making....
> 
> _"No fucking shit, jackass. I didn't deny that the pipeline deal is in place. It was in place under the Taliban. I am denying your massive mental leap from that factoid into causation for going to war in Afghanistan. "_
> 
> 
> AH NO! you didn't liar! Fucking lying little weasel you are busted dude.. You know dam good and well what you meant douchebag.... you said;
> 
> _"How is the U.S. going to get a cut out of a deal that involves Turkministan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India? "_
> 
> Whats that tell ya tool? It tells me you didn't know about the Pipeline you piece of shit.... YOUR words punk own them....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My God, you are a fucking dimwit and that's putting it nicely.  I acknowledged that the pipeline deal exists in the quote you linked.  That's why I directly referenced the four nations involved in the deal, scrotum-head.
> 
> What I dispute is your goofball conspiracy-minded belief that we are in Afghanistan because of the pipeline.  I asked you to justify that.  You can not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your little semantics excuse making over your sides argument regarding doctors is even more bullshit....
> 
> This has been one more example of you thinking you know more than you really do... You didn't know about the pipeline, and you didn't even remember the BS more doctors in europe excuse your own side used just a year ago....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I called you on trying to adjust your own claim.  Now I see you are just going to ignore that.  Fine.  Just so there are no more misunderstandings, why don't you directly quote and link to whatever the hell you are talking about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And BTW, try and use two out of context quotes from me from two separate posts and pretend the contradict one another.... Thats a douchebag tactic and everyone knows it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What in the fuck are you talking about?
Click to expand...


BULLSHIT!

Ya stuck your foot in it pal.... You can stop lying anytime now..... First you claim it was a conspiracy theory, then you say its real but somehow it had nothing to do with going into Afghanistan.... Get a clue douchebag, 15 years ago even mentioning the CFR got you labeled a conspiracy theorist, yet now even you speak like its perfectly acceptable....

So which is it this time excuse maker; does it exist or not? And don't try the "in your link" save ass attempt....

ASIA TIMES? a blog? LOL, liar!..... pathetic man really pathetic.... Asia times is an Asian news site twit... I chose it because it wasn't tainted by US politics directly... 

You have a lot of excuses...

Point to where I changed my argument tool.....

And as as what I am talking about, you quoted me from one post and then another out of context and then tried to imply I changed my claim... Cite them fully asshole I did....

You left out my links because you had to to save face... Don't lie punk.. You tried this shit before as well. And come to think of it I was forced to argue both you and Bfgrn at the same time then as well... So then you admit, the pipeline is real now? Good, then you can shut the fuck up now because you tried to claim it was made up before...

If ya knew about the pipeline you would have said so then not as a nafter thought and defense tactic... You didnt say "although the pipeline is real" and then say i made the rest up in your original accusation. You were quite clear what you meant tool... thats what you said....

_"Utter bullshit that is right up there with the rest of the conspiracy theories that permeate the conspiracy zone. You should take this b.s. over there. How is the U.S. going to get a cut out of a deal that involves Turkministan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India? "_

If you had any idea the pipeline was a real deal you would have made a point of it but you didn't... You fucked up asshole.... Once again you talked out yer ass...


----------



## gslack

geauxtohell said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you leave out my links tool??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why not?  It's a relatively easy manner to scroll back and access them.  Was there something specific about your links that you wanted to discuss?  Simply sticking links up doesn't lend itself to much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking little coward lying douchebag.... ya left out my links and then tried to pretend it was all my unfounded and unbacked claims..... Dude you are a liar...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh, no.  I specifically addressed your links and said they were bullshit.  The only legit link was the CFR link, (the rest was a bunch of blogger-bullshit) and the CFR link hardly was proof that we are in Afghanistan because of an oil pipeline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where is my links tool? Fucking busted yourself again just like you always do.... I didn't back my claims? HA! then why did you leave the evidence out? Unbelievable....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A link isn't evidence of anything other than a link.  If you want to discuss something specific about your links, then by all means do so and we'll go forward.
> 
> Other than that, I am beginning to think you do belong in the conspiracy corner.  Like the dumbasses that hang out over there, you think providing four jillion links without any commentary is the gold standard for proof.
> 
> Keep up the bad work, knucklehead.
Click to expand...


Translation = BLAH BLAH BLAH, excuses excuses excuses....

You left out the links for the same lame reason you cut up peoples posts; to give enough wiggle room you can get out of it later... Nice try tool we have seen this before from you.. leaving them out of your quoting me, gives you the ability to try and bullshit.. 

just like when you quote me from two separate posts out of context and try to pretend it showed something it didn't.....

yeah you are that pathetic......


----------



## geauxtohell

Bfgrn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every argument with Bfgrn starts out with him telling you how much smarter,more educated, etc, he is, and ends with him telling you how dumb you are... or he rotates the two... The problem is all the garbage between those two points doesn't back up his claims... Also you may have noticed he has a bit of a cowardly streak in him. He avoids posts directed at himself whenever they get too much, and will try to divert, confound or obfuscate a point with semantics and inconsequentials... oh and do not forget he is a med student, or else he will tell you...over and over again...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, I'm a med student? I better get my ass to class, I've missed ALL of it for almost 60 years!
> 
> Hey slacker, you are right about one thing...I am much smarter than pea brains like you.
> 
> I don't usually question when someone says who they are, but I am very skeptical that you were EVER a Democrat. You don't have the cognitive ability to tell chocolate from dogshit without tasting it.
> 
> "Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
> Ted Sorensen
Click to expand...


He's a dumb fuck.  He keeps mixing us (and our posts) up and then accuses us of being confused.  

BTW, I think you are the only person on this thread I've mentioned being a Med Student too.


----------



## geauxtohell

AllieBaba said:


> Med student my ass. Med students don't have time to hang out on message boards.



bfgrn isn't a med student and never claimed to be one.  I am and did.  

You'd be surprised at how adept med students are at procrastinating.  

You are right though, I should be studying right now.


----------



## gslack

geauxtohell said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every argument with Bfgrn starts out with him telling you how much smarter,more educated, etc, he is, and ends with him telling you how dumb you are... or he rotates the two... The problem is all the garbage between those two points doesn't back up his claims... Also you may have noticed he has a bit of a cowardly streak in him. He avoids posts directed at himself whenever they get too much, and will try to divert, confound or obfuscate a point with semantics and inconsequentials... oh and do not forget he is a med student, or else he will tell you...over and over again...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, I'm a med student? I better get my ass to class, I've missed ALL of it for almost 60 years!
> 
> Hey slacker, you are right about one thing...I am much smarter than pea brains like you.
> 
> I don't usually question when someone says who they are, but I am very skeptical that you were EVER a Democrat. You don't have the cognitive ability to tell chocolate from dogshit without tasting it.
> 
> "Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
> Ted Sorensen
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's a dumb fuck.  He keeps mixing us (and our posts) up and then accuses us of being confused.
> 
> BTW, I think you are the only person on this thread I've mentioned being a Med Student too.
Click to expand...


Stop talking to yourself .... 

Dude you mentioned to me 3 times in two separate threads now... You mentioned it to fox as well... And remember your little chemistry act you tried to put on before....

I mixed you two up again, because you two like to try and save one anothers asses all the time... You get in an argument and he shows up badgering the person from the side, and vice versa. you think this is a new tactic? LOL, its not and neither are proxies and sockpuppetry.  So whatever you two are doing I don't care, but I will call you on your bullshit....

And if you aren't friends or proxy work, then there are two equally ignorant morons on this board who act alike....


----------



## geauxtohell

gslack said:


> BULLSHIT!
> 
> Ya stuck your foot in it pal.... You can stop lying anytime now..... First you claim it was a conspiracy theory, then you say its real but somehow it had nothing to do with going into Afghanistan.... Get a clue douchebag, 15 years ago even mentioning the CFR got you labeled a conspiracy theorist, yet now even you speak like its perfectly acceptable....
> 
> So which is it this time excuse maker; does it exist or not? And don't try the "in your link" save ass attempt....
> 
> ASIA TIMES? a blog? LOL, liar!..... pathetic man really pathetic.... Asia times is an Asian news site twit... I chose it because it wasn't tainted by US politics directly...
> 
> You have a lot of excuses...
> 
> Point to where I changed my argument tool.....
> 
> And as as what I am talking about, you quoted me from one post and then another out of context and then tried to imply I changed my claim... Cite them fully asshole I did....
> 
> You left out my links because you had to to save face... Don't lie punk.. You tried this shit before as well. And come to think of it I was forced to argue both you and Bfgrn at the same time then as well... So then you admit, the pipeline is real now? Good, then you can shut the fuck up now because you tried to claim it was made up before...
> 
> If ya knew about the pipeline you would have said so then not as a nafter thought and defense tactic... You didnt say "although the pipeline is real" and then say i made the rest up in your original accusation. You were quite clear what you meant tool... thats what you said....
> 
> _"Utter bullshit that is right up there with the rest of the conspiracy theories that permeate the conspiracy zone. You should take this b.s. over there. How is the U.S. going to get a cut out of a deal that involves Turkministan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India? "_
> 
> If you had any idea the pipeline was a real deal you would have made a point of it but you didn't... You fucked up asshole.... Once again you talked out yer ass...



All your large font, moronic inferences about what I really meant, attempts to divert the issue, and childish names aside, you have yet to connect the dots between the pipeline and our involvement in Afghanistan.  

You are correct about one thing:  Asia Times is legit.  I brushed it off because the article was written by the Pepe Escobar who was linked in your "Tomgram" link.  I assumed that "Pepe Escobar" was a blogger whose oped was picked up by Asia Times.  I see now he is a correspondent for Asia Times and the blogger picked up his work.  So my mistake.

Now, go ahead and tell the class how we invaded Afghanistan over a pipeline and that it had nothing to do with Al Queda killing 3000 Americans.

Was 9-11 all a big conspiracy too?


----------



## geauxtohell

gslack said:


> Stop talking to yourself ....



You seem to be mistaken.  Bfgrn (the guy with the liberty bell picture) is a different poster than me (the guy with the picture of a guy flipping you off). 



> Dude you mentioned to me 3 times in two separate threads now... You mentioned it to fox as well... And remember your little chemistry act you tried to put on before....



Chemistry act?  What are you talking about?  Also, feel free to link where I've told you three times that I am a medical student.  If I did that, I don't recall it and you seem to be easily confused.  



> I mixed you two up again, because you two like to try and save one anothers asses all the time...



No, you mixed us up, because you are a fucking moron that can't follow a thread.  I can see why your posts have been so confusing now.  



> You get in an argument and he shows up badgering the person from the side, and vice versa. you think this is a new tactic? LOL, its not and neither are proxies and sockpuppetry.  So whatever you two are doing I don't care, but I will call you on your bullshit....
> 
> And if you aren't friends or proxy work, then there are two equally ignorant morons on this board who act alike....



Wow.  Another conspiracy.  Try this on for size:  bfgrn and I are separate people and we have never co-ordinated thread activity with each other.  

I don't need anyone's cover on a fucking message board, thank you very much.  I can handle myself.


----------



## geauxtohell

gslack said:


> Translation = BLAH BLAH BLAH, excuses excuses excuses....
> 
> You left out the links for the same lame reason you cut up peoples posts; to give enough wiggle room you can get out of it later... Nice try tool we have seen this before from you.. leaving them out of your quoting me, gives you the ability to try and bullshit..
> 
> *just like when you quote me from two separate posts out of context and try to pretend it showed something it didn't.....
> *
> yeah you are that pathetic......



I could give a shit less about the rest of this post, but I am intrigued about the bolded item.  Where did I do this? Are you sure you are talking to the right guy, or are you confused again?


----------



## gslack

3 responses ? Really? Whose bullshitting?

LOL, careful tool your desperation is showing now...


----------



## geauxtohell

gslack said:


> 3 responses ? Really? Whose bullshitting?
> 
> LOL, careful tool your desperation is showing now...



I thought you preferred it when I addressed all of your posts separately as opposed to "breaking them up".

Make up your mind.


----------



## geauxtohell

gslack said:


> Dude you mentioned to me 3 times in two separate threads now... You mentioned it to fox as well... And remember your little chemistry act you tried to put on before....



So I searched this thread for the term "medical" and the only post I can find about me being a medical student (prior to your call out for it) was this one to Bfgrn:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/tea-p...ovement-is-so-frightening-13.html#post2369096

I think I've only interacted with you on one other thread, so I'll go search there as well.

*edit*

So I just skimmed this thread too:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...things-etc-who-can-kiss-my-8.html#post2320924

And I never said anything about being a medical student on it either.

You know, Slacker, I am beginning to think that I've never said anything about being a medical student to you and you just made some shit up.  However, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. 

Feel free to link to back up your claims.  

Otherwise, stop whining about other people "lying".


----------



## gslack

geauxtohell said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Translation = BLAH BLAH BLAH, excuses excuses excuses....
> 
> You left out the links for the same lame reason you cut up peoples posts; to give enough wiggle room you can get out of it later... Nice try tool we have seen this before from you.. leaving them out of your quoting me, gives you the ability to try and bullshit..
> 
> *just like when you quote me from two separate posts out of context and try to pretend it showed something it didn't.....
> *
> yeah you are that pathetic......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could give a shit less about the rest of this post, but I am intrigued about the bolded item.  Where did I do this? Are you sure you are talking to the right guy, or are you confused again?
Click to expand...


ARE YOU denying taking two quotes from me in two separate posts and placing out of context in a response of yours to me???????

Please do so....


----------



## geauxtohell

gslack said:


> ARE YOU denying taking two quotes from me in two separate posts and placing out of context in a response of yours to me???????
> 
> Please do so....



I would like to see what you are talking about before I make any definitive statements.  Knowing you the way I do, chances are you got confused and it can probably be cleared up without the hyperbole.

So, for the third time, what in the fuck are you talking about?  Link it or point me in the right direction.

Also:  see the above edit.


----------



## gslack

geauxtohell said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> ARE YOU denying taking two quotes from me in two separate posts and placing out of context in a response of yours to me???????
> 
> Please do so....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to see what you are talking about before I make any definitive statements.  Knowing you the way I do, chances are you got confused and it can probably be cleared up without the hyperbole.
> 
> So, for the third time, what in the fuck are you talking about?  Link it or point me in the right direction.
> 
> Also:  see the above edit.
Click to expand...


Tool  I asked you a simple question.. If I am wrong then its on me, so don't try that ignorant excuse...

Did you or did you not cite two quotes of mine from two different posts of mine and use them in your own post out of context to make a claim against me.... No excuses tool you been trying to pretend you don't understand long enough now...

So answer the question, and be honest because I already know the answer and I will show it here.... Don't worry about what if I am confusing you and the tool, thats on me if i fuck up.....

*EDIT

Tool I have to go and get my kids from practice now....I will be back in the morning... Please take your time and check and see if you did that and post your response... This is a character check pal... lets see if you have any..


----------



## geauxtohell

gslack said:


> Tool  I asked you a simple question.. If I am wrong then its on me, so don't try that ignorant excuse...
> 
> Did you or did you not cite two quotes of mine from two different posts of mine and use them in your own post out of context to make a claim against me.... No excuses tool you been trying to pretend you don't understand long enough now...



I understand what you are saying, moron.  I just don't known what you are referring too specifically. 

This would be so much easier if you would just link the thread and point out what you are whining about, because I can't read your fucking mind (thank God).



> So answer the question, and be honest because I already know the answer and I will show it here.... Don't worry about what if I am confusing you and the tool, thats on me if i fuck up.....



Link it or quote it and then I'll answer.  I can't very well give you an answer when I don't fully know what your question it, now can I?

BTW, I've skimmed our brief exchanges and I've never told you that I was a medical student.  Jester told you on your personal page after we had the conversation about asthma.  

I'll leave room open for perhaps missing something or a post, but I am beginning to suspect that you are completely full of shit on this claim.  

Prove me wrong.


----------



## gslack

geauxtohell said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> ARE YOU denying taking two quotes from me in two separate posts and placing out of context in a response of yours to me???????
> 
> Please do so....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to see what you are talking about before I make any definitive statements.  Knowing you the way I do, chances are you got confused and it can probably be cleared up without the hyperbole.
> 
> So, for the third time, what in the fuck are you talking about?  Link it or point me in the right direction.
> 
> Also:  see the above edit.
Click to expand...


LOL, so your excuse for not admitting is that I might be wrong and make a fool of myself????  


Uh ok....

Again i will be back in the morning... Check your character while I'm gone..


----------



## geauxtohell

gslack said:


> *EDIT
> 
> Tool I have to go and get my kids from practice now....I will be back in the morning... Please take your time and check and see if you did that and post your response... This is a character check pal... lets see if you have any..



Don't lecture me on character when you've blatantly made false statements about me on here.

Tomorrow I'll most likely be doing the right thing and studying, so you probably shouldn't expect a response anytime soon.


----------



## geauxtohell

gslack said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> ARE YOU denying taking two quotes from me in two separate posts and placing out of context in a response of yours to me???????
> 
> Please do so....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to see what you are talking about before I make any definitive statements.  Knowing you the way I do, chances are you got confused and it can probably be cleared up without the hyperbole.
> 
> So, for the third time, what in the fuck are you talking about?  Link it or point me in the right direction.
> 
> Also:  see the above edit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL, so your excuse for not admitting is that I might be wrong and make a fool of myself????
> 
> 
> Uh ok....
> 
> Again i will be back in the morning... Check your character while I'm gone..
Click to expand...


No, it's that I don't know what you are referring too.  You would have had your desired response by now if you simply pointed me in the direction of the post you are talking about.  As it stands I have no idea.

Furthermore, since you've blatantly lied about me on this thread, I am no longer apt to give you the benefit of the doubt.

So show me what you are talking about and I'll address it.  Your refusal to do a simple task is beginning to look stranger than your accusations towards me.


----------



## gslack

geauxtohell said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to see what you are talking about before I make any definitive statements.  Knowing you the way I do, chances are you got confused and it can probably be cleared up without the hyperbole.
> 
> So, for the third time, what in the fuck are you talking about?  Link it or point me in the right direction.
> 
> Also:  see the above edit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, so your excuse for not admitting is that I might be wrong and make a fool of myself????
> 
> 
> Uh ok....
> 
> Again i will be back in the morning... Check your character while I'm gone..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's that I don't know what you are referring too.  You would have had your desired response by now if you simply pointed me in the direction of the post you are talking about.  As it stands I have no idea.
> 
> Furthermore, since you've blatantly lied about me on this thread, I am no longer apt to give you the benefit of the doubt.
> 
> So show me what you are talking about and I'll address it.  Your refusal to do a simple task is beginning to look stranger than your accusations towards me.
Click to expand...


Okay I got some time yet they are getting a ride from their friends....

Okay I refer you to this post in THIS thread... #190

You tried to imply I contradicted myself or tried to change my argument by using two quotes from two different posts of mine. you only cited one and both were taken out of proper context... Thats called lying....



> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why did your side tell us we were losing doctors if we didnt pass healthcare? We were bombarded with lists and stats up the wazoo all telling us europe makes more doctors and how much we suck in the medical profession...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. That was a fancy attempt at slight of hand. Unfortunately, you just aren't that clever. ^ that is not what you said. \/ This is:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember the big hooplah over other countries making more doctors than we were a few years ago? yeah there was a reason for that, it was costs for insurance...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Now notice they were from two different posts? Why did you cite the first and not the second? yeah thats bullshit man.....

I asked you about it several times and you pretended you had no idea what I was talking about... Well now you just pissed me off for being a douchebag and trying to derail a thread.... So now I will make sure its clear as crystal to everyone what you did and what you do when you are busted...

You tried to imply i was somehow changing my argument by using two out of context quotes from two different posts... you did this because its how an asshole tries to confound an argument and weasel around...

Now you got one more chance here to show some character on this...

Your first quote from me in that above is from the post its lined to and easily verified in the link itself. But where did the second quote come from? Was it in this thread? Was I even talking to you?

LOL....So tool WHO was I talking to in that second quote you failed to cite and took out of context?... lets find out now shall we.....

here it is...#185

in proper context it reads:


			
				gslack said:
			
		

> This latest Healthcare bill was the next logical step. We would have gotten it anyway. Don't buy into all the BS, this was coming and no way around it. They had to keep doctors in the field. Malpractice insurance costs were skyrocketing with every single lawsuit. Doctors were opting to go into research and other fields rather than medical application. *Remember the big hooplah over other countries making more doctors than we were a few years ago? yeah there was a reason for that, it was costs for insurance... *But all you leftist twits saw from liberal media was it was due to a failed medical system... Failed because of rising costs but you weren't told that and god forbid one of your lazy asses had to go and look into it....



And who was I talking to in that post?????? Was it you? Why no it was to Bfgrn... WTF? You  just cried over several posts claiming you aren't him and how you don't work together and all that nonsense.... Well then why are you replying and responding to posts addressed to him??

Now fuckhead, you just showed your ass AGAIN....... you done yet????


----------



## geauxtohell

gslack said:


> Okay I got some time yet they are getting a ride from their friends....
> 
> Okay I refer you to this post in THIS thread... #190



Finally.  Why was that so frigging hard?



> *You tried to imply* I contradicted myself or tried to change my argument by using two quotes from two different posts of mine. you only cited one and both were taken out of proper context... Thats called lying....



I "tried to imply"?  That's some weak wording right there.  Is this your slam-dunk case?


> Wow. That was a fancy attempt at slight of hand. Unfortunately, you just aren't that clever. ^ that is not what you said. \/ This is:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now notice they were from two different posts? Why did you cite the first and not the second? yeah thats bullshit man.....
Click to expand...


Oh give me a fucking break.  Are you denying I altered your words in any way?  You shouldn't, because I pulled your words directly from this post:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/tea-p...ovement-is-so-frightening-13.html#post2366487



gslack said:


> 1. Healthcare is more about keeping Doctors and medical professionals and Pharmaceutical companies safe from having to charge themselves out of the professions than it ever will be about insuring people. Insuring people was a way to sell it. Fact is  the biggest problem facing the medical industries were rising insurance costs on both ends of the spectrum. It wasn't about insuring the poor directly it was just a nice way to pull the heart strings....* Remember the big hooplah over other countries making more doctors than we were a few years ago?* yeah there was a reason for that, it was costs for insurance... But all you leftist twits saw from liberal media was it was due to a failed medical system...



There.  You've been properly cited.  I took umbrage with the words I bolded and addressed that.  You ignored that argument.  I pointed it out, and you are throwing a hissy fit about that?  I mean, I could see your point if I had altered your words or something, but this is what you are whining about?



> I asked you about it several times and you pretended you had no idea what I was talking about...



When I make a mistake on here, I man up and address it.  I don't even see what in the hell you are whining about here.  That's why I asked you to link it in.



> Well now you just pissed me off for being a douchebag and trying to derail a thread.... So now I will make sure its clear as crystal to everyone what you did and what you do when you are busted...



Okay, knock yourself out champ.  Do whatever it is you think you can do. 



> You tried to imply i was somehow changing my argument by using two out of context quotes from two different posts... you did this because its how an asshole tries to confound an argument and weasel around...



No, I did it to point out that you were trying to weasel out of the fact that I called you on the United States not making enough Doctors.  



> Now you got one more chance here to show some character on this...



Oh Lordy.  An ultimatum....



> Your first quote from me in that above is from the post its lined to and easily verified in the link itself. But where did the second quote come from? Was it in this thread? Was I even talking to you?



I linked it in on this thread.  Yes it was in this thread.  It was the first post I responded to on this thread.  It's why I joined this thread.  Do you not know how message boards work?  No, you were not talking to me.  That doesn't mean I can't comment on your statements.  Again, do you not know how message boards work?  If these threads were limited to two party conversations it would pretty lame.  



> LOL....So tool WHO was I talking to in that second quote you failed to cite and took out of context?... lets find out now shall we.....
> 
> here it is...#185
> 
> in proper context it reads:
> 
> 
> 
> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This latest Healthcare bill was the next logical step. We would have gotten it anyway. Don't buy into all the BS, this was coming and no way around it. They had to keep doctors in the field. Malpractice insurance costs were skyrocketing with every single lawsuit. Doctors were opting to go into research and other fields rather than medical application. *Remember the big hooplah over other countries making more doctors than we were a few years ago? yeah there was a reason for that, it was costs for insurance... *But all you leftist twits saw from liberal media was it was due to a failed medical system... Failed because of rising costs but you weren't told that and god forbid one of your lazy asses had to go and look into it....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And who was I talking to in that post?????? Was it you? Why no it was to Bfgrn... WTF?
Click to expand...


Believe me, I am just as confused as you are.  Just for a different reason.



> You  just cried over several posts claiming you aren't him and how you don't work together and all that nonsense.... Well then why are you replying and responding to posts addressed to him??



Because that's how message boards work.  Lord, are you seriously this stupid?  If you didn't want me to interject into some imaginary two person conversation you thought you were having with another person, then you could have told me to butt out in a simple response.   



> Now fuckhead, you just showed your ass AGAIN....... you done yet????



No.   Actually, since we are talking about honesty.  I want you to man up and support your statement that I told you I was a medical student three separate times and on two separate threads.  Because I checked, and I can't see one instance where I ever told you that.  In fact, the only person who told you that was Wicked Jester on your guy's wall chat.  

This will be the third time I've pointed this out.  You keep ignoring it.  Like I said, save me the integrity speeches.


----------



## gslack

LOL, you man up when you are wrong? When is that gonna happen?

Dude you pulled a sentence out of a paragraph, tried to compare it to another shortened quote from me and tried to make it out I was changing my claims.... If you don't see the problem in that you have no character.....

 I have done enough digging up your posts tool, if ya want to cry over it do your own digging. You did make the claim before though, and thats undeniable maybe my recollections of when or where are off, but I'm not psychic and you admit you are a med student so where did I get it?..

You and I both know why you separate each line, its to be a dick plain and simple. you want a legitimate response, than give a legitimate one.

You deliberately tried to make an implication by comparing quotes of mine from two other posts out of context... You know what "out of context" means? If you're a med student you dam well should know. Out of context is when you take a sentence or fragment from a much larger statement to make some claim the actual statement did not imply. Or in your case you took two of them out of context and tried to imply I changed my argument.... pretty dam pathetic.... And then denying it and playing dumb about what out of context means or what you tried to do is even more pathetic...

you said you two do not work as a team, yet you just answered a post to him and then tried to use a quote from that post to him to imply I was changing my argument.. Bullshit.... you two did this in the environmental thread I was when back when I was here just few days. Then ya did it in my other thread, and now here. First one then the other and neither have any intent beyond derailing and confounding the thread....

Fucking grow up asshole.. you don't like the fact your precious party is full of shit, and your preferred media bullshits you... Well tough, its the truth...


----------



## geauxtohell

gslack said:


> LOL, you man up when you are wrong? When is that gonna happen?



If I had mistakenly cross-linked you or changed your words or misattributed them or any other of a plethora of mistakes I have made on here in the past and apologized.

I am not going to apologize for simply not linking to your words.  Those were your words and I addressed them.  



> Dude you pulled a sentence out of a paragraph, tried to compare it to another shortened quote from me and tried to make it out I was changing my claims.... If you don't see the problem in that you have no character.....



No I didn't.  You apparently fundamentally misunderstand this.  I certainly pulled a sentence out of a paragraph where you made a specific claim that I thought was curious and addressed that.  I didn't address your whole paragraph, nor am I under any obligation to do so.  I addressed one simple claim and refuted it.  Then your rebuttal ignored that.  I then made a post that pointed out that your ignored my statements and were trying to argue a separate point.  



> I have done enough digging up your posts tool, if ya want to cry over it do your own digging. You did make the claim before though, and thats undeniable maybe my recollections of when or where are off, but I'm not psychic and you admit you are a med student so where did I get it?..



And here you go.  You made a specific claim.  You stated that I told you three separate times in two different threads I was a med student.  In fact, prior to that claim, I had never told you that I was a med student.  Someone else did.  In fact, it was Wicked Jester on your (or his wall).  How come I know that and you don't?  At any rate, you made a false claim.  It's as simple as that.  Now I could go all histrionic on you and insult your character, integrity, momma, dog, and everything else, or I can acknowledge that it's a trivial thing and you simply made a mistake.  If you won't own up to it, then it's on you.  

What I have never done, which you insinuated, is to claim that being a Med Student makes me smarter than you or anyone else.  



> You and I both know why you separate each line, its to be a dick plain and simple. you want a legitimate response, than give a legitimate one.



No, it's to address each point as I see fit and to avoid confusing ranting paragraphs.  You seem to think that telling other posters how to conduct themselves here is within your job description.  You need to get over yourself.  



> You deliberately tried to make an implication by comparing quotes of mine from two other posts out of context... You know what "out of context" means?



Yes.  It's basically a blank check that someone uses to cover their ass when they say something stupid and get called on it.  I won't argue your "context" as context is derived from intent.  Only you know what your intent was/is.  I just respond to the words you put on screen.



> If you're a med student you dam well should know. Out of context is when you take a sentence or fragment from a much larger statement to make some claim the actual statement did not imply. Or in your case you took two of them out of context and tried to imply I changed my argument.... pretty dam pathetic.... And then denying it and playing dumb about what out of context means or what you tried to do is even more pathetic...



Again, you stated we were producing less Doctors due to insurance.  I pointed out it was wrong.  You ignored that and went on some other rant.  I pointed  out your counterpoint wasn't relevant to anything I addressed.



> you said you two do not work as a team, yet you just answered a post to him and then tried to use a quote from that post to him to imply I was changing my argument..



I respond to posts as I see fit.  I don't care who they are originally addressed too.  Again, do you not know  how message boards work?



> Bullshit.... you two did this in the environmental thread I was when back when I was here just few days.



What environmental thread?  I don't recall talking to you on any other thread but this one and your bitch-fest thread.  

Are you confusing posters again?  



> Then ya did it in my other thread, and now here. First one then the other and neither have any intent beyond derailing and confounding the thread....



My intent is to discuss.  You are easily confused (as demonstrated by multiple statements you've made here).  So if you are confounded, it's probably because you are behind the curve. 



> Fucking grow up asshole.. you don't like the fact your precious party is full of shit, and your preferred media bullshits you... Well tough, its the truth...



Yeah, whatever.  Un-fuck yourself before you presume to lecture others.


----------



## geauxtohell

Just for the sake of transparency, here is the exchange that you are so enraged about.  Frankly, I can't see what the problem is here.  



geauxtohell said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember the big hooplah over other countries making more doctors than we were a few years ago? yeah there was a reason for that, it was costs for insurance... But all you leftist twits saw from liberal media was it was due to a failed medical system... Failed because of rising costs but you weren't told that and god forbid one of your lazy asses had to go and look into it....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell are you talking about?  Medical school and residency slots have remained fixed for decades and every year every single chair in medical school is filled and every residency slot is also filled.  In fact, some poor bastards don't even match and there is an absurd number of FMG (foreign medical graduates) also competing for residency slots.  Medical school admissions have skyrocketed over the past decades as well.  There hasn't been a "decline" in the number of medical school graduates to any degree for any reason, not the least of which is "insurance costs".
> 
> If you are talking about a shortage of general practitioners, that's a separate issue and also has little to do with insurance.  Too many Doctors are just specializing out of general practice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. We are in Afghanistan because of the Ural mountains reserves... make no mistake on this, that is the only reason we are there. People are brutalized all over the planet everyday and we do not go in there guns blazing, and why not? Well its simple they don't all have rich mineral, oil and gas deposits waiting to be tapped next door, and they don't all have a pipeline deal waiting in the wings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Utter bullshit that is right up there with the rest of the conspiracy theories that permeate the conspiracy zone.  You should take this b.s. over there.  How is the U.S. going to get a cut out of a deal that involves Turkministan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India?
> 
> BTW, we didn't go into Afghanistan because the people were being brutalized.  We went in because they refused to give up AQ.  We automatically inherit "reconstruction" when we invade any nation.
Click to expand...




geauxtohell said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did your side tell us we were losing doctors if we didnt pass healthcare? We were bombarded with lists and stats up the wazoo all telling us europe makes more doctors and how much we suck in the medical profession...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.  That was a fancy attempt at slight of hand.  Unfortunately, you just aren't that clever.   ^ that is not what you said.  \/ This is:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember the big hooplah over other countries making more doctors than we were a few years ago? yeah there was a reason for that, it was costs for insurance...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The number of doctors we "make" in this country is relatively fixed and the bottle neck is on the number of residencies, which are always maxed out.  It doesn't fluctuate with the politics of the day.  Furthermore, when I applied to medical school about 50% of the applicants did not get in (which is the norm).  The problem is not on the "supply and demand" side.
> 
> So, instead of whining about my "liberal sources", why don't you provide some of your own sources that show that we are producing less doctors than the norm and that it's all because of insurance companies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats the problem with living in a bullshit fantasy world.. You forget which bullshit you used and how or why.... That was one of the gripes from the liberals on this and you dam well know it.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO.  Yeah.  I am the one living in "bullshit fantasy world".  This thread basically consists of you tossing out your opinion and then refusing to support it.
Click to expand...


----------



## gslack

geauxtohell said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, you man up when you are wrong? When is that gonna happen?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I had mistakenly cross-linked you or changed your words or misattributed them or any other of a plethora of mistakes I have made on here in the past and apologized.
> 
> I am not going to apologize for simply not linking to your words.  Those were your words and I addressed them.
> 
> How about when you try and imply I was changing my argument by taking quotes out of context? Dude you show me how either of those full references to my posts contradict or alter any of my claims... that was your claim and you tried to make it by taking your comparative quote of mine out of context... Thats misleading, and is in effect a lie...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude you pulled a sentence out of a paragraph, tried to compare it to another shortened quote from me and tried to make it out I was changing my claims.... If you don't see the problem in that you have no character.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *No I didn't. * You apparently fundamentally misunderstand this.  I certainly pulled a sentence out of a paragraph where you made a specific claim that I thought was curious and addressed that.  I didn't address your whole paragraph, nor am I under any obligation to do so.  I addressed one simple claim and refuted it.  Then your rebuttal ignored that.  I then made a post that pointed out that your ignored my statements and were trying to argue a separate point.
> 
> You fucking liar! You took the second quote directly from the middle of a paragraph...
> 
> Here is what you quoted from me..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember the big hooplah over other countries making more doctors than we were a few years ago? yeah there was a reason for that, it was costs for insurance...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And here is the paragraph you took it from...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This latest Healthcare bill was the next logical step. We would have gotten it anyway. Don't buy into all the BS, this was coming and no way around it. They had to keep doctors in the field. Malpractice insurance costs were skyrocketing with every single lawsuit. Doctors were opting to go into research and other fields rather than medical application. *Remember the big hooplah over other countries making more doctors than we were a few years ago? yeah there was a reason for that, it was costs for insurance...* But all you leftist twits saw from liberal media was it was due to a failed medical system... Failed because of rising costs but you weren't told that and god forbid one of your lazy asses had to go and look into it....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See that ? Where is that sentence tool? In the fucking middle of that paragraph just as I said. Again you took it out of context and tried to make the implication I was changing my argument... NOT TRUE!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then ya did it in my other thread, and now here. First one then the other and neither have any intent beyond derailing and confounding the thread....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My intent is to discuss.  You are easily confused (as demonstrated by multiple statements you've made here).  So if you are confounded, it's probably because you are behind the curve.
> 
> BULLSHIT!! You started being a smug little shit and trying to get at me... Your first post in that thread was to say people who attack medical and pharmaceuticals can kiss your ass because i said pharmaceutical companies who created viagra before curing a disease can kiss mine. You know dam good and well what it was about and what you meant tool.. Don't try and weasel now...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking grow up asshole.. you don't like the fact your precious party is full of shit, and your preferred media bullshits you... Well tough, its the truth...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, whatever.  Un-fuck yourself before you presume to lecture others.
Click to expand...


Fuck you.. You got caught being a tool again. And you just spent several posts trying to lie your way out of it...

I cut your BS short because I am tired of your semantics and inconsequential nonsense all to confound the thread.. its what you do, and im tired of playing with your whiny punk ass... So jester told me and you spent several posts telling me how you know about medicine far better than me, big fucking deal I said i may have the particulars wrong, dam dude you cry like this all the time?

Now if you are done being a whiny bitch we can stop derailing the thread...


----------



## geauxtohell

gslack said:


> Fuck you.. You got caught being a tool again. And you just spent several posts trying to lie your way out of it...
> 
> I cut your BS short because I am tired of your semantics and inconsequential nonsense all to confound the thread.. its what you do, and im tired of playing with your whiny punk ass... So jester told me and you spent several posts telling me how you know about medicine far better than me, big fucking deal I said i may have the particulars wrong, dam dude you cry like this all the time?
> 
> Now if you are done being a whiny bitch we can stop derailing the thread...



Here, I'll make this all in one blurb to make you happy.  The bottom line is this:  go fuck yourself.  I commented on one statement that you made as opposed to addressing all of your other ramblings.  That's my prerogative.  If you had a problem with it at the time, you could have said something you didn't.  You are a bonehead, and have demonstrated it in quantifiable means (making multiple false statements and confusing posters on this thread) and now are trying to throw up a smoke screen and state I did something un-ethical.  What the fuck ever.  Simply because someone posts in a manner you don't like doesn't equate to an ethics issue.  

There is no big deal that Jester told you I was a medical student.  Jester and I shared information via PM when we were talking about the Army.  I've also backed up Jester when people called him a poser even though we don't agree on much of anything I know.  None of that is important.  What is relevant is that you claimed I had told you three times in two separate threads that I was a medical student.  That was false.  Like I said before, if I wanted to take your route, I would whine about it and cry about your integrity, but I recognize that this is a message board and people make mistakes (especially you).  

Now, two more misrepresentations:  I never told you "I know the medicine better than you", I just made my points based on my understanding of the basic medical science.  In short, I have never used the fact that I am a medical student to berate or belittle your intelligence in anyway.  So stop saying otherwise.  It's dishonest.

Also, what environmental thread did I magically participate in that I have no memory of?  Did you get confused about that too?    

*Edit*

Okay, I see you were talking about the ocean acidification thread.  I am glad you brought that up.  I had forgotten about it (unsubscribed) and didn't connect that you were the OP.  That was the thread where I asked you a question for clarification because I really was curious about the answer and you went fucking psychotic.  I see the disconnect here.  You are just histrionic.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2200944-post17.html
http://www.usmessageboard.com/2200964-post20.html

As for derailing, I am not going to let you continue to throw out blatant falsehoods.  So as long as you do that, I am going to correct you.


----------



## Foxfyre

Yanno guys, I love you dearly....really, I do.....but if this continues for another page or two, I think I'll nominate this exchange for the most boring, mind numbing, tedious series of pages on the board.

What do you think?  You're a shoo in for the blue ribbon?


----------



## geauxtohell

Foxfyre said:


> Yanno guys, I love you dearly....really, I do.....but if this continues for another page or two, I think I'll nominate this exchange for the most boring, mind numbing, tedious series of pages on the board.
> 
> What do you think?  You're a shoo in for the blue ribbon?



I am done.  After glancing at my first interaction with gslack, I think I have it all figured out now.  In an effort to avoid a cheap shot, I'll just leave it at that.


----------



## gslack

I give back what I get.....


----------



## LANMaster

gslack said:


> Everyday I see a knew article in the news or a new post here on USMB regarding the tea party, partiers, whatever. I have noticed something very strange.... I see very little positive threads started on them, and far too many negative ones. of all the negative ones I have seen, the most of them are decidedly left sided, and prone to exaggerations, misleading claims, and outright lies about what they are doing or represent....
> 
> Most of the time the threads about the tea party movement resort to calling the partiers ignorant hicks, uneducated, or racist hate-filled mobs of angry people all trying to intimidate or threaten. I wonder if this were true, why has there not been any arrests or riots yet? All we see or hear are these extreme claims and yet nothing regarding what was done about it.. What is there no Cops at these things? Are there no security or anti-tea partiers to at least give a counter argument? I mean if half the things we hear are true, why are they still walking around free? This leads me to believe there is far more propaganda than truth in these claims.
> 
> Also, I wonder if they really are so ignorant and uneducated, and their meetings so filled with mindless hate; why do they fear them so much? I mean in order to dedicate so much time to attack something one must have a good reason for it.. And the only good reason I can imagine must have some sort of fear involved... Fear of dissent, fear of racial hatred, fear of crazy uneducated folk with guns, fear of something... And if it is fear, why all the fear?
> 
> Indeed what is to fear in groups of so-called uneducated folk venting? They have guns? Well so do the cops and the cops will be legally in their right to shoot them if they become dangerous. The fear of racial hatred? Well then why don't we arrest all the KKK or white supremest groups? maybe the fear of spreading stupidity? Well if its so stupid why would it spread? According to the left media, it is so ignorant and only serves the side of hatred and only an idiot would follow it... So if we are not all idiots, and we can easily see how ignorant it is, why all the bother and press time?
> 
> Its simple really, I think Louis Farrakhan is an idiot and only morons would follow him, so I don't pay attention to him. Problem solved and no fear at all... Sure he has some followers, but I do not fear them because I know they are limited by laws and have at least enough sense to know what they can get away with. So why do the media and so many left leaning people dedicate so much of their time on them?
> 
> The answer to that is simple... The tea party movement represents something government and left minded governments fear the most... Free thought... All things start with a thought, and from that thought can grow more critical thinking and then questions arise. Questions that no one who isn't thinking freely will ever ask. Then those freethinkers will gather and exchange information and share knowledge, ask questions and get answers. This gathering and exchange will be free of the media spin and biased political party nonsense. And without that spin, real knowledge and critical thought will empower those people.
> 
> If left alone this movement will allow left, right and center minded people to exchange ideas and talk without the media enhanced left vs right haze, without the absolutism of placating and throw away political ideologies, and without someone telling them how bad their neighbor is.... Soon that neighbor will no longer be left or right, but simply a neighbor just like themselves with many of the same fears and concerns..
> 
> This is the fear to end all fears of any government drunk with power, and desiring nothing more than their own well being. Look throughout history and see what exactly what I am talking about. Before the media became so powerful a political tool; before Hitler and so many since. Look and you will find free thought started revolutions that lead to the greatest changes in the world.
> 
> Right now the left has power hear in this country. But watch and when the right has power, see how they change their stance on the tea party movement... They will vilify them and say they were okay before the lefty socialists took it over, and any other excuse or reason they can find. They will fear them just as the left does now, but right now they serve a purpose for them. So they applaud them quietly and condemn the extreme examples.
> 
> In my opinion, the tea party movement could be the foundations of the next big national change, or even world change. Sure some of the bad elements may try and move in on it, but they will not live long amongst free thinkers. Those types never do. They hide in the shadows and prey on the weak. And people desiring to exchange directly with each other rather than accepting what they are told by media or politicians are not weak..
> 
> Perhaps the next time any of you condemn this movement off hand, you will take a closer look and realize these are possibly the Jeffersons, Adams, and Franklins of this era....



Bravo .... you have grasped it.  

I generally vote Republican, but have been disappointed plenty.  In a way, I am glad that McCain did not win, because he is anything but a Republican, as I understand the term.

The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party movement is about fiscal responsibility.  It's about jobs and evonomic growth.  It is about saviong this country from the ravages of a far left fiscal policy that will only serve to destroy the US as an economic superpower.

The left does not want the US to be a superpower of ANYTHING in the world.  That is simply a fact.  By cripling the US economy, they win the trifecta iof their cause base;
1. government control over private industry
2. inability to defend US allies militarily
3. control of public information

Some of the GOP have tried (and even succeeded in) to infuse their candidacies into this movement.
But know this, if they are not Conservatives, they will be thrown out on their ear.
This movement is grass roots.... and quite honestly, that is what has the left so afraid.

Afraid enough to paint them (us) as dangerous, to ridicule them (us) as "teabaggers".

Afraid enough to lie about our motives and our objectives in this movement

Afraid enough to adopt a facist type of censorship in an effort to silence opposition to the power of the US government.

The left should be afraid .... be very afraid.   You're on the cusp of politically losing bigger than ever before.


----------



## gslack

LANMaster said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyday I see a knew article in the news or a new post here on USMB regarding the tea party, partiers, whatever. I have noticed something very strange.... I see very little positive threads started on them, and far too many negative ones. of all the negative ones I have seen, the most of them are decidedly left sided, and prone to exaggerations, misleading claims, and outright lies about what they are doing or represent....
> 
> Most of the time the threads about the tea party movement resort to calling the partiers ignorant hicks, uneducated, or racist hate-filled mobs of angry people all trying to intimidate or threaten. I wonder if this were true, why has there not been any arrests or riots yet? All we see or hear are these extreme claims and yet nothing regarding what was done about it.. What is there no Cops at these things? Are there no security or anti-tea partiers to at least give a counter argument? I mean if half the things we hear are true, why are they still walking around free? This leads me to believe there is far more propaganda than truth in these claims.
> 
> Also, I wonder if they really are so ignorant and uneducated, and their meetings so filled with mindless hate; why do they fear them so much? I mean in order to dedicate so much time to attack something one must have a good reason for it.. And the only good reason I can imagine must have some sort of fear involved... Fear of dissent, fear of racial hatred, fear of crazy uneducated folk with guns, fear of something... And if it is fear, why all the fear?
> 
> Indeed what is to fear in groups of so-called uneducated folk venting? They have guns? Well so do the cops and the cops will be legally in their right to shoot them if they become dangerous. The fear of racial hatred? Well then why don't we arrest all the KKK or white supremest groups? maybe the fear of spreading stupidity? Well if its so stupid why would it spread? According to the left media, it is so ignorant and only serves the side of hatred and only an idiot would follow it... So if we are not all idiots, and we can easily see how ignorant it is, why all the bother and press time?
> 
> Its simple really, I think Louis Farrakhan is an idiot and only morons would follow him, so I don't pay attention to him. Problem solved and no fear at all... Sure he has some followers, but I do not fear them because I know they are limited by laws and have at least enough sense to know what they can get away with. So why do the media and so many left leaning people dedicate so much of their time on them?
> 
> The answer to that is simple... The tea party movement represents something government and left minded governments fear the most... Free thought... All things start with a thought, and from that thought can grow more critical thinking and then questions arise. Questions that no one who isn't thinking freely will ever ask. Then those freethinkers will gather and exchange information and share knowledge, ask questions and get answers. This gathering and exchange will be free of the media spin and biased political party nonsense. And without that spin, real knowledge and critical thought will empower those people.
> 
> If left alone this movement will allow left, right and center minded people to exchange ideas and talk without the media enhanced left vs right haze, without the absolutism of placating and throw away political ideologies, and without someone telling them how bad their neighbor is.... Soon that neighbor will no longer be left or right, but simply a neighbor just like themselves with many of the same fears and concerns..
> 
> This is the fear to end all fears of any government drunk with power, and desiring nothing more than their own well being. Look throughout history and see what exactly what I am talking about. Before the media became so powerful a political tool; before Hitler and so many since. Look and you will find free thought started revolutions that lead to the greatest changes in the world.
> 
> Right now the left has power hear in this country. But watch and when the right has power, see how they change their stance on the tea party movement... They will vilify them and say they were okay before the lefty socialists took it over, and any other excuse or reason they can find. They will fear them just as the left does now, but right now they serve a purpose for them. So they applaud them quietly and condemn the extreme examples.
> 
> In my opinion, the tea party movement could be the foundations of the next big national change, or even world change. Sure some of the bad elements may try and move in on it, but they will not live long amongst free thinkers. Those types never do. They hide in the shadows and prey on the weak. And people desiring to exchange directly with each other rather than accepting what they are told by media or politicians are not weak..
> 
> Perhaps the next time any of you condemn this movement off hand, you will take a closer look and realize these are possibly the Jeffersons, Adams, and Franklins of this era....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bravo .... you have grasped it.
> 
> I generally vote Republican, but have been disappointed plenty.  In a way, I am glad that McCain did not win, because he is anything but a Republican, as I understand the term.
> 
> The TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party movement is about fiscal responsibility.  It's about jobs and evonomic growth.  It is about saviong this country from the ravages of a far left fiscal policy that will only serve to destroy the US as an economic superpower.
> 
> The left does not want the US to be a superpower of ANYTHING in the world.  That is simply a fact.  By cripling the US economy, they win the trifecta iof their cause base;
> 1. government control over private industry
> 2. inability to defend US allies militarily
> 3. control of public information
> 
> Some of the GOP have tried (and even succeeded in) to infuse their candidacies into this movement.
> But know this, if they are not Conservatives, they will be thrown out on their ear.
> This movement is grass roots.... and quite honestly, that is what has the left so afraid.
> 
> Afraid enough to paint them (us) as dangerous, to ridicule them (us) as "teabaggers".
> 
> Afraid enough to lie about our motives and our objectives in this movement
> 
> Afraid enough to adopt a facist type of censorship in an effort to silence opposition to the power of the US government.
> 
> The left should be afraid .... be very afraid.   You're on the cusp of politically losing bigger than ever before.
Click to expand...


TY for reminding me this thread a point beyond flaming....Appreciate it greatly!


----------



## Foxfyre

Welcome to USMB LANmaster, and thanks for pulling us back onto topic here.

I have really tried to set aside general bitchiness and irritation at what so often just looks like plain old pettiness, mean spiritedness, and dishonest slander of the Tea Partiers and looked at what the motives would be to attack them.

And I keep coming back to perceptions that you touched on in your post.  I don't want to believe that fellow Americans really do despise and resent America so much that they want it to fail and be diminished in the world.  And toward that end, all that has ever been or is good about America must be minimalized and the negatives emphasized.

In almost everything they pluck random infrequent examples of imperfection to demonize the whole.  The GOP erred there, therefore the GOP is evil.  There was segregation in the 1950's, therefore there is nothing good to say about the 50's.   A successful talk show host made a imprudent remark amidst hundreds of hours of programming, therefore he is scum.  And among hundreds of thousands of Tea Partiers, a few brought politically incorrect signs to rallies, therefore the Tea Parties are composed of a white, angry, mob "bitterly clinging to their guns and Bibles' perhaps.

But I keep coming back to what I think the real fear is.  That the Tea Partiers are mostly right, and should they prevail, America will be much the better for it.  And that is unacceptable to those who want America diminished.

At the very least it would reveal how wrong, partisan, and misguided the Tea Party critics have been in their views.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Welcome to USMB LANmaster, and thanks for pulling us back onto topic here.
> 
> I have really tried to set aside general bitchiness and irritation at what so often just looks like plain old pettiness, mean spiritedness, and dishonest slander of the Tea Partiers and looked at what the motives would be to attack them.
> 
> And I keep coming back to perceptions that you touched on in your post.  I don't want to believe that fellow Americans really do despise and resent America so much that they want it to fail and be diminished in the world.  And toward that end, all that has ever been or is good about America must be minimalized and the negatives emphasized.
> 
> In almost everything they pluck random infrequent examples of imperfection to demonize the whole.  The GOP erred there, therefore the GOP is evil.  There was segregation in the 1950's, therefore there is nothing good to say about the 50's.   A successful talk show host made a imprudent remark amidst hundreds of hours of programming, therefore he is scum.  And among hundreds of thousands of Tea Partiers, a few brought politically incorrect signs to rallies, therefore the Tea Parties are composed of a white, angry, mob "bitterly clinging to their guns and Bibles' perhaps.
> 
> But I keep coming back to what I think the real fear is.  That the Tea Partiers are mostly right, and should they prevail, America will be much the better for it.  And that is unacceptable to those who want America diminished.
> 
> At the very least it would reveal how wrong, partisan, and misguided the Tea Party critics have been in their views.



In the context of the original 'tea partiers', our founding fathers, today's teabaggers would be diametrically opposed to our founders. The bag brains would be standing WITH, not against the British East India Company. 

The real Boston Tea Party was a protest against huge corporate tax cuts for the British East India Company, the largest trans-national corporation then in existence. This corporate tax cut threatened to decimate small Colonial businesses by helping the British East India Company pull a Wal-Mart against small entrepreneurial tea shops, and individuals began a revolt that kicked-off a series of events that ended in the creation of The United States of America.

You teabaggers are the biggest pea brains on the planet.

The Truth About the Tea Party (the Original One)
by Bruce Bartlett

_*Bruce Bartlett was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and was a Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush.
*_

The Real Boston Tea Party was an Anti-Corporate Revolt
by Thom Hartmann


----------



## Wicked Jester

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to USMB LANmaster, and thanks for pulling us back onto topic here.
> 
> I have really tried to set aside general bitchiness and irritation at what so often just looks like plain old pettiness, mean spiritedness, and dishonest slander of the Tea Partiers and looked at what the motives would be to attack them.
> 
> And I keep coming back to perceptions that you touched on in your post.  I don't want to believe that fellow Americans really do despise and resent America so much that they want it to fail and be diminished in the world.  And toward that end, all that has ever been or is good about America must be minimalized and the negatives emphasized.
> 
> In almost everything they pluck random infrequent examples of imperfection to demonize the whole.  The GOP erred there, therefore the GOP is evil.  There was segregation in the 1950's, therefore there is nothing good to say about the 50's.   A successful talk show host made a imprudent remark amidst hundreds of hours of programming, therefore he is scum.  And among hundreds of thousands of Tea Partiers, a few brought politically incorrect signs to rallies, therefore the Tea Parties are composed of a white, angry, mob "bitterly clinging to their guns and Bibles' perhaps.
> 
> But I keep coming back to what I think the real fear is.  That the Tea Partiers are mostly right, and should they prevail, America will be much the better for it.  And that is unacceptable to those who want America diminished.
> 
> At the very least it would reveal how wrong, partisan, and misguided the Tea Party critics have been in their views.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of the original 'tea partiers', our founding fathers, today's teabaggers would be diametrically opposed to our founders. The bag brains would be standing WITH, not against the British East India Company.
> 
> The real Boston Tea Party was a protest against huge corporate tax cuts for the British East India Company, the largest trans-national corporation then in existence. This corporate tax cut threatened to decimate small Colonial businesses by helping the British East India Company pull a Wal-Mart against small entrepreneurial tea shops, and individuals began a revolt that kicked-off a series of events that ended in the creation of The United States of America.
> 
> You teabaggers are the biggest pea brains on the planet.
> 
> The Truth About the Tea Party (the Original One)
> by Bruce Bartlett
> 
> _*Bruce Bartlett was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and was a Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush.
> *_
> 
> The Real Boston Tea Party was an Anti-Corporate Revolt
> by Thom Hartmann
Click to expand...

Ahhhhhhh, you're just pissed because the tea partiers are seriously damaging this inept president and the loony lefts agenda, big time.

It's quite entertaining listening to you lil' clowns piss and moan about them. Better get used to it, whackjob. This movement isn't going away, and it's proving to only be getting stronger.


----------



## Bfgrn

Wicked Jester said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to USMB LANmaster, and thanks for pulling us back onto topic here.
> 
> I have really tried to set aside general bitchiness and irritation at what so often just looks like plain old pettiness, mean spiritedness, and dishonest slander of the Tea Partiers and looked at what the motives would be to attack them.
> 
> And I keep coming back to perceptions that you touched on in your post.  I don't want to believe that fellow Americans really do despise and resent America so much that they want it to fail and be diminished in the world.  And toward that end, all that has ever been or is good about America must be minimalized and the negatives emphasized.
> 
> In almost everything they pluck random infrequent examples of imperfection to demonize the whole.  The GOP erred there, therefore the GOP is evil.  There was segregation in the 1950's, therefore there is nothing good to say about the 50's.   A successful talk show host made a imprudent remark amidst hundreds of hours of programming, therefore he is scum.  And among hundreds of thousands of Tea Partiers, a few brought politically incorrect signs to rallies, therefore the Tea Parties are composed of a white, angry, mob "bitterly clinging to their guns and Bibles' perhaps.
> 
> But I keep coming back to what I think the real fear is.  That the Tea Partiers are mostly right, and should they prevail, America will be much the better for it.  And that is unacceptable to those who want America diminished.
> 
> At the very least it would reveal how wrong, partisan, and misguided the Tea Party critics have been in their views.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of the original 'tea partiers', our founding fathers, today's teabaggers would be diametrically opposed to our founders. The bag brains would be standing WITH, not against the British East India Company.
> 
> The real Boston Tea Party was a protest against huge corporate tax cuts for the British East India Company, the largest trans-national corporation then in existence. This corporate tax cut threatened to decimate small Colonial businesses by helping the British East India Company pull a Wal-Mart against small entrepreneurial tea shops, and individuals began a revolt that kicked-off a series of events that ended in the creation of The United States of America.
> 
> You teabaggers are the biggest pea brains on the planet.
> 
> The Truth About the Tea Party (the Original One)
> by Bruce Bartlett
> 
> _*Bruce Bartlett was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and was a Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush.
> *_
> 
> The Real Boston Tea Party was an Anti-Corporate Revolt
> by Thom Hartmann
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahhhhhhh, you're just pissed because the tea partiers are seriously damaging this inept president and the loony lefts agenda, big time.
> 
> It's quite entertaining listening to you lil' clowns piss and moan about them. Better get used to it, whackjob. This movement isn't going away, and it's proving to only be getting stronger.
Click to expand...


Yea, I'm waiting for Obama's left wing agenda to materialize. 

You right wingers are totally brainwashed morons. You don't have a CLUE what is really destroying this country and crushing the middle class in particular.

Pea brained teabaggers...


----------



## gslack

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to USMB LANmaster, and thanks for pulling us back onto topic here.
> 
> I have really tried to set aside general bitchiness and irritation at what so often just looks like plain old pettiness, mean spiritedness, and dishonest slander of the Tea Partiers and looked at what the motives would be to attack them.
> 
> And I keep coming back to perceptions that you touched on in your post.  I don't want to believe that fellow Americans really do despise and resent America so much that they want it to fail and be diminished in the world.  And toward that end, all that has ever been or is good about America must be minimalized and the negatives emphasized.
> 
> In almost everything they pluck random infrequent examples of imperfection to demonize the whole.  The GOP erred there, therefore the GOP is evil.  There was segregation in the 1950's, therefore there is nothing good to say about the 50's.   A successful talk show host made a imprudent remark amidst hundreds of hours of programming, therefore he is scum.  And among hundreds of thousands of Tea Partiers, a few brought politically incorrect signs to rallies, therefore the Tea Parties are composed of a white, angry, mob "bitterly clinging to their guns and Bibles' perhaps.
> 
> But I keep coming back to what I think the real fear is.  That the Tea Partiers are mostly right, and should they prevail, America will be much the better for it.  And that is unacceptable to those who want America diminished.
> 
> At the very least it would reveal how wrong, partisan, and misguided the Tea Party critics have been in their views.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of the original 'tea partiers', our founding fathers, today's teabaggers would be diametrically opposed to our founders. The bag brains would be standing WITH, not against the British East India Company.
> 
> The real Boston Tea Party was a protest against huge corporate tax cuts for the British East India Company, the largest trans-national corporation then in existence. This corporate tax cut threatened to decimate small Colonial businesses by helping the British East India Company pull a Wal-Mart against small entrepreneurial tea shops, and individuals began a revolt that kicked-off a series of events that ended in the creation of The United States of America.
> 
> You teabaggers are the biggest pea brains on the planet.
> 
> The Truth About the Tea Party (the Original One)
> by Bruce Bartlett
> 
> _*Bruce Bartlett was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and was a Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush.
> *_
> 
> The Real Boston Tea Party was an Anti-Corporate Revolt
> by Thom Hartmann
Click to expand...


And WTH difference does it make what they protested for specifically? Seriously whether it was corporate tax cuts supported by the crown, or direct crown tax by proxy using the east india company makes no difference they felt it unfair and protested it. How the hell you can make this argument is beyond me.... 

And more importantly I would like some historical evidence of that claim.... Really....

Try and read something accurate and historical and not liberal slanted once in a while....

The Boston Tea Party, 1773



> In May of 1773 Parliament concocted a clever plan. They gave the struggling East India Company a monopoly on the importation of tea to America. Additionally, Parliament reduced the duty the colonies would have to pay for the imported tea. The Americans would now get their tea at a cheaper price than ever before. However, if the colonies paid the duty tax on the imported tea they would be acknowledging Parliament's right to tax them. Tea was a staple of colonial life - it was assumed that the colonists would rather pay the tax than deny themselves the pleasure of a cup of tea.
> 
> The colonists were not fooled by Parliament's ploy. When the East India Company sent shipments of tea to Philadelphia and New York the ships were not allowed to land. In Charleston the tea-laden ships were permitted to dock but their cargo was consigned to a warehouse where it remained for three years until it was sold by patriots in order to help finance the revolution.
> 
> In Boston, the arrival of three tea ships ignited a furious reaction. The crisis came to a head on December 16, 1773 when as many as 7,000 agitated locals milled about the wharf where the ships were docked. A mass meeting at the Old South Meeting House that morning resolved that the tea ships should leave the harbor without payment of any duty. A committee was selected to take this message to the Customs House to force release of the ships out of the harbor. The Collector of Customs refused to allow the ships to leave without payment of the duty. Stalemate. The committee reported back to the mass meeting and a howl erupted from the meeting hall. It was now early evening and a group of about 200 men, some disguised as Indians, assembled on a near-by hill. Whopping war chants, the crowd marched two-by-two to the wharf, descended upon the three ships and dumped their offending cargos of tea into the harbor waters.
> 
> Most colonists applauded the action while the reaction in London was swift and vehement. In March 1774 Parliament passed the Intolerable Acts which among other measures closed the Port of Boston. The fuse that led directly to the explosion of American independence was lit.



Want another reference?

Boston Tea Party Historical Society

Boston Tea Party Ship & Museum

This ignorant liberal talking point posting style of yours is getting old now.... You just posted a revisionist version of what happened and thats undeniable... 

The tea party was caused by quite a few things, and one of the main things was the following...



> In 1773 the East India Company was one of the strongholds of British economy. Suddenly it found itself at odds with the American non-importation restrictions on tea and with a huge inventory it could not move. The company was not able to meet its payment on dividends and loans and was moving towards bankruptcy. Of course the British government was reluctant to let it happen from fear that this may disrupt financial markets. As an alternative to a direct loan the Ministry decided to allow the company to send tea to America without paying an export duty.



Stop citing pundits and calling it factual man..its old now...


----------



## Wicked Jester

Bfgrn said:


> Wicked Jester said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of the original 'tea partiers', our founding fathers, today's teabaggers would be diametrically opposed to our founders. The bag brains would be standing WITH, not against the British East India Company.
> 
> The real Boston Tea Party was a protest against huge corporate tax cuts for the British East India Company, the largest trans-national corporation then in existence. This corporate tax cut threatened to decimate small Colonial businesses by helping the British East India Company pull a Wal-Mart against small entrepreneurial tea shops, and individuals began a revolt that kicked-off a series of events that ended in the creation of The United States of America.
> 
> You teabaggers are the biggest pea brains on the planet.
> 
> The Truth About the Tea Party (the Original One)
> by Bruce Bartlett
> 
> _*Bruce Bartlett was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and was a Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush.
> *_
> 
> The Real Boston Tea Party was an Anti-Corporate Revolt
> by Thom Hartmann
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhhhhhh, you're just pissed because the tea partiers are seriously damaging this inept president and the loony lefts agenda, big time.
> 
> It's quite entertaining listening to you lil' clowns piss and moan about them. Better get used to it, whackjob. This movement isn't going away, and it's proving to only be getting stronger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, I'm waiting for Obama's left wing agenda to materialize.
> 
> You right wingers are totally brainwashed morons. You don't have a CLUE what is really destroying this country and crushing the middle class in particular.
> 
> Pea brained teabaggers...
Click to expand...

Where's the jobs, dipshit?

What's up with all this corruption going on in this administration?

What's up with the stock market continually crashing?

Obama paid your mortgage yet. Has he paid that stupid black broads mortgage yet?

The oil is STILL gushing, nimrod!

And loony lil' sheep like you just keep following along.

So, tell us. What has this inept president actually done?


----------



## Foxfyre

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to USMB LANmaster, and thanks for pulling us back onto topic here.
> 
> I have really tried to set aside general bitchiness and irritation at what so often just looks like plain old pettiness, mean spiritedness, and dishonest slander of the Tea Partiers and looked at what the motives would be to attack them.
> 
> And I keep coming back to perceptions that you touched on in your post.  I don't want to believe that fellow Americans really do despise and resent America so much that they want it to fail and be diminished in the world.  And toward that end, all that has ever been or is good about America must be minimalized and the negatives emphasized.
> 
> In almost everything they pluck random infrequent examples of imperfection to demonize the whole.  The GOP erred there, therefore the GOP is evil.  There was segregation in the 1950's, therefore there is nothing good to say about the 50's.   A successful talk show host made a imprudent remark amidst hundreds of hours of programming, therefore he is scum.  And among hundreds of thousands of Tea Partiers, a few brought politically incorrect signs to rallies, therefore the Tea Parties are composed of a white, angry, mob "bitterly clinging to their guns and Bibles' perhaps.
> 
> But I keep coming back to what I think the real fear is.  That the Tea Partiers are mostly right, and should they prevail, America will be much the better for it.  And that is unacceptable to those who want America diminished.
> 
> At the very least it would reveal how wrong, partisan, and misguided the Tea Party critics have been in their views.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of the original 'tea partiers', our founding fathers, today's teabaggers would be diametrically opposed to our founders. The bag brains would be standing WITH, not against the British East India Company.
> 
> The real Boston Tea Party was a protest against huge corporate tax cuts for the British East India Company, the largest trans-national corporation then in existence. This corporate tax cut threatened to decimate small Colonial businesses by helping the British East India Company pull a Wal-Mart against small entrepreneurial tea shops, and individuals began a revolt that kicked-off a series of events that ended in the creation of The United States of America.
> 
> You teabaggers are the biggest pea brains on the planet.
> 
> The Truth About the Tea Party (the Original One)
> by Bruce Bartlett
> 
> _*Bruce Bartlett was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and was a Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush.
> *_
> 
> The Real Boston Tea Party was an Anti-Corporate Revolt
> by Thom Hartmann
Click to expand...


Did you really read these pieces?  They're pretty well right on telling it mostly, with a few variations, as I learned it, at least as I learned it beyond gradeschool.

Your error, as too many leftists err--note that I graciously refrained from saying 'pea brained leftists'--is that you take the symbol adopted by an activist movement and try to twist it into something that it is not.  The original Boston Tea Party and the current Tea Party movement are not based on identical circumstances.   They are based on similar philosophy and belief systems.

And then, as now, there are people like you who seem to prefer their comfort and security in the status quo and are unwilling to risk that for a principle they barely can understand, much less embrace.

The Tea Party spirit of 1773 carried over into a movement resulting in the creation of a new nation that has been a miracle of human freedom, liberation of the spirit, prosperity, opportunity, achievement of excellence, and basic good.   My hope is the the Tea Party spirit of 2010 will carry over to restore this great nation to an appreciation for all that and allow us to get back to some semblance of it.


----------



## Bfgrn

gslack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to USMB LANmaster, and thanks for pulling us back onto topic here.
> 
> I have really tried to set aside general bitchiness and irritation at what so often just looks like plain old pettiness, mean spiritedness, and dishonest slander of the Tea Partiers and looked at what the motives would be to attack them.
> 
> And I keep coming back to perceptions that you touched on in your post.  I don't want to believe that fellow Americans really do despise and resent America so much that they want it to fail and be diminished in the world.  And toward that end, all that has ever been or is good about America must be minimalized and the negatives emphasized.
> 
> In almost everything they pluck random infrequent examples of imperfection to demonize the whole.  The GOP erred there, therefore the GOP is evil.  There was segregation in the 1950's, therefore there is nothing good to say about the 50's.   A successful talk show host made a imprudent remark amidst hundreds of hours of programming, therefore he is scum.  And among hundreds of thousands of Tea Partiers, a few brought politically incorrect signs to rallies, therefore the Tea Parties are composed of a white, angry, mob "bitterly clinging to their guns and Bibles' perhaps.
> 
> But I keep coming back to what I think the real fear is.  That the Tea Partiers are mostly right, and should they prevail, America will be much the better for it.  And that is unacceptable to those who want America diminished.
> 
> At the very least it would reveal how wrong, partisan, and misguided the Tea Party critics have been in their views.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of the original 'tea partiers', our founding fathers, today's teabaggers would be diametrically opposed to our founders. The bag brains would be standing WITH, not against the British East India Company.
> 
> The real Boston Tea Party was a protest against huge corporate tax cuts for the British East India Company, the largest trans-national corporation then in existence. This corporate tax cut threatened to decimate small Colonial businesses by helping the British East India Company pull a Wal-Mart against small entrepreneurial tea shops, and individuals began a revolt that kicked-off a series of events that ended in the creation of The United States of America.
> 
> You teabaggers are the biggest pea brains on the planet.
> 
> The Truth About the Tea Party (the Original One)
> by Bruce Bartlett
> 
> _*Bruce Bartlett was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and was a Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush.
> *_
> 
> The Real Boston Tea Party was an Anti-Corporate Revolt
> by Thom Hartmann
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And WTH difference does it make what they protested for specifically? Seriously whether it was corporate tax cuts supported by the crown, or direct crown tax by proxy using the east india company makes no difference they felt it unfair and protested it. How the hell you can make this argument is beyond me....
> 
> And more importantly I would like some historical evidence of that claim.... Really....
> 
> Try and read something accurate and historical and not liberal slanted once in a while....
> 
> The Boston Tea Party, 1773
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In May of 1773 Parliament concocted a clever plan. They gave the struggling East India Company a monopoly on the importation of tea to America. Additionally, Parliament reduced the duty the colonies would have to pay for the imported tea. The Americans would now get their tea at a cheaper price than ever before. However, if the colonies paid the duty tax on the imported tea they would be acknowledging Parliament's right to tax them. Tea was a staple of colonial life - it was assumed that the colonists would rather pay the tax than deny themselves the pleasure of a cup of tea.
> 
> The colonists were not fooled by Parliament's ploy. When the East India Company sent shipments of tea to Philadelphia and New York the ships were not allowed to land. In Charleston the tea-laden ships were permitted to dock but their cargo was consigned to a warehouse where it remained for three years until it was sold by patriots in order to help finance the revolution.
> 
> In Boston, the arrival of three tea ships ignited a furious reaction. The crisis came to a head on December 16, 1773 when as many as 7,000 agitated locals milled about the wharf where the ships were docked. A mass meeting at the Old South Meeting House that morning resolved that the tea ships should leave the harbor without payment of any duty. A committee was selected to take this message to the Customs House to force release of the ships out of the harbor. The Collector of Customs refused to allow the ships to leave without payment of the duty. Stalemate. The committee reported back to the mass meeting and a howl erupted from the meeting hall. It was now early evening and a group of about 200 men, some disguised as Indians, assembled on a near-by hill. Whopping war chants, the crowd marched two-by-two to the wharf, descended upon the three ships and dumped their offending cargos of tea into the harbor waters.
> 
> Most colonists applauded the action while the reaction in London was swift and vehement. In March 1774 Parliament passed the Intolerable Acts which among other measures closed the Port of Boston. The fuse that led directly to the explosion of American independence was lit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Want another reference?
> 
> Boston Tea Party Historical Society
> 
> Boston Tea Party Ship & Museum
> 
> This ignorant liberal talking point posting style of yours is getting old now.... You just posted a revisionist version of what happened and thats undeniable...
> 
> The tea party was caused by quite a few things, and one of the main things was the following...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1773 the East India Company was one of the strongholds of British economy. Suddenly it found itself at odds with the American non-importation restrictions on tea and with a huge inventory it could not move. The company was not able to meet its payment on dividends and loans and was moving towards bankruptcy. Of course the British government was reluctant to let it happen from fear that this may disrupt financial markets. As an alternative to a direct loan the Ministry decided to allow the company to send tea to America without paying an export duty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop citing pundits and calling it factual man..its old now...
Click to expand...


Are you trying to PROVE you are the most obtuse pea brain on this planet? 

_'something accurate and historical and not liberal slanted once in a while'._.. from WHOM? A marketing firm? Your posted has no author. The site has no information or even an 'About' tab. 

_'This ignorant liberal talking point'_ and _'a revisionist version of what happened'_... you mean from a 'liberal' like Bruce Bartlett, who was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and was a Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush???

Clearly, your brain is of the right wing type from birth, totally incapable of comprehension or conceptualization.

A 'word' bound right wing pea brain...

BTW, Thom Hartmann's reference..."Retrospect of the Boston Tea Party with a Memoir of George R.T. Hewes, a Survivor of the Little Band of Patriots Who Drowned the Tea in Boston Harbor in 1773,"


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome to USMB LANmaster, and thanks for pulling us back onto topic here.
> 
> I have really tried to set aside general bitchiness and irritation at what so often just looks like plain old pettiness, mean spiritedness, and dishonest slander of the Tea Partiers and looked at what the motives would be to attack them.
> 
> And I keep coming back to perceptions that you touched on in your post.  I don't want to believe that fellow Americans really do despise and resent America so much that they want it to fail and be diminished in the world.  And toward that end, all that has ever been or is good about America must be minimalized and the negatives emphasized.
> 
> In almost everything they pluck random infrequent examples of imperfection to demonize the whole.  The GOP erred there, therefore the GOP is evil.  There was segregation in the 1950's, therefore there is nothing good to say about the 50's.   A successful talk show host made a imprudent remark amidst hundreds of hours of programming, therefore he is scum.  And among hundreds of thousands of Tea Partiers, a few brought politically incorrect signs to rallies, therefore the Tea Parties are composed of a white, angry, mob "bitterly clinging to their guns and Bibles' perhaps.
> 
> But I keep coming back to what I think the real fear is.  That the Tea Partiers are mostly right, and should they prevail, America will be much the better for it.  And that is unacceptable to those who want America diminished.
> 
> At the very least it would reveal how wrong, partisan, and misguided the Tea Party critics have been in their views.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of the original 'tea partiers', our founding fathers, today's teabaggers would be diametrically opposed to our founders. The bag brains would be standing WITH, not against the British East India Company.
> 
> The real Boston Tea Party was a protest against huge corporate tax cuts for the British East India Company, the largest trans-national corporation then in existence. This corporate tax cut threatened to decimate small Colonial businesses by helping the British East India Company pull a Wal-Mart against small entrepreneurial tea shops, and individuals began a revolt that kicked-off a series of events that ended in the creation of The United States of America.
> 
> You teabaggers are the biggest pea brains on the planet.
> 
> The Truth About the Tea Party (the Original One)
> by Bruce Bartlett
> 
> _*Bruce Bartlett was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and was a Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush.
> *_
> 
> The Real Boston Tea Party was an Anti-Corporate Revolt
> by Thom Hartmann
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you really read these pieces?  They're pretty well right on telling it mostly, with a few variations, as I learned it, at least as I learned it beyond gradeschool.
> 
> Your error, as too many leftists err--note that I graciously refrained from saying 'pea brained leftists'--is that you take the symbol adopted by an activist movement and try to twist it into something that it is not.  The original Boston Tea Party and the current Tea Party movement are not based on identical circumstances.   They are based on similar philosophy and belief systems.
> 
> And then, as now, there are people like you who seem to prefer their comfort and security in the status quo and are unwilling to risk that for a principle they barely can understand, much less embrace.
> 
> *The Tea Party spirit of 1773 carried over into a movement resulting in the creation of a new nation that has been a miracle of human freedom, liberation of the spirit, prosperity, opportunity, achievement of excellence, and basic good.   My hope is the the Tea Party spirit of 2010 will carry over to restore this great nation to an appreciation for all that and allow us to get back to some semblance of it.*
Click to expand...


Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises, for never intending to go beyond promise, it costs nothing.
Edmund Burke

The 'status quo' is EXACTLY what the teabaggers prefer their comfort and security from.

In the status quo health care industry, the closest parallel to the British East India Company is the insurance cartels; the Aetna's of the world. And the closest simile to the term 'taxation without representation' is the insurance cartels fees (taxation and fee are synonyms) without representation.

The solutions to the health care crisis can only come FROM the vehicle our founding father's CREATED...a government WITH representation.

If these pea brain teabaggers had picketed Aetna, UnitedHealth Group, WellPoint, Humana, Cigna or Amerigroup, I'd consider them in 'The Tea Party spirit of 1773'


----------



## AllieBaba

Quick, somebody feel embarassed for Bfgrn.

I can't because I like it when he exposes his inner tard.


----------



## AllieBaba

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of the original 'tea partiers', our founding fathers, today's teabaggers would be diametrically opposed to our founders. The bag brains would be standing WITH, not against the British East India Company.
> 
> The real Boston Tea Party was a protest against huge corporate tax cuts for the British East India Company, the largest trans-national corporation then in existence. This corporate tax cut threatened to decimate small Colonial businesses by helping the British East India Company pull a Wal-Mart against small entrepreneurial tea shops, and individuals began a revolt that kicked-off a series of events that ended in the creation of The United States of America.
> 
> You teabaggers are the biggest pea brains on the planet.
> 
> The Truth About the Tea Party (the Original One)
> by Bruce Bartlett
> 
> _*Bruce Bartlett was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and was a Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush.
> *_
> 
> The Real Boston Tea Party was an Anti-Corporate Revolt
> by Thom Hartmann
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you really read these pieces?  They're pretty well right on telling it mostly, with a few variations, as I learned it, at least as I learned it beyond gradeschool.
> 
> Your error, as too many leftists err--note that I graciously refrained from saying 'pea brained leftists'--is that you take the symbol adopted by an activist movement and try to twist it into something that it is not.  The original Boston Tea Party and the current Tea Party movement are not based on identical circumstances.   They are based on similar philosophy and belief systems.
> 
> And then, as now, there are people like you who seem to prefer their comfort and security in the status quo and are unwilling to risk that for a principle they barely can understand, much less embrace.
> 
> *The Tea Party spirit of 1773 carried over into a movement resulting in the creation of a new nation that has been a miracle of human freedom, liberation of the spirit, prosperity, opportunity, achievement of excellence, and basic good.   My hope is the the Tea Party spirit of 2010 will carry over to restore this great nation to an appreciation for all that and allow us to get back to some semblance of it.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises, for never intending to go beyond promise, it costs nothing.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> The 'status quo' is EXACTLY what the teabaggers prefer their comfort and security from.
> 
> In the status quo health care industry, the closest parallel to the British East India Company is the insurance cartels; the Aetna's of the world. And the closest simile to the term 'taxation without representation' is the insurance cartels fees (taxation and fee are synonyms) without representation.
> 
> The solutions to the health care crisis can only come FROM the vehicle our founding father's CREATED...a government WITH representation.
> 
> If these pea brain teabaggers had picketed Aetna, UnitedHealth Group, WellPoint, Humana, Cigna or Amerigroup, I'd consider them in 'The Tea Party spirit of 1773'
Click to expand...


If the tea partiers were all about the status quo, I really doubt they would be PROTESTING, you fucking brain dead lunatic.


----------



## Foxfyre

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of the original 'tea partiers', our founding fathers, today's teabaggers would be diametrically opposed to our founders. The bag brains would be standing WITH, not against the British East India Company.
> 
> The real Boston Tea Party was a protest against huge corporate tax cuts for the British East India Company, the largest trans-national corporation then in existence. This corporate tax cut threatened to decimate small Colonial businesses by helping the British East India Company pull a Wal-Mart against small entrepreneurial tea shops, and individuals began a revolt that kicked-off a series of events that ended in the creation of The United States of America.
> 
> You teabaggers are the biggest pea brains on the planet.
> 
> The Truth About the Tea Party (the Original One)
> by Bruce Bartlett
> 
> _*Bruce Bartlett was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and was a Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush.
> *_
> 
> The Real Boston Tea Party was an Anti-Corporate Revolt
> by Thom Hartmann
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you really read these pieces?  They're pretty well right on telling it mostly, with a few variations, as I learned it, at least as I learned it beyond gradeschool.
> 
> Your error, as too many leftists err--note that I graciously refrained from saying 'pea brained leftists'--is that you take the symbol adopted by an activist movement and try to twist it into something that it is not.  The original Boston Tea Party and the current Tea Party movement are not based on identical circumstances.   They are based on similar philosophy and belief systems.
> 
> And then, as now, there are people like you who seem to prefer their comfort and security in the status quo and are unwilling to risk that for a principle they barely can understand, much less embrace.
> 
> *The Tea Party spirit of 1773 carried over into a movement resulting in the creation of a new nation that has been a miracle of human freedom, liberation of the spirit, prosperity, opportunity, achievement of excellence, and basic good.   My hope is the the Tea Party spirit of 2010 will carry over to restore this great nation to an appreciation for all that and allow us to get back to some semblance of it.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises, for never intending to go beyond promise, it costs nothing.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> The 'status quo' is EXACTLY what the teabaggers prefer their comfort and security from.
> 
> In the status quo health care industry, the closest parallel to the British East India Company is the insurance cartels; the Aetna's of the world. And the closest simile to the term 'taxation without representation' is the insurance cartels fees (taxation and fee are synonyms) without representation.
> 
> The solutions to the health care crisis can only come FROM the vehicle our founding father's CREATED...a government WITH representation.
> 
> If these pea brain teabaggers had picketed Aetna, UnitedHealth Group, WellPoint, Humana, Cigna or Amerigroup, I'd consider them in 'The Tea Party spirit of 1773'
Click to expand...


Bless your heart, I bet you really do believe some of this nonsense you post.  But there is room for everybody in our diverse land.  I'm just really REALLY glad there are many many more who know what the Tea Party movement is all about than than those as confused and uninformed as you so far seem to be.


----------



## Bfgrn

AllieBaba said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you really read these pieces?  They're pretty well right on telling it mostly, with a few variations, as I learned it, at least as I learned it beyond gradeschool.
> 
> Your error, as too many leftists err--note that I graciously refrained from saying 'pea brained leftists'--is that you take the symbol adopted by an activist movement and try to twist it into something that it is not.  The original Boston Tea Party and the current Tea Party movement are not based on identical circumstances.   They are based on similar philosophy and belief systems.
> 
> And then, as now, there are people like you who seem to prefer their comfort and security in the status quo and are unwilling to risk that for a principle they barely can understand, much less embrace.
> 
> *The Tea Party spirit of 1773 carried over into a movement resulting in the creation of a new nation that has been a miracle of human freedom, liberation of the spirit, prosperity, opportunity, achievement of excellence, and basic good.   My hope is the the Tea Party spirit of 2010 will carry over to restore this great nation to an appreciation for all that and allow us to get back to some semblance of it.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises, for never intending to go beyond promise, it costs nothing.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> The 'status quo' is EXACTLY what the teabaggers prefer their comfort and security from.
> 
> In the status quo health care industry, the closest parallel to the British East India Company is the insurance cartels; the Aetna's of the world. And the closest simile to the term 'taxation without representation' is the insurance cartels fees (taxation and fee are synonyms) without representation.
> 
> The solutions to the health care crisis can only come FROM the vehicle our founding father's CREATED...a government WITH representation.
> 
> If these pea brain teabaggers had picketed Aetna, UnitedHealth Group, WellPoint, Humana, Cigna or Amerigroup, I'd consider them in 'The Tea Party spirit of 1773'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the tea partiers were all about the status quo, I really doubt they would be PROTESTING, you fucking brain dead lunatic.
Click to expand...


The 'status quo' to these pea brains teabaggers is best described by their mantra 'we want OUR country back'...Bush.

The teabaggers approval OF King George is in direct opposition and proportion to the general population.

- Among all Americans, George W. Bush has 27/58 positive/negative favorable rating. Among tea partiers he's viewed favorably, 57/27.

- Among all Americans, the Democratic Party has a net negative, 42/50 favorable rating. Among tea partiers the split is 6/92 -- only six percent have a favorable view.

- Among all Americans, the Republican Party is viewed a little less favorably than the Democrats -- 38/53. Among tea partiers, it has a 54/43 favorable rating.

- Among all Americans, the Bush administration takes the largest share -- 39 percent -- of the blame for the "current federal budget deficit." Only 6 percent of tea partiers blame Bush, while 24 percent blame President Obama and 37 percent blame Congress.

- Americans are fairly evenly split on whether they consider "reducing the budget deficit" more important than cutting taxes -- 47 percent say tax cuts, 45 percent say deficit reduction. Tea partiers lean more heavily toward tax cuts (49 percent) than deficit reduction (42 percent). But while Americans would prefer that the government "spend money to create jobs" by a 50/42 margin, only 17 percent of tea partiers agree -- 76 percent want to cut the deficit.

- Among all Americans, Glenn Beck is a divisive and not too well-known media figure. Only around half of them have heard of Beck, and those folks view him favorably, 18/17. Among tea partiers, Beck is wildly popular -- 59/6 favorable.

- Among all Americans, Sarah Palin is wildly unpopular -- her negative/favorable rating is 30/45. But tea partiers adore her and give her a 66/12 favorable rating. Yet here's something to watch -- only 40 percent of tea partiers say Palin could be an "effective president," compared to 47 percent who disagree. (Among all Americans the numbers are 26 percent and 63 percent.)

- Tea partiers are not nearly as socially conservative as the GOP. Only 40 percent believe there should be "no legal recognition of gay couple's relationships," while 41 percent support civil unions. Only 42 percent favor a decrease in legal immigration-- about in line with most Americans. Only 40 percent support the Roe v. Wade decision, but try getting 40 percent of Republican politicians to say that.

Oh -- tea partiers really, really don't like President Obama. Among all Americans he has a 50-percent approval rating; among tea partiers, it's 7 percent. Among all Americans, 57 percent say Obama "shares the values most Americans try to live by" and 58 percent say he "understands the needs and problems" of people like them. Among tea partiers, the numbers are 24 percent and 20 percent, respectively. Twenty-five percent of tea partiers say Obama's policies "favor blacks over whites," an opinion shared by only 11 percent of the country at large (89 percent of tea partiers are white).

Source: CBS News/New York Times poll on the tea party movement


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you really read these pieces?  They're pretty well right on telling it mostly, with a few variations, as I learned it, at least as I learned it beyond gradeschool.
> 
> Your error, as too many leftists err--note that I graciously refrained from saying 'pea brained leftists'--is that you take the symbol adopted by an activist movement and try to twist it into something that it is not.  The original Boston Tea Party and the current Tea Party movement are not based on identical circumstances.   They are based on similar philosophy and belief systems.
> 
> And then, as now, there are people like you who seem to prefer their comfort and security in the status quo and are unwilling to risk that for a principle they barely can understand, much less embrace.
> 
> *The Tea Party spirit of 1773 carried over into a movement resulting in the creation of a new nation that has been a miracle of human freedom, liberation of the spirit, prosperity, opportunity, achievement of excellence, and basic good.   My hope is the the Tea Party spirit of 2010 will carry over to restore this great nation to an appreciation for all that and allow us to get back to some semblance of it.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises, for never intending to go beyond promise, it costs nothing.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> The 'status quo' is EXACTLY what the teabaggers prefer their comfort and security from.
> 
> In the status quo health care industry, the closest parallel to the British East India Company is the insurance cartels; the Aetna's of the world. And the closest simile to the term 'taxation without representation' is the insurance cartels fees (taxation and fee are synonyms) without representation.
> 
> The solutions to the health care crisis can only come FROM the vehicle our founding father's CREATED...a government WITH representation.
> 
> If these pea brain teabaggers had picketed Aetna, UnitedHealth Group, WellPoint, Humana, Cigna or Amerigroup, I'd consider them in 'The Tea Party spirit of 1773'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bless your heart, I bet you really do believe some of this nonsense you post.  But there is room for everybody in our diverse land.  I'm just really REALLY glad there are many many more who know what the Tea Party movement is all about than than those as confused and uninformed as you so far seem to be.
Click to expand...


Nonsense? Here's your assignment for the day...bring back historical information of how corporations were treated by our founding fathers. You will find that our founding fathers believed in MUCH MORE control and strict regulation than any current political party or administration. 

The words 'personal responsibility' were strictly applied TO corporations by our founding fathers. Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done in the name of the corporation. AND, corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good...


----------



## Foxfyre

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hypocrisy can afford to be magnificent in its promises, for never intending to go beyond promise, it costs nothing.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> The 'status quo' is EXACTLY what the teabaggers prefer their comfort and security from.
> 
> In the status quo health care industry, the closest parallel to the British East India Company is the insurance cartels; the Aetna's of the world. And the closest simile to the term 'taxation without representation' is the insurance cartels fees (taxation and fee are synonyms) without representation.
> 
> The solutions to the health care crisis can only come FROM the vehicle our founding father's CREATED...a government WITH representation.
> 
> If these pea brain teabaggers had picketed Aetna, UnitedHealth Group, WellPoint, Humana, Cigna or Amerigroup, I'd consider them in 'The Tea Party spirit of 1773'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bless your heart, I bet you really do believe some of this nonsense you post.  But there is room for everybody in our diverse land.  I'm just really REALLY glad there are many many more who know what the Tea Party movement is all about than than those as confused and uninformed as you so far seem to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense? Here's your assignment for the day...bring back historical information of how corporations were treated by our founding fathers. You will find that our founding fathers believed in MUCH MORE control and strict regulation than any current political party or administration.
> 
> The words 'personal responsibility' were strictly applied TO corporations by our founding fathers. Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done in the name of the corporation. AND, corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good...
Click to expand...


No thank you.  I would prefer to focus on what the Tea Partiers are all about and why you on the left fear them rather than allow another numbnut--not that you are one of course--derail the thread by diverting to other unnecessary and unrelated subjects however worthy those subjects might be for discussion in a different thread.   But for this thread, you might want to look up the definition for _ignoratio elenchi._


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bless your heart, I bet you really do believe some of this nonsense you post.  But there is room for everybody in our diverse land.  I'm just really REALLY glad there are many many more who know what the Tea Party movement is all about than than those as confused and uninformed as you so far seem to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense? Here's your assignment for the day...bring back historical information of how corporations were treated by our founding fathers. You will find that our founding fathers believed in MUCH MORE control and strict regulation than any current political party or administration.
> 
> The words 'personal responsibility' were strictly applied TO corporations by our founding fathers. Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done in the name of the corporation. AND, corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No thank you.  I would prefer to focus on what the Tea Partiers are all about and why you on the left fear them rather than allow another numbnut--not that you are one of course--derail the thread by diverting to other unnecessary and unrelated subjects however worthy those subjects might be for discussion in a different thread.   But for this thread, you might want to look up the definition for _ignoratio elenchi._
Click to expand...


Ignoratio elenchi is a perfect description....of the teabaggers...

I prefer pea brains, but to each his own...


----------



## Foxfyre

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense? Here's your assignment for the day...bring back historical information of how corporations were treated by our founding fathers. You will find that our founding fathers believed in MUCH MORE control and strict regulation than any current political party or administration.
> 
> The words 'personal responsibility' were strictly applied TO corporations by our founding fathers. Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done in the name of the corporation. AND, corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No thank you.  I would prefer to focus on what the Tea Partiers are all about and why you on the left fear them rather than allow another numbnut--not that you are one of course--derail the thread by diverting to other unnecessary and unrelated subjects however worthy those subjects might be for discussion in a different thread.   But for this thread, you might want to look up the definition for _ignoratio elenchi._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignoratio elenchi is a perfect description....of the teabaggers...
> 
> I prefer pea brains, but to each his own...
Click to expand...


Well, I believe I'll go play with the grown ups for awhile.  Do have a nice day.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> No thank you.  I would prefer to focus on what the Tea Partiers are all about and why you on the left fear them rather than allow another numbnut--not that you are one of course--derail the thread by diverting to other unnecessary and unrelated subjects however worthy those subjects might be for discussion in a different thread.   But for this thread, you might want to look up the definition for _ignoratio elenchi._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignoratio elenchi is a perfect description....of the teabaggers...
> 
> I prefer pea brains, but to each his own...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I believe I'll go play with the grown ups for awhile.  Do have a nice day.
Click to expand...


Grown ups, like the pea brain teabaggers???

President Bush cut $1.3 trillion in taxes  and the biggest beneficiaries by far were the top one percent of earners. At the same time, Wall Street was inflated by the helium of a regulation-free economy that eventually gave us Bernie Madoff and banks begging for bailouts.

...Where was the Tea Party movement when the tax burden was shifted from the high end to the middle? Where were the patriots when Wall Street, backed in Congress by Senator Phil Gramm of Texas, rewrote securities laws so that the wonder boys of Lehman and A.I.G. could reduce home mortgages to poker chips at a trillion-dollar table?

Now consider the people who showed up in a state of generalized rage in Washington D.C. over the weekend. They have no leaders, save a self-described rodeo clown  Glenn Beck of Fox News  and some well-funded Astroturf outfits from the permanent lobbying class inside the Beltway. They are loosely organized under a Tea Party movement, but these people are closer to British Tories than 18th century patriots...

Where were the angry "stiffs" when the banking industry rolled the last Congress  majority Democrat, by the way  into rewriting bankruptcy law, making it easier to keep people in permanent credit card hock? Where were they when President Bush started the bailouts, with $700 billion that had to be paid on a few days' notice  with no debate  to save global capitalism? They were nowhere, because they were clueless, just as most journalists were.

Where were the Tea party patriots when Bush lied us into the invasion of Iraq? Where was one Congressman to shout "You lie" at Bush during a joint session of Congress after it was revealed there were no "weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" and the wastrel war was a fraud?

Where were the Tea party patriots when George W. Bush gave himself the power of an 18th century British monarch, to suspend the writ of habeas corpus and send anyone he declared to be an "enemy combatant" --including any American citizen -- to perpetual imprisonment without trial?

Where were the tea party patriots when President Bush instituted warrantless wiretapping?

Ambition must be made to counteract ambition, James Madison wrote, signifying that our Constitution's separation of powers plan of government depended on the president, Congress and the Supreme Court acting as a natural check on each other. But "King" George made the Executive branch dominant, severely weakening the Founders' checks and balances, while the Bush regime's USA Patriot Act gave the executive branch unconstitutional law-enforcement powers.

Where was the Tea Party revolt when the protection from arbitrary arrest, found in the Magna Carta and he Constitution of the United States -- one of the most powerful weapons against tyranny in the arsenal of the Republic -- was trashed by Mr. Bush and Fox News favorite Dick Cheney? Before Bush and Cheney, only one American president had suspended habeas corpus  Abraham Lincoln, during the War for Southern Independence and the Supreme Court duly struck down his arrogation of power.

Where were the Tea Party activists when the Bush administration commissioned Admiral John Poindexter, convicted of crooked activities in the Reagan administration, to head the Orwellian "Total Information Agency" to "data mine" every computer in America? To add insult to injury this Federal agency debuted under an emblem of blatant masonic-Illuminati symbolism.

Where were the Tea Party activists when Bush was asked about his involvement with the demonic "Skull and Bones" secret society and refused to answer, citing the oath of secrecy he took as a member of that wicked group of occult conspirators?

Obama may be evil, but the selective indignation of the current fake "Tea Party revolt," which is held within limits amenable to the neocon wing of the Republican party and its Moneybags backers, reveals the hidden hand of the Cryptocracy steering America back to the Republican reign of the rich and the continuing evisceration of our Constitution that did not start with Obama, but which reached unprecedented heights of despotism under President Bush and Vice-President Cheney --aided and abetted by the "patriot" Fox Network.

"Tea Party" protesters silent when Bush was trashing the Constitution


----------



## uscitizen

Pink Flatter gasket bearings.


----------



## gslack

Bfgrn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of the original 'tea partiers', our founding fathers, today's teabaggers would be diametrically opposed to our founders. The bag brains would be standing WITH, not against the British East India Company.
> 
> The real Boston Tea Party was a protest against huge corporate tax cuts for the British East India Company, the largest trans-national corporation then in existence. This corporate tax cut threatened to decimate small Colonial businesses by helping the British East India Company pull a Wal-Mart against small entrepreneurial tea shops, and individuals began a revolt that kicked-off a series of events that ended in the creation of The United States of America.
> 
> You teabaggers are the biggest pea brains on the planet.
> 
> The Truth About the Tea Party (the Original One)
> by Bruce Bartlett
> 
> _*Bruce Bartlett was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and was a Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush.
> *_
> 
> The Real Boston Tea Party was an Anti-Corporate Revolt
> by Thom Hartmann
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And WTH difference does it make what they protested for specifically? Seriously whether it was corporate tax cuts supported by the crown, or direct crown tax by proxy using the east india company makes no difference they felt it unfair and protested it. How the hell you can make this argument is beyond me....
> 
> And more importantly I would like some historical evidence of that claim.... Really....
> 
> Try and read something accurate and historical and not liberal slanted once in a while....
> 
> The Boston Tea Party, 1773
> 
> 
> 
> Want another reference?
> 
> Boston Tea Party Historical Society
> 
> Boston Tea Party Ship & Museum
> 
> This ignorant liberal talking point posting style of yours is getting old now.... You just posted a revisionist version of what happened and thats undeniable...
> 
> The tea party was caused by quite a few things, and one of the main things was the following...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1773 the East India Company was one of the strongholds of British economy. Suddenly it found itself at odds with the American non-importation restrictions on tea and with a huge inventory it could not move. The company was not able to meet its payment on dividends and loans and was moving towards bankruptcy. Of course the British government was reluctant to let it happen from fear that this may disrupt financial markets. As an alternative to a direct loan the Ministry decided to allow the company to send tea to America without paying an export duty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop citing pundits and calling it factual man..its old now...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you trying to PROVE you are the most obtuse pea brain on this planet?
> 
> _'something accurate and historical and not liberal slanted once in a while'._.. from WHOM? A marketing firm? Your posted has no author. The site has no information or even an 'About' tab.
> 
> _'This ignorant liberal talking point'_ and _'a revisionist version of what happened'_... you mean from a 'liberal' like Bruce Bartlett, who was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and was a Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush???
> 
> Clearly, your brain is of the right wing type from birth, totally incapable of comprehension or conceptualization.
> 
> A 'word' bound right wing pea brain...
> 
> BTW, Thom Hartmann's reference..."Retrospect of the Boston Tea Party with a Memoir of George R.T. Hewes, a Survivor of the Little Band of Patriots Who Drowned the Tea in Boston Harbor in 1773,"
Click to expand...


Which link are you referring to moron I gave you 3 of them..

First link: The Boston Tea Party, 1773 Their about us page is reached from a link on their homepage... Here ..EyeWitness to History - history through the eyes of those who lived it..... THen the link near the top is to their publisher called ibis Communications. ...That link goes here....Ibis Communications, Inc.... A brief from that page.....


> Ibis Communications is a publisher of award-winning educational websites and CD-ROMs.
> 
> EyeWitnesstoHistory.com (Website)
> An award-winning website presenting history through the perspective of those who actually lived it - from the ancient world through the 20th century.
> 
> Awards include: Yahoo! Pick of the Week, USA Today Outstanding Website, Best of History Website, Innovative Teaching Award and Kim Komando Cool Site of the Day.



So moving on...

My second link: Boston Tea Party Historical Society...Its to the boston tea party historical society.... yeah I would call them experts.... Their about us page is linked at the top it says "about" on the upper tab... the link ...Boston Tea Party Historical Society ... And a brief from that page...


> About this Website
> The Boston Tea Party Historical Society is a non-profit educational and cultural organization established to preserve and share the Tea Party history. The Society collects and tells the story of the B.T.P. through an interactive website and publishing. We also occasionally debunk popular myths about the famous destruction of tea in Boston Harbor.
> 
> We hope to engage the public with the excitement of discovery, inspire people with new perspectives on the past, and illuminate the relevance of history in our lives today.



Dude I am two for two now.... So far it looks like you just lied your ass off.... Moving on..

My third link: Boston Tea Party Ship & Museum..the site is to the Boston tea party ship and museum.... yeah another of what I would consider an expert on this subject.... ya see douchebag, their description is in the title... yeah, its a website for the people renovating the ship and creating the museum... THey are renovating and they tell you so flat out in the page. BUt if you look and follow the obvious links, you find out quite easily what they are all about... their parent company is "Historic tours of America... and in the renovation overview of the ship and museum site it says the following....



> It is the goal of Historic Tours of America® to immerse Boston residents, heritage visitors, and students in the historical experiences and important events of and around December 16th 1773, to tell the stories of the participating men and their families, and to reinforce the way that the Boston Tea Party changed the lives of Americans forever. Indeed in bringing to life this historic event we feel that we have a responsibility and a commitment to historic preservation, heritage education, and the advancement of patriotic ideals.



So in a nutshell you are a lying little POS weasel...... Now go fuck yourself toad, you just showed what lowlife lying scumbag you truly are....


----------



## Bfgrn

gslack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And WTH difference does it make what they protested for specifically? Seriously whether it was corporate tax cuts supported by the crown, or direct crown tax by proxy using the east india company makes no difference they felt it unfair and protested it. How the hell you can make this argument is beyond me....
> 
> And more importantly I would like some historical evidence of that claim.... Really....
> 
> Try and read something accurate and historical and not liberal slanted once in a while....
> 
> The Boston Tea Party, 1773
> 
> 
> 
> Want another reference?
> 
> Boston Tea Party Historical Society
> 
> Boston Tea Party Ship & Museum
> 
> This ignorant liberal talking point posting style of yours is getting old now.... You just posted a revisionist version of what happened and thats undeniable...
> 
> The tea party was caused by quite a few things, and one of the main things was the following...
> 
> 
> 
> Stop citing pundits and calling it factual man..its old now...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to PROVE you are the most obtuse pea brain on this planet?
> 
> _'something accurate and historical and not liberal slanted once in a while'._.. from WHOM? A marketing firm? Your posted has no author. The site has no information or even an 'About' tab.
> 
> _'This ignorant liberal talking point'_ and _'a revisionist version of what happened'_... you mean from a 'liberal' like Bruce Bartlett, who was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and was a Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush???
> 
> Clearly, your brain is of the right wing type from birth, totally incapable of comprehension or conceptualization.
> 
> A 'word' bound right wing pea brain...
> 
> BTW, Thom Hartmann's reference..."Retrospect of the Boston Tea Party with a Memoir of George R.T. Hewes, a Survivor of the Little Band of Patriots Who Drowned the Tea in Boston Harbor in 1773,"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which link are you referring to moron I gave you 3 of them..
> 
> First link: The Boston Tea Party, 1773 Their about us page is reached from a link on their homepage... Here ..EyeWitness to History - history through the eyes of those who lived it..... THen the link near the top is to their publisher called ibis Communications. ...That link goes here....Ibis Communications, Inc.... A brief from that page.....
> 
> 
> So moving on...
> 
> My second link: Boston Tea Party Historical Society...Its to the boston tea party historical society.... yeah I would call them experts.... Their about us page is linked at the top it says "about" on the upper tab... the link ...Boston Tea Party Historical Society ... And a brief from that page...
> 
> 
> 
> About this Website
> The Boston Tea Party Historical Society is a non-profit educational and cultural organization established to preserve and share the Tea Party history. The Society collects and tells the story of the B.T.P. through an interactive website and publishing. We also occasionally debunk popular myths about the famous destruction of tea in Boston Harbor.
> 
> We hope to engage the public with the excitement of discovery, inspire people with new perspectives on the past, and illuminate the relevance of history in our lives today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude I am two for two now.... So far it looks like you just lied your ass off.... Moving on..
> 
> My third link: Boston Tea Party Ship & Museum..the site is to the Boston tea party ship and museum.... yeah another of what I would consider an expert on this subject.... ya see douchebag, their description is in the title... yeah, its a website for the people renovating the ship and creating the museum... THey are renovating and they tell you so flat out in the page. BUt if you look and follow the obvious links, you find out quite easily what they are all about... their parent company is "Historic tours of America... and in the renovation overview of the ship and museum site it says the following....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the goal of Historic Tours of America® to immerse Boston residents, heritage visitors, and students in the historical experiences and important events of and around December 16th 1773, to tell the stories of the participating men and their families, and to reinforce the way that the Boston Tea Party changed the lives of Americans forever. Indeed in bringing to life this historic event we feel that we have a responsibility and a commitment to historic preservation, heritage education, and the advancement of patriotic ideals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in a nutshell you are a lying little POS weasel...... Now go fuck yourself toad, you just showed what lowlife lying scumbag you truly are....
Click to expand...


In a nutshell, what you just proved is you ARE the most obtuse pea brain on this planet. 

I pointed out that your post has no author and you come back with empty PR rhetoric like 'history through the eyes of those who lived it' from a site run by a PR and marketing firm...
*
Company Overview*

IBIS Communications operates as an advertising agency. Its marketing communications services include strategy development, research, creative execution and production, media planning and placement, and public relations disciplines, such as crisis communications, and community and media relations. IBIS Communications was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee.
IBIS Communications: Private Company Information - BusinessWeek

NOW, if you had half a brain, instead of a pea between your shoulders. And you were not a 'word' bound right wing pea brain, you'd be aware that your sources are just reinforcing and verifying what Bruce Bartlett and Thom Hartmann said...

From Boston Tea Party Ship & Museum

 DECEMBER 16, 1773

On May 10, 1773, the British parliament authorized the East India Co., which faced bankruptcy due to corruption and mismanagement, to export a half a million pounds of tea to the American colonies for the purpose of selling it without imposing upon the company the usual duties and tariffs. With these privileges, the company could undersell American merchants and monopolize the colonial tea trade.

Here's your word for the day: *Duty*
noun

_Commerce_. a specific or ad valorem tax imposed by law on the import or export of goods.


----------



## gslack

Bfgrn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to PROVE you are the most obtuse pea brain on this planet?
> 
> _'something accurate and historical and not liberal slanted once in a while'._.. from WHOM? A marketing firm? Your posted has no author. The site has no information or even an 'About' tab.
> 
> _'This ignorant liberal talking point'_ and _'a revisionist version of what happened'_... you mean from a 'liberal' like Bruce Bartlett, who was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and was a Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush???
> 
> Clearly, your brain is of the right wing type from birth, totally incapable of comprehension or conceptualization.
> 
> A 'word' bound right wing pea brain...
> 
> BTW, Thom Hartmann's reference..."Retrospect of the Boston Tea Party with a Memoir of George R.T. Hewes, a Survivor of the Little Band of Patriots Who Drowned the Tea in Boston Harbor in 1773,"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which link are you referring to moron I gave you 3 of them..
> 
> First link: The Boston Tea Party, 1773 Their about us page is reached from a link on their homepage... Here ..EyeWitness to History - history through the eyes of those who lived it..... THen the link near the top is to their publisher called ibis Communications. ...That link goes here....Ibis Communications, Inc.... A brief from that page.....
> 
> 
> So moving on...
> 
> My second link: Boston Tea Party Historical Society...Its to the boston tea party historical society.... yeah I would call them experts.... Their about us page is linked at the top it says "about" on the upper tab... the link ...Boston Tea Party Historical Society ... And a brief from that page...
> 
> 
> Dude I am two for two now.... So far it looks like you just lied your ass off.... Moving on..
> 
> My third link: Boston Tea Party Ship & Museum..the site is to the Boston tea party ship and museum.... yeah another of what I would consider an expert on this subject.... ya see douchebag, their description is in the title... yeah, its a website for the people renovating the ship and creating the museum... THey are renovating and they tell you so flat out in the page. BUt if you look and follow the obvious links, you find out quite easily what they are all about... their parent company is "Historic tours of America... and in the renovation overview of the ship and museum site it says the following....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the goal of Historic Tours of America® to immerse Boston residents, heritage visitors, and students in the historical experiences and important events of and around December 16th 1773, to tell the stories of the participating men and their families, and to reinforce the way that the Boston Tea Party changed the lives of Americans forever. Indeed in bringing to life this historic event we feel that we have a responsibility and a commitment to historic preservation, heritage education, and the advancement of patriotic ideals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in a nutshell you are a lying little POS weasel...... Now go fuck yourself toad, you just showed what lowlife lying scumbag you truly are....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a nutshell, what you just proved is you ARE the most obtuse pea brain on this planet.
> 
> I pointed out that your post has no author and you come back with empty PR rhetoric like 'history through the eyes of those who lived it' from a site run by a PR and marketing firm...
> *
> Company Overview*
> 
> IBIS Communications operates as an advertising agency. Its marketing communications services include strategy development, research, creative execution and production, media planning and placement, and public relations disciplines, such as crisis communications, and community and media relations. IBIS Communications was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee.
> IBIS Communications: Private Company Information - BusinessWeek
> 
> NOW, if you had half a brain, instead of a pea between your shoulders. And you were not a 'word' bound right wing pea brain, you'd be aware that your sources are just reinforcing and verifying what Bruce Bartlett and Thom Hartmann said...
> 
> From Boston Tea Party Ship & Museum
> 
> DECEMBER 16, 1773
> 
> On May 10, 1773, the British parliament authorized the East India Co., which faced bankruptcy due to corruption and mismanagement, to export a half a million pounds of tea to the American colonies for the purpose of selling it without imposing upon the company the usual duties and tariffs. With these privileges, the company could undersell American merchants and monopolize the colonial tea trade.
> 
> Here's your word for the day: *Duty*
> noun
> 
> _Commerce_. a specific or ad valorem tax imposed by law on the import or export of goods.
Click to expand...


Why did you cut out part of my post tool????

AGAIN.....Utterly and completely shameful.... Where is my quote from the companies about us page in the first link tool.. If I am so obtuse, WHY DID YOU CUT OUT MY QUOTE???????.... Why did you deliberately cut it out of my quote???? YOU are fucking done you unethical and immoral little POS...FUCK YOU!!!!!

Again for the LIAR!!!!


gslack said:


> Which link are you referring to moron I gave you 3 of them..
> 
> First link: The Boston Tea Party, 1773 Their about us page is reached from a link on their homepage... Here ..EyeWitness to History - history through the eyes of those who lived it..... THen the link near the top is to their publisher called ibis Communications. ...That link goes here....Ibis Communications, Inc.... A brief from that page.....
> 
> 
> 
> *Ibis Communications is a publisher of award-winning educational websites and CD-ROMs.
> 
> EyeWitnesstoHistory.com (Website)
> An award-winning website presenting history through the perspective of those who actually lived it - from the ancient world through the 20th century.
> 
> Awards include: Yahoo! Pick of the Week, USA Today Outstanding Website, Best of History Website, Innovative Teaching Award and Kim Komando Cool Site of the Day.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So moving on...
> 
> My second link: Boston Tea Party Historical Society...Its to the boston tea party historical society.... yeah I would call them experts.... Their about us page is linked at the top it says "about" on the upper tab... the link ...Boston Tea Party Historical Society ... And a brief from that page...
> 
> 
> 
> About this Website
> The Boston Tea Party Historical Society is a non-profit educational and cultural organization established to preserve and share the Tea Party history. The Society collects and tells the story of the B.T.P. through an interactive website and publishing. We also occasionally debunk popular myths about the famous destruction of tea in Boston Harbor.
> 
> We hope to engage the public with the excitement of discovery, inspire people with new perspectives on the past, and illuminate the relevance of history in our lives today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude I am two for two now.... So far it looks like you just lied your ass off.... Moving on..
> 
> My third link: Boston Tea Party Ship & Museum..the site is to the Boston tea party ship and museum.... yeah another of what I would consider an expert on this subject.... ya see douchebag, their description is in the title... yeah, its a website for the people renovating the ship and creating the museum... THey are renovating and they tell you so flat out in the page. BUt if you look and follow the obvious links, you find out quite easily what they are all about... their parent company is "Historic tours of America... and in the renovation overview of the ship and museum site it says the following....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the goal of Historic Tours of America® to immerse Boston residents, heritage visitors, and students in the historical experiences and important events of and around December 16th 1773, to tell the stories of the participating men and their families, and to reinforce the way that the Boston Tea Party changed the lives of Americans forever. Indeed in bringing to life this historic event we feel that we have a responsibility and a commitment to historic preservation, heritage education, and the advancement of patriotic ideals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in a nutshell you are a lying little POS weasel...... Now go fuck yourself toad, you just showed what lowlife lying scumbag you truly are....
Click to expand...


NOW I ask you point blank, why did you dishonestly cut that out from my quote above in your post????? You cut it out because you are an unethical and immoral little POS lowlife scumbag who will lie to appear correct in a web forum.... SO you can go fuck yourself..... Worthless...

You are fucking done.... You and your little toady have tried several times to derail this thread and have shown you will go to any lengths to do so, even outright lie...... From now on sir this will follow you like a badge..... its here, its documented, and its undeniable... You deliberately cut up a quote of mine to give a false idea of what it said and what I claimed.....

Good day, and good luck trying to get some respectability back now toad.....


----------



## Bfgrn

gslack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which link are you referring to moron I gave you 3 of them..
> 
> First link: The Boston Tea Party, 1773 Their about us page is reached from a link on their homepage... Here ..EyeWitness to History - history through the eyes of those who lived it..... THen the link near the top is to their publisher called ibis Communications. ...That link goes here....Ibis Communications, Inc.... A brief from that page.....
> 
> 
> So moving on...
> 
> My second link: Boston Tea Party Historical Society...Its to the boston tea party historical society.... yeah I would call them experts.... Their about us page is linked at the top it says "about" on the upper tab... the link ...Boston Tea Party Historical Society ... And a brief from that page...
> 
> 
> Dude I am two for two now.... So far it looks like you just lied your ass off.... Moving on..
> 
> My third link: Boston Tea Party Ship & Museum..the site is to the Boston tea party ship and museum.... yeah another of what I would consider an expert on this subject.... ya see douchebag, their description is in the title... yeah, its a website for the people renovating the ship and creating the museum... THey are renovating and they tell you so flat out in the page. BUt if you look and follow the obvious links, you find out quite easily what they are all about... their parent company is "Historic tours of America... and in the renovation overview of the ship and museum site it says the following....
> 
> 
> 
> So in a nutshell you are a lying little POS weasel...... Now go fuck yourself toad, you just showed what lowlife lying scumbag you truly are....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a nutshell, what you just proved is you ARE the most obtuse pea brain on this planet.
> 
> I pointed out that your post has no author and you come back with empty PR rhetoric like 'history through the eyes of those who lived it' from a site run by a PR and marketing firm...
> *
> Company Overview*
> 
> IBIS Communications operates as an advertising agency. Its marketing communications services include strategy development, research, creative execution and production, media planning and placement, and public relations disciplines, such as crisis communications, and community and media relations. IBIS Communications was founded in 1988 and is headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee.
> IBIS Communications: Private Company Information - BusinessWeek
> 
> NOW, if you had half a brain, instead of a pea between your shoulders. And you were not a 'word' bound right wing pea brain, you'd be aware that your sources are just reinforcing and verifying what Bruce Bartlett and Thom Hartmann said...
> 
> From Boston Tea Party Ship & Museum
> 
> DECEMBER 16, 1773
> 
> On May 10, 1773, the British parliament authorized the East India Co., which faced bankruptcy due to corruption and mismanagement, to export a half a million pounds of tea to the American colonies for the purpose of selling it without imposing upon the company the usual duties and tariffs. With these privileges, the company could undersell American merchants and monopolize the colonial tea trade.
> 
> Here's your word for the day: *Duty*
> noun
> 
> _Commerce_. a specific or ad valorem tax imposed by law on the import or export of goods.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did you cut out part of my post tool????
> 
> AGAIN.....Utterly and completely shameful.... Where is my quote from the companies about us page in the first link tool.. If I am so obtuse, WHY DID YOU CUT OUT MY QUOTE???????.... Why did you deliberately cut it out of my quote???? YOU are fucking done you unethical and immoral little POS...FUCK YOU!!!!!
> 
> Again for the LIAR!!!!
> 
> 
> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which link are you referring to moron I gave you 3 of them..
> 
> First link: The Boston Tea Party, 1773 Their about us page is reached from a link on their homepage... Here ..EyeWitness to History - history through the eyes of those who lived it..... THen the link near the top is to their publisher called ibis Communications. ...That link goes here....Ibis Communications, Inc.... A brief from that page.....
> 
> 
> So moving on...
> 
> My second link: Boston Tea Party Historical Society...Its to the boston tea party historical society.... yeah I would call them experts.... Their about us page is linked at the top it says "about" on the upper tab... the link ...Boston Tea Party Historical Society ... And a brief from that page...
> 
> 
> Dude I am two for two now.... So far it looks like you just lied your ass off.... Moving on..
> 
> My third link: Boston Tea Party Ship & Museum..the site is to the Boston tea party ship and museum.... yeah another of what I would consider an expert on this subject.... ya see douchebag, their description is in the title... yeah, its a website for the people renovating the ship and creating the museum... THey are renovating and they tell you so flat out in the page. BUt if you look and follow the obvious links, you find out quite easily what they are all about... their parent company is "Historic tours of America... and in the renovation overview of the ship and museum site it says the following....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the goal of Historic Tours of America® to immerse Boston residents, heritage visitors, and students in the historical experiences and important events of and around December 16th 1773, to tell the stories of the participating men and their families, and to reinforce the way that the Boston Tea Party changed the lives of Americans forever. Indeed in bringing to life this historic event we feel that we have a responsibility and a commitment to historic preservation, heritage education, and the advancement of patriotic ideals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in a nutshell you are a lying little POS weasel...... Now go fuck yourself toad, you just showed what lowlife lying scumbag you truly are....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NOW I ask you point blank, why did you dishonestly cut that out from my quote above in your post????? You cut it out because you are an unethical and immoral little POS lowlife scumbag who will lie to appear correct in a web forum.... SO you can go fuck yourself..... Worthless...
> 
> You are fucking done.... You and your little toady have tried several times to derail this thread and have shown you will go to any lengths to do so, even outright lie...... From now on sir this will follow you like a badge..... its here, its documented, and its undeniable... You deliberately cut up a quote of mine to give a false idea of what it said and what I claimed.....
> 
> Good day, and good luck trying to get some respectability back now toad.....
Click to expand...


Like I said in a previous post: 



Bfgrn said:


> "You have penchant for "KNOWING" other people's intentions. You may believe you are just more 'informed' than the next guy. The reality is you continue to 'emote', 'project' and provide concrete proof you are a right wing moron."



I can see I am dealing with someone that has a major psychological and/or personality disorder. 

I did NOT cut out anything from your post. I hit the "Quote" button and then typed in my reply.

Here's what you do pea brain. Go to your post, hit the "Quote" button, type in a single character, then hit the "Preview Post" button...

THEN come back and issue an apology.


----------



## gslack

Funny but it left out the part you decided to cry about...... Also funny how it worked for me...... but somehow not you.... You are a liar sir....

Fuck you, you are a liar and a weasel... Go take a hike douchebag, you are a proven and documented liar and an unethical POS.....


----------



## Bfgrn

gslack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And WTH difference does it make what they protested for specifically? Seriously whether it was corporate tax cuts supported by the crown, or direct crown tax by proxy using the east india company makes no difference they felt it unfair and protested it. How the hell you can make this argument is beyond me....
> 
> And more importantly I would like some historical evidence of that claim.... Really....
> 
> Try and read something accurate and historical and not liberal slanted once in a while....
> 
> The Boston Tea Party, 1773
> 
> 
> 
> Want another reference?
> 
> Boston Tea Party Historical Society
> 
> Boston Tea Party Ship & Museum
> 
> This ignorant liberal talking point posting style of yours is getting old now.... You just posted a revisionist version of what happened and thats undeniable...
> 
> The tea party was caused by quite a few things, and one of the main things was the following...
> 
> 
> 
> Stop citing pundits and calling it factual man..its old now...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to PROVE you are the most obtuse pea brain on this planet?
> 
> _'something accurate and historical and not liberal slanted once in a while'._.. from WHOM? A marketing firm? Your posted has no author. The site has no information or even an 'About' tab.
> 
> _'This ignorant liberal talking point'_ and _'a revisionist version of what happened'_... you mean from a 'liberal' like Bruce Bartlett, who was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and was a Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush???
> 
> Clearly, your brain is of the right wing type from birth, totally incapable of comprehension or conceptualization.
> 
> A 'word' bound right wing pea brain...
> 
> BTW, Thom Hartmann's reference..."Retrospect of the Boston Tea Party with a Memoir of George R.T. Hewes, a Survivor of the Little Band of Patriots Who Drowned the Tea in Boston Harbor in 1773,"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which link are you referring to moron I gave you 3 of them..
> 
> First link: The Boston Tea Party, 1773 Their about us page is reached from a link on their homepage... Here ..EyeWitness to History - history through the eyes of those who lived it..... THen the link near the top is to their publisher called ibis Communications. ...That link goes here....Ibis Communications, Inc.... A brief from that page.....
> 
> 
> So moving on...
> 
> My second link: Boston Tea Party Historical Society...Its to the boston tea party historical society.... yeah I would call them experts.... Their about us page is linked at the top it says "about" on the upper tab... the link ...Boston Tea Party Historical Society ... And a brief from that page...
> 
> 
> 
> About this Website
> The Boston Tea Party Historical Society is a non-profit educational and cultural organization established to preserve and share the Tea Party history. The Society collects and tells the story of the B.T.P. through an interactive website and publishing. We also occasionally debunk popular myths about the famous destruction of tea in Boston Harbor.
> 
> We hope to engage the public with the excitement of discovery, inspire people with new perspectives on the past, and illuminate the relevance of history in our lives today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude I am two for two now.... So far it looks like you just lied your ass off.... Moving on..
> 
> My third link: Boston Tea Party Ship & Museum..the site is to the Boston tea party ship and museum.... yeah another of what I would consider an expert on this subject.... ya see douchebag, their description is in the title... yeah, its a website for the people renovating the ship and creating the museum... THey are renovating and they tell you so flat out in the page. BUt if you look and follow the obvious links, you find out quite easily what they are all about... their parent company is "Historic tours of America... and in the renovation overview of the ship and museum site it says the following....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the goal of Historic Tours of America® to immerse Boston residents, heritage visitors, and students in the historical experiences and important events of and around December 16th 1773, to tell the stories of the participating men and their families, and to reinforce the way that the Boston Tea Party changed the lives of Americans forever. Indeed in bringing to life this historic event we feel that we have a responsibility and a commitment to historic preservation, heritage education, and the advancement of patriotic ideals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in a nutshell you are a lying little POS weasel...... Now go fuck yourself toad, you just showed what lowlife lying scumbag you truly are....
Click to expand...


ALL I hit was the Quote button...


----------



## Foxfyre

Sigh.


----------



## gslack

Whatever pal...... I got my entire post to show, but somehow you had trouble with it... Never had a quote selectively drop sections before, especially not the sections I was going to respond to directly... I would have checked that before running my mouth about that section in particular... Especially if I was going to try and use another site to dismiss it..... 

Fuck you pal, you are done....


----------



## gslack

Foxfyre said:


> Sigh.



Sorry fox, I was hoping to have legitimate discourse on this too but evidently I have to deal with with liars, dipshits, and weasels who wish to confound the thread.. This is not a first for these two assholes, nor is it a first for their ilk..... Everytime someone gives a thoughtful post or shows some cognitive reason, tools like this have to come and try to make it impossible..


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Sigh.



Foxfire, would you please do me a favor? Go to post #276, hit the "Quote" button, type in at least one character at the bottom and hit "Submit Reply"

Thanks...


----------



## bodecea

gslack said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry fox, I was hoping to have legitimate discourse on this too but evidently I have to deal with with liars, dipshits, and weasels who wish to confound the thread.. This is not a first for these two assholes, nor is it a first for their ilk..... Everytime someone gives a thoughtful post or shows some cognitive reason, tools like this have to come and try to make it impossible..
Click to expand...


Are you a member of the Tea Party?


----------



## gslack

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfire, would you please do me a favor? Go to post #276, hit the "Quote" button, type in at least one character at the bottom and hit "Submit Reply"
> 
> Thanks...
Click to expand...


AWWW don't cry tool... Even IF it cut it out on its own, you chose that part to try and disprove....  Coincidence???? yeah right...... You are a dipshit and you insulted everyone with a clear point to make here... So go take a hike fool....


----------



## gslack

bodecea said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry fox, I was hoping to have legitimate discourse on this too but evidently I have to deal with with liars, dipshits, and weasels who wish to confound the thread.. This is not a first for these two assholes, nor is it a first for their ilk..... Everytime someone gives a thoughtful post or shows some cognitive reason, tools like this have to come and try to make it impossible..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you a member of the Tea Party?
Click to expand...


You don't get it, this isn't about political parties.... I know its difficult to grasp that someone may not be a polarized thinker, and some of us may decide to not follow a political party agenda, but please try and understand this fact...


----------



## Foxfyre

gslack said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry fox, I was hoping to have legitimate discourse on this too but evidently I have to deal with with liars, dipshits, and weasels who wish to confound the thread.. This is not a first for these two assholes, nor is it a first for their ilk..... Everytime someone gives a thoughtful post or shows some cognitive reason, tools like this have to come and try to make it impossible..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a member of the Tea Party?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get it, this isn't about political parties.... I know its difficult to grasp that someone may not be a polarized thinker, and some of us may decide to not follow a political party agenda, but please try and understand this fact...
Click to expand...


That's the whole beauty of the Tea Parties.  They are not political parties but peaceful acivist groups with a mostly clear vision of what they want accomplished.  Locally, I suspect registered Republicans have been significantly outnumbered by Democrats and Independents.  There is no way to know for sure since we didn't ask and didn't care about political party  affiliation at our gatherings.  I do know that the lay organizers of the rallies included Democrats and Independents.

But there is no 'membership' of the Tea Parties per se.  They are simply people who agree on what should be done to get this country back on track.

And again, I think the reason some fear them, and are doing their damndest to derail or deflect the discussion about that, is because they know deep down that the Tea Partiers are right.  Which of course would make their heroes in the wrong.   And that's a bitter pill for many to swallow.


----------



## gslack

Foxfyre said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you a member of the Tea Party?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get it, this isn't about political parties.... I know its difficult to grasp that someone may not be a polarized thinker, and some of us may decide to not follow a political party agenda, but please try and understand this fact...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the whole beauty of the Tea Parties.  They are not political parties but peaceful acivist groups with a mostly clear vision of what they want accomplished.  Locally, I suspect registered Republicans have been significantly outnumbered by Democrats and Independents.  There is no way to know for sure since we didn't ask and didn't care about political party  affiliation at our gatherings.  I do know that the lay organizers of the rallies included Democrats and Independents.
> 
> But there is no 'membership' of the Tea Parties per se.  They are simply people who agree on what should be done to get this country back on track.
> 
> And again, I think the reason some fear them, and are doing their damndest to derail or deflect the discussion about that, is because they know deep down that the Tea Partiers are right.  Which of course would make their heroes in the wrong.   And that's a bitter pill for many to swallow.
Click to expand...


nearly the same here as far as affiliation... This is not about party affiliation, its about people being sick and tired of placating politicians who repeatedly lie to them..


----------



## Foxfyre

gslack said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get it, this isn't about political parties.... I know its difficult to grasp that someone may not be a polarized thinker, and some of us may decide to not follow a political party agenda, but please try and understand this fact...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the whole beauty of the Tea Parties.  They are not political parties but peaceful acivist groups with a mostly clear vision of what they want accomplished.  Locally, I suspect registered Republicans have been significantly outnumbered by Democrats and Independents.  There is no way to know for sure since we didn't ask and didn't care about political party  affiliation at our gatherings.  I do know that the lay organizers of the rallies included Democrats and Independents.
> 
> But there is no 'membership' of the Tea Parties per se.  They are simply people who agree on what should be done to get this country back on track.
> 
> And again, I think the reason some fear them, and are doing their damndest to derail or deflect the discussion about that, is because they know deep down that the Tea Partiers are right.  Which of course would make their heroes in the wrong.   And that's a bitter pill for many to swallow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nearly the same here as far as affiliation... This is not about party affiliation, its about people being sick and tired of placating politicians who repeatedly lie to them..
Click to expand...


Well there is that too.  But for most of the folks here, I think it is just disgust with both Republicans and Democrats and everything in between who seem to have forgotten why they are in leadership.  They seem oblivious to what is happening around them and continue doing business as usual, which in Washington has become pretty darn corrupt. They aren't tending to business but keep digging us into a deeper and deeper hole.  Nor do they have their priorities straight.  Nor do they seem to be hearing what we the people are saying to them.

It was a different situation back in 1773, but the dynamics were much the same.  Those in government had become more and more corrupt and the people finally simply had enough.  So the first Tea Party happened.  It was not civil disobedience as much as a statement that the people were mad as hell and they weren't going to take it any more.  Those who wanted to maintain the status quo and didn't want to rock the boat were as frightened of or disgusted with those Tea Partiers as are those who want to maintain the status quo and don't want to rock the boat now and are frightened by the Tea Partiers now.

But those first Tea Partiers gave us the greatest nation the world has ever known.

The present Tea Partiers intend to restore that nation.

We can only hope they will succeed.


----------



## Bfgrn

gslack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfire, would you please do me a favor? Go to post #276, hit the "Quote" button, type in at least one character at the bottom and hit "Submit Reply"
> 
> Thanks...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AWWW don't cry tool... Even IF it cut it out on its own, you chose that part to try and disprove....  Coincidence???? yeah right...... You are a dipshit and you insulted everyone with a clear point to make here... So go take a hike fool....
Click to expand...


Coincidence???? HOW would I know it would cut that part out before I posted it? I didn't even notice it until you falsely accused me of cutting it out. AND, it wasn't my focus because there is nothing to disprove. The sites I provided and you followed up with provide the same narrative.


----------



## Foxfyre

Bfgm, would it be possible....just a teeny bit possible.....for you to read the OP again and focus on that?   I think many would sooooo much appreciate that.  Thanking you in advance.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgm, would it be possible....just a teeny bit possible.....for you to read the OP again and focus on that?   I think many would sooooo much appreciate that.  Thanking you in advance.



I DID...you just can't accept that I vehemently disagree with the OP, with your utopian, naive vision of the teabaggers and that I have posted pertinent information you choose to ignore. 

... the Jeffersons, Adams, and Franklins would NEVER have a racist and xenophobe like Tom Tancredo as a key speaker at their convention.

And, the Jeffersons, Adams, and Franklins would NEVER call for dismantling government social programs, while BEING on the public dole.

The teabaggers are just a bunch of whiners that can't accept the will of the people.


----------



## Foxfyre

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgm, would it be possible....just a teeny bit possible.....for you to read the OP again and focus on that?   I think many would sooooo much appreciate that.  Thanking you in advance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I DID...you just can't accept that I vehemently disagree with the OP, with your utopian, naive vision of the teabaggers and that I have posted pertinent information you choose to ignore.
> 
> ... the Jeffersons, Adams, and Franklins would NEVER have a racist and xenophobe like Tom Tancredo as a key speaker at their convention.
> 
> And, the Jeffersons, Adams, and Franklins would NEVER call for dismantling government social programs, while BEING on the public dole.
> 
> The teabaggers are just a bunch of whiners that can't accept the will of the people.
Click to expand...


I contend that Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin would never have agreed to those social programs in the first place.  All were pretty clear that they did not see it as the role of the Federal government to dispense charity or benevolence of any kind.  In fact they prudently saw that as immoral, a corrupting force, and a danger to human freedoms.   Which is pretty well what has happened once our government leaders presumed to ignore their wise counsel.

I suspect if we could bring those guys and their colleagues back now, they would assess the situation and begin the process of reversing the damage.  They would understand that it would have to be done incrementally just as it has accrued to avoid causing indefensible pain and suffering to those the government has made dependent on government.

I think the Tea Partiers would support them whole heartedly in that process.

And back to the thesis of the thread, this would frighten you why?


----------



## gslack

Bfgrn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfire, would you please do me a favor? Go to post #276, hit the "Quote" button, type in at least one character at the bottom and hit "Submit Reply"
> 
> Thanks...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AWWW don't cry tool... Even IF it cut it out on its own, you chose that part to try and disprove....  Coincidence???? yeah right...... You are a dipshit and you insulted everyone with a clear point to make here... So go take a hike fool....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Coincidence???? HOW would I know it would cut that part out before I posted it? I didn't even notice it until you falsely accused me of cutting it out. AND, it wasn't my focus because there is nothing to disprove. The sites I provided and you followed up with provide the same narrative.
Click to expand...


Dude you provided *one* site to my knowledge and it was to some OPED piece....

I provided *THREE* sites and all were non-partisan and all were educational or historical monument/factual based.... And ALL THREE of them YOU LIED about....

Also, you really should learn to read objectively and not subjectively... Your OPED you cited gives a simplistic, polarized/opinionated and twisted version of it. The author claimed it was about corporate welfare or some such similar nonsense. That is a mis-characterization and an deliberate one at that... 

My first cited source said the following...



> *In May of 1773 Parliament concocted a clever plan. They gave the struggling East India Company a monopoly on the importation of tea to America. Additionally, Parliament reduced the duty the colonies would have to pay for the imported tea. The Americans would now get their tea at a cheaper price than ever before. However, if the colonies paid the duty tax on the imported tea they would be acknowledging Parliament's right to tax them. Tea was a staple of colonial life - it was assumed that the colonists would rather pay the tax than deny themselves the pleasure of a cup of tea.*
> 
> *The colonists were not fooled by Parliament's ploy. When the East India Company sent shipments of tea to Philadelphia and New York the ships were not allowed to land. In Charleston the tea-laden ships were permitted to dock but their cargo was consigned to a warehouse where it remained for three years until it was sold by patriots in order to help finance the revolution.*
> 
> *In Boston, the arrival of three tea ships ignited a furious reaction. The crisis came to a head on December 16, 1773 when as many as 7,000 agitated locals milled about the wharf where the ships were docked. A mass meeting at the Old South Meeting House that morning resolved that the tea ships should leave the harbor without payment of any duty. A committee was selected to take this message to the Customs House to force release of the ships out of the harbor. The Collector of Customs refused to allow the ships to leave without payment of the duty. Stalemate. The committee reported back to the mass meeting and a howl erupted from the meeting hall. It was now early evening and a group of about 200 men, some disguised as Indians, assembled on a near-by hill. Whopping war chants, the crowd marched two-by-two to the wharf, descended upon the three ships and dumped their offending cargos of tea into the harbor waters.*
> 
> Most colonists applauded the action while the reaction in London was swift and vehement. In March 1774 Parliament passed the Intolerable Acts which among other measures closed the Port of Boston. The fuse that led directly to the explosion of American independence was lit.



Read the bolded part liar.... not the same thing at all IS IT.....Liar...

My other cited source said the following....



> *In 1773 the East India Company was one of the strongholds of British economy. Suddenly it found itself at odds with the American non-importation restrictions on tea and with a huge inventory it could not move. The company was not able to meet its payment on dividends and loans and was moving towards bankruptcy. Of course the British government was reluctant to let it happen from fear that this may disrupt financial markets. As an alternative to a direct loan the Ministry decided to allow the company to send tea to America without paying an export duty.*



Again NOT the same thing YOU OPED piece claimed at all.. IS IT....

Now I am done dealing with your childish ramblings and bullshit to derail this thread.... you lied, you got caught, and then you tried to lie by omitting some of my post either by deliberate act or a convenient action by you to use what happened to cover it up. Either way it was dishonest to try and use a part removed from my quote to try and make a claim against it.....

Grow up, you got caught thinking you know everything and coming up short once again... If you cannot debate the thread fairly and without badgering, crying, and confounding it under inconsequential side quibbling, then you already failed....


----------



## gslack

Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgm, would it be possible....just a teeny bit possible.....for you to read the OP again and focus on that?   I think many would sooooo much appreciate that.  Thanking you in advance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I DID...you just can't accept that I vehemently disagree with the OP, with your utopian, naive vision of the teabaggers and that I have posted pertinent information you choose to ignore.
> 
> ... the Jeffersons, Adams, and Franklins would NEVER have a racist and xenophobe like Tom Tancredo as a key speaker at their convention.
> 
> And, the Jeffersons, Adams, and Franklins would NEVER call for dismantling government social programs, while BEING on the public dole.
> 
> The teabaggers are just a bunch of whiners that can't accept the will of the people.
Click to expand...


Dude you beat all I have seen on here.... Seriously, you insulted her repeatedly, then have the nerve to beg her t help you, only to try and lie about what you have done in this thread so far.... WTF dude, grow up!

And BTW delusional man, Jefferson had slaves... Was he a saint? No.... Was he a devil? Not compared to many many others at that time... He was a product of the times and culture prevalent at those times. Good or bad he was not so unique in his duality of feeling on way yet living another... So the race argument you just tried to make is just plain ignorant of reality of the times.... 

And you can no sooner condemn all tea party attendees based one speaker, as you can condemn all white people for one person... All of your rhetoric comes straight from liberal media, so you can now officially kiss both cheeks of my ass...


----------



## LANMaster

Bfgrn said:


> In the context of the original 'tea partiers', our founding fathers, today's teabaggers would be diametrically opposed to our founders. The bag brains would be standing WITH, not against the British East India Company.


 I disagree.



> The real Boston Tea Party was a protest against huge corporate tax cuts for the British East India Company, the largest trans-national corporation then in existence. This corporate tax cut threatened to decimate small Colonial businesses by helping the British East India Company pull a Wal-Mart against small entrepreneurial tea shops, and individuals began a revolt that kicked-off a series of events that ended in the creation of The United States of America.


 You are mistaken.   The Colonists couldn't care less what taxes that the BEI Co paid to England.  It was the taxes on the Colonists by K.George that got the Colonists all peeved.   And the fact that the BEI Co. was willing to leapfrog taxes onto the Colonists, which is why the Colonists took the over-taxation out on the BEI Co to begin with.

Your history is utterly askew.   Where do you get your information?

Oh .... wait .... you get your information from sources such as you provided below.    That explains your mis-information .... to a point.



> You teabaggers are the biggest pea brains on the planet.
> 
> The Truth About the Tea Party (the Original One)
> by Bruce Bartlett
> 
> _*Bruce Bartlett was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and was a Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush.
> *_
> 
> The Real Boston Tea Party was an Anti-Corporate Revolt
> by Thom Hartmann



Balderdash.   You, sir, are a liar.  Or at the very least, you support liars such asd found at every oine of the above links.



Liberals are inherently dishonest, as proven by your post ... sparkling tiara of expansive woeful ignorance.


----------



## LANMaster

AllieBaba said:


> Quick, somebody feel embarassed for Bfgrn.
> 
> I can't because I like it when he exposes his inner tard.



It is difficult to muster up pity for someone who is voluntarily ignorant.  

So many people are simply liberal because they were raised to be ignorant ..... I feel sorry for them, and hope to educate them on the realities of facts, especially history.
Others choose ignorance as a lifestyle and must build their foundation of ignorance on sources like commondreams.  

Hard to feel sorry for such intentional poisoning.


----------



## AquaAthena

The Tea Party is so frightening, because we are civilized and growing....


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgm, would it be possible....just a teeny bit possible.....for you to read the OP again and focus on that?   I think many would sooooo much appreciate that.  Thanking you in advance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I DID...you just can't accept that I vehemently disagree with the OP, with your utopian, naive vision of the teabaggers and that I have posted pertinent information you choose to ignore.
> 
> ... the Jeffersons, Adams, and Franklins would NEVER have a racist and xenophobe like Tom Tancredo as a key speaker at their convention.
> 
> And, the Jeffersons, Adams, and Franklins would NEVER call for dismantling government social programs, while BEING on the public dole.
> 
> The teabaggers are just a bunch of whiners that can't accept the will of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I contend that Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin would never have agreed to those social programs in the first place.  All were pretty clear that they did not see it as the role of the Federal government to dispense charity or benevolence of any kind.  In fact they prudently saw that as immoral, a corrupting force, and a danger to human freedoms.   Which is pretty well what has happened once our government leaders presumed to ignore their wise counsel.
> 
> I suspect if we could bring those guys and their colleagues back now, they would assess the situation and begin the process of reversing the damage.  They would understand that it would have to be done incrementally just as it has accrued to avoid causing indefensible pain and suffering to those the government has made dependent on government.
> 
> I think the Tea Partiers would support them whole heartedly in that process.
> 
> And back to the thesis of the thread, this would frighten you why?
Click to expand...


I disagree. The thing our founding fathers would view as a major breach of the government they created is the moneyed interests, lobbyists and special interests that have been able to buy socialism and welfare for themselves and create an aristocracy similar to the England they rebelled against.

But instead of arguing with you over ideology, give me YOUR solutions to health care for elderly people that leave the workforce and and retire.

What are your solutions for a single working mother that doesn't make enough to feed her children.

What are your solutions for a provider to pay bills and feed his family if he looses his job and can't find immediate employment, or if he is injured on the job and can't work.


----------



## AllieBaba

Elderly people are the responsibility of their families, themselves, and the community they live in...as they have always been in every culture that has ever existed.

NOT the federal government.


----------



## Bfgrn

AllieBaba said:


> Elderly people are the responsibility of their families, themselves, and the community they live in...as they have always been in every culture that has ever existed.
> 
> NOT the federal government.



So, when the father or mother reach an age where they can no longer work, earn a full wage and pay for health insurance, it becomes the responsibility of the children who are probably starting their own family and have their own expenses. And if they can't afford it, they can at least make them comfortable as they watch their parent die...

What a warm vision of America...

Hey, maybe mom or dad will refuse to retire, and just work until their day of death. 

Another warm vision of America... 

Your vision of America invites the fate of Robert Frost's hired man, the fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, and nothing to look forward to with hope."


----------



## Foxfyre

Bfgrn said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Elderly people are the responsibility of their families, themselves, and the community they live in...as they have always been in every culture that has ever existed.
> 
> NOT the federal government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, when the father or mother reach an age where they can no longer work, earn a full wage and pay for health insurance, it becomes the responsibility of the children who are probably starting their own family and have their own expenses. And if they can't afford it, they can at least make them comfortable as they watch their parent die...
> 
> What a warm vision of America...
> 
> Hey, maybe mom or dad will refuse to retire, and just work until their day of death.
> 
> Another warm vision of America...
> 
> Your vision of America invites the fate of Robert Frost's hired man, the fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, and nothing to look forward to with hope."
Click to expand...


It's a hell of a lot warmer to me than is the guy who doesn't want the responsibility for his family and wants the state (meaning everybody else) to do it so he doesn't have to concern himself in any way.


----------



## AllieBaba

Bfgrn said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Elderly people are the responsibility of their families, themselves, and the community they live in...as they have always been in every culture that has ever existed.
> 
> NOT the federal government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, when the father or mother reach an age where they can no longer work, earn a full wage and pay for health insurance, it becomes the responsibility of the children who are probably starting their own family and have their own expenses. And if they can't afford it, they can at least make them comfortable as they watch their parent die...
> 
> What a warm vision of America...
> 
> Hey, maybe mom or dad will refuse to retire, and just work until their day of death.
> 
> Another warm vision of America...
> 
> Your vision of America invites the fate of Robert Frost's hired man, the fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, and nothing to look forward to with hope."
Click to expand...


That is the vision of America we have traditionally had until the last 50 years or so, when the left started screwing things up. You guys didn't want to take care of your folks, so you have mandated that the fed government do so.

Well it doesn't work out too well. You want to see a warm vision of America, look down the throats of elderly people who raised their kids to believe the government would take care of mom & pop when they got old....and who have to survive on $600 a month and NO KIDS AROUND. You want to see a warm vision of America, check out the assisted living facilities and nursing homes, where idiots like you dump your people because you think the federal government should take care of them.

Thanks, my mom has a home until she dies with her kids. Fuck you and fuck the government. We'll take care of her when the time comes. Because that's what decent human beings do.


----------



## LANMaster

Bfgrn said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Elderly people are the responsibility of their families, themselves, and the community they live in...as they have always been in every culture that has ever existed.
> 
> NOT the federal government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, when the father or mother reach an age where they can no longer work, earn a full wage and pay for health insurance, it becomes the responsibility of the children who are probably starting their own family and have their own expenses. And if they can't afford it, they can at least make them comfortable as they watch their parent die...
> 
> What a warm vision of America...
> 
> Hey, maybe mom or dad will refuse to retire, and just work until their day of death.
> 
> Another warm vision of America...
> 
> Your vision of America invites the fate of Robert Frost's hired man, the fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, and nothing to look forward to with hope."
Click to expand...


I supported Medicare.  But I do not support this cradle-to-grave welfare mentality that says you are just plain too stupid to save for your own retirement, therefore it is the job of the Federal Government to steal from others to provide you with the means to do what you refused to do for yourself.
The entire population suffers from this idiotic notion, and it has been tried ad nauseum throughout history.  It works for a decade or so, then the money runs out, and tyrrany is the natural result.   Look at Greece.   Look at where they will be 5 years from now.  It's not pretty, and it is exactly what your political ilk supports.


----------



## Bfgrn

LANMaster said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Elderly people are the responsibility of their families, themselves, and the community they live in...as they have always been in every culture that has ever existed.
> 
> NOT the federal government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, when the father or mother reach an age where they can no longer work, earn a full wage and pay for health insurance, it becomes the responsibility of the children who are probably starting their own family and have their own expenses. And if they can't afford it, they can at least make them comfortable as they watch their parent die...
> 
> What a warm vision of America...
> 
> Hey, maybe mom or dad will refuse to retire, and just work until their day of death.
> 
> Another warm vision of America...
> 
> Your vision of America invites the fate of Robert Frost's hired man, the fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, and nothing to look forward to with hope."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I supported Medicare.  But I do not support this cradle-to-grave welfare mentality that says you are just plain too stupid to save for your own retirement, therefore it is the job of the Federal Government to steal from others to provide you with the means to do what you refused to do for yourself.
> The entire population suffers from this idiotic notion, and it has been tried ad nauseum throughout history.  It works for a decade or so, then the money runs out, and tyrrany is the natural result.   Look at Greece.   Look at where they will be 5 years from now.  It's not pretty, and it is exactly what your political ilk supports.
Click to expand...


Social Security didn't run out. The money was stolen by Ronald Reagan. Social Security does steal from others, everyone pays into it, and everyone becomes eligible to collect benefits. Paying into Social Security does not prohibit or prevent an individual from saving for their own retirement.

The mentality that I hate is how the right always diminishes human beings and finds a way to dehumanize poverty.

"Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
Ted Sorensen


----------



## geauxtohell

Foxfyre said:


> Sigh.



Bemoan the continual derailment of this thread all you want, but you'll notice that there is a common denominator, and I know you are honest enough to see what it is.


----------



## geauxtohell

gslack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And WTH difference does it make what they protested for specifically? Seriously whether it was corporate tax cuts supported by the crown, or direct crown tax by proxy using the east india company makes no difference they felt it unfair and protested it. How the hell you can make this argument is beyond me....
> 
> And more importantly I would like some historical evidence of that claim.... Really....
> 
> Try and read something accurate and historical and not liberal slanted once in a while....
> 
> The Boston Tea Party, 1773
> 
> 
> 
> Want another reference?
> 
> Boston Tea Party Historical Society
> 
> Boston Tea Party Ship & Museum
> 
> This ignorant liberal talking point posting style of yours is getting old now.... You just posted a revisionist version of what happened and thats undeniable...
> 
> The tea party was caused by quite a few things, and one of the main things was the following...
> 
> 
> 
> Stop citing pundits and calling it factual man..its old now...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to PROVE you are the most obtuse pea brain on this planet?
> 
> _'something accurate and historical and not liberal slanted once in a while'._.. from WHOM? A marketing firm? Your posted has no author. The site has no information or even an 'About' tab.
> 
> _'This ignorant liberal talking point'_ and _'a revisionist version of what happened'_... you mean from a 'liberal' like Bruce Bartlett, who was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and was a Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush???
> 
> Clearly, your brain is of the right wing type from birth, totally incapable of comprehension or conceptualization.
> 
> A 'word' bound right wing pea brain...
> 
> BTW, Thom Hartmann's reference..."Retrospect of the Boston Tea Party with a Memoir of George R.T. Hewes, a Survivor of the Little Band of Patriots Who Drowned the Tea in Boston Harbor in 1773,"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which link are you referring to moron I gave you 3 of them..
> 
> First link: The Boston Tea Party, 1773 Their about us page is reached from a link on their homepage... Here ..EyeWitness to History - history through the eyes of those who lived it..... THen the link near the top is to their publisher called ibis Communications. ...That link goes here....Ibis Communications, Inc.... A brief from that page.....
> 
> 
> So moving on...
> 
> My second link: Boston Tea Party Historical Society...Its to the boston tea party historical society.... yeah I would call them experts.... Their about us page is linked at the top it says "about" on the upper tab... the link ...Boston Tea Party Historical Society ... And a brief from that page...
> 
> 
> 
> About this Website
> The Boston Tea Party Historical Society is a non-profit educational and cultural organization established to preserve and share the Tea Party history. The Society collects and tells the story of the B.T.P. through an interactive website and publishing. We also occasionally debunk popular myths about the famous destruction of tea in Boston Harbor.
> 
> We hope to engage the public with the excitement of discovery, inspire people with new perspectives on the past, and illuminate the relevance of history in our lives today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude I am two for two now.... So far it looks like you just lied your ass off.... Moving on..
> 
> My third link: Boston Tea Party Ship & Museum..the site is to the Boston tea party ship and museum.... yeah another of what I would consider an expert on this subject.... ya see douchebag, their description is in the title... yeah, its a website for the people renovating the ship and creating the museum... THey are renovating and they tell you so flat out in the page. BUt if you look and follow the obvious links, you find out quite easily what they are all about... their parent company is "Historic tours of America... and in the renovation overview of the ship and museum site it says the following....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the goal of Historic Tours of America® to immerse Boston residents, heritage visitors, and students in the historical experiences and important events of and around December 16th 1773, to tell the stories of the participating men and their families, and to reinforce the way that the Boston Tea Party changed the lives of Americans forever. Indeed in bringing to life this historic event we feel that we have a responsibility and a commitment to historic preservation, heritage education, and the advancement of patriotic ideals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in a nutshell you are a lying little POS weasel...... Now go fuck yourself toad, you just showed what lowlife lying scumbag you truly are....
Click to expand...


.


----------



## geauxtohell

^ Post 276 quoted.



Bfgrn said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfire, would you please do me a favor? Go to post #276, hit the "Quote" button, type in at least one character at the bottom and hit "Submit Reply"
> 
> Thanks...
Click to expand...


----------



## Foxfyre

geauxtohell said:


> ^ Post 276 quoted.
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfire, would you please do me a favor? Go to post #276, hit the "Quote" button, type in at least one character at the bottom and hit "Submit Reply"
> 
> Thanks...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Why would I want to do that with a post I didn't bother to read?  And have no interest in reading now?


----------



## geauxtohell

Foxfyre said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^ Post 276 quoted.
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfire, would you please do me a favor? Go to post #276, hit the "Quote" button, type in at least one character at the bottom and hit "Submit Reply"
> 
> Thanks...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would I want to do that with a post I didn't bother to read?  And have no interest in reading now?
Click to expand...


Because gslack accused bf of doing something dishonest when he quoted him.  

Bf merely wanted to point out that he hadn't and asked you for a favor.


----------



## Bfgrn

geauxtohell said:


> ^ Post 276 quoted.
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfire, would you please do me a favor? Go to post #276, hit the "Quote" button, type in at least one character at the bottom and hit "Submit Reply"
> 
> Thanks...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Thanks geauxtohell...the same omission as my post, do you think I will get an apology from gslack? Do you think pigs can fly? ...


----------



## Foxfyre

Sorry guys.  You'll have to find somebody else to participate in schoolyard mud slinging sessions.  If ya'll enjoy that sort of thing okay, but they frankly bore me out of my mind and I simply don't want to expend the time or energy.  Thanks for understanding.


----------



## geauxtohell

Bfgrn said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^ Post 276 quoted.
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfire, would you please do me a favor? Go to post #276, hit the "Quote" button, type in at least one character at the bottom and hit "Submit Reply"
> 
> Thanks...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks geauxtohell...the same omission as my post, do you think I will get an apology from gslack? Do you think pigs can fly? ...
Click to expand...


He won't apologize.  He didn't apologize to me (despite prattling on about my character) about a falsehood he stated about me (that I told him three separate times in two separate threads that I was a med student) when I had never told him I was a med student.  He just brushed it off.  So he demands the highest of integrity from other posters and brushes off any facts that he might be operating in bad faith.  That seems to be the way he rolls.

BTW, now we will be accused of being in collusion and/or sock-puppetry.


----------



## geauxtohell

Foxfyre said:


> Sorry guys.  You'll have to find somebody else to participate in schoolyard mud slinging sessions.  If ya'll enjoy that sort of thing okay, but they frankly bore me out of my mind and I simply don't want to expend the time or energy.  Thanks for understanding.



Like I said, you are honest enough to see what the common denominator is here and it types in big font.


----------



## Foxfyre

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I still don't want to get caught up in anybody's cat fight.


----------



## geauxtohell

Foxfyre said:


> Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I still don't want to get caught up in anybody's cat fight.



I don't blame you for that.  I had actually un-subscribed to this thread to keep it from getting "de-railed" at your request.

I came back and, lo and behold, the thread is derailed again.

I can only be blamed for shenanigans when I was actually present when they occurred.


----------



## gslack

The most unbelievable display of immaturity in this forum since HUGGY.......HAHHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHA!

Geaxtohell and Bfgrn .... tell me again how you don't work together.... You two fucking idiots just sat here in several posts defending one another and taking turns badgering me and derailing this thread, and then have the unmitigated gall to beg someone else to take your side????

HAHHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Fuck you both you two little whiny punk bitches LOL..OMG....

its my thread douchebag... I started it, I set the topic. Get it? yeah so how can I be the person derailing my own thread?????

You two douchebags crack me up... From your incessant crying and whining to your begging others to believe your bullshit..... Seriously, you two need a life.....LOL


----------



## geauxtohell

gslack said:


> The most unbelievable display of immaturity in this forum since HUGGY.......HAHHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHA!
> 
> Geaxtohell and Bfgrn .... tell me again how you don't work together.... You two fucking idiots just sat here in several posts defending one another and taking turns badgering me and derailing this thread, and then have the unmitigated gall to beg someone else to take your side????
> 
> HAHHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> 
> Fuck you both you two little whiny punk bitches LOL..OMG....
> 
> its my thread douchebag... I started it, I set the topic. Get it? yeah so how can I be the person derailing my own thread?????
> 
> You two douchebags crack me up... From your incessant crying and whining to your begging others to believe your bullshit..... Seriously, you two need a life.....LOL



Yeah slacker, you are the sane one here.  It's the rest of the world that is crazy.

At any rate, I'll go ahead and un-subscribe now before I derail your thread anymore than you have already done so.

Oh that's right, since you started the thread it's not "de-railing" it.

You are never the problem.  It's always everyone else.

Whatever.


----------



## gslack

geauxtohell said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> The most unbelievable display of immaturity in this forum since HUGGY.......HAHHAHAHAHAAHHAAHAHA!
> 
> Geaxtohell and Bfgrn .... tell me again how you don't work together.... You two fucking idiots just sat here in several posts defending one another and taking turns badgering me and derailing this thread, and then have the unmitigated gall to beg someone else to take your side????
> 
> HAHHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> 
> Fuck you both you two little whiny punk bitches LOL..OMG....
> 
> its my thread douchebag... I started it, I set the topic. Get it? yeah so how can I be the person derailing my own thread?????
> 
> You two douchebags crack me up... From your incessant crying and whining to your begging others to believe your bullshit..... Seriously, you two need a life.....LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah slacker, you are the sane one here.  It's the rest of the world that is crazy.
> 
> At any rate, I go ahead and un-subscribe now I derail your thread anymore than you have already done so.
> 
> Oh that's right, since you started the thread it's not "de-railing" it.
> 
> You are never the problem.  It's always everyone else.
> 
> Whatever.
Click to expand...


Yeah how convenient you leave now that I am back from actually doing something in the real world tool... Boy Mr. Med student you sure have a lot of time to dedicate to me.... Is there anyone here you DIDN'T cry to about me???? LOL, two threads and all day you whined, begged, cried and slung snot and tears like a little punk bitch about me.....

Dude you should go cry some more I am sure some people didn't hear you yet.....HAHHAAHHHAAA!

Dude I am embarrassed for you....


----------



## Foxfyre

geauxtohell said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I still don't want to get caught up in anybody's cat fight.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't blame you for that.  I had actually un-subscribed to this thread to keep it from getting "de-railed" at your request.
> 
> I came back and, lo and behold, the thread is derailed again.
> 
> I can only be blamed for shenanigans when I was actually present when they occurred.
Click to expand...


LOL.  Well I'm not gonna judge anybody as I sometimes could easily qualify as the "Queen of Derailment"  

Happens to the best of us.


----------



## Big Fitz

Gawd... Just went back and read a few of the pages of hyperventilation.  Just unbelievable and funny how divorced from reality and their own real motivations they are.

These progressives on the thread here REALLY fear the tea parties because out of the blue, a popular uprising of like-minded Americans are about to dismantle what it took the left 90 years to build in less than 2-4 years.


----------



## Murf76

Big Fitz said:


> These progressives on the thread here REALLY fear the tea parties because out of the blue, a popular uprising of like-minded Americans are about to dismantle what it took the left 90 years to build in less than 2-4 years.



People are reeducating themselves on the founding principles, economic concepts, the Constitution, etc.

Here's today's Amazon.com bestseller list.  There's a 50-year old title at #1 that Glenn Beck talked about on his show just yesterday, _The Road to Serfdom_.  His show was on a 5pm EST yesterday, and by 9am this morning... it's #1.
 [ame]http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books[/ame]


----------



## Big Fitz

Murf76 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> These progressives on the thread here REALLY fear the tea parties because out of the blue, a popular uprising of like-minded Americans are about to dismantle what it took the left 90 years to build in less than 2-4 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People are reeducating themselves on the founding principles, economic concepts, the Constitution, etc.
> 
> Here's today's Amazon.com bestseller list.  There's a 50-year old title at #1 that Glenn Beck talked about on his show just yesterday, _The Road to Serfdom_.  His show was on a 5pm EST yesterday, and by 9am this morning... it's #1.
> [ame]http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books[/ame]
Click to expand...

that's what I love about Glenn Beck.  He's doing a fabulous job getting the word out on the evil that is progressivism.

He his almost singlehandedly sabotaging the leftist plans for this nation by teaching, exposing and alerting millions around the world to what's going on and what the endgame is.


----------



## Murf76

Big Fitz said:


> that's what I love about Glenn Beck.  He's doing a fabulous job getting the word out on the evil that is progressivism.
> 
> He his almost singlehandedly sabotaging the leftist plans for this nation by teaching, exposing and alerting millions around the world to what's going on and what the endgame is.



He's at his best when he's "teaching", particularly when he does it with humor.  I have to admit though... sometimes he gets a bit preachy and off-topic.  But all in all, he's doing a heckuva job.  It's no wonder the left has it's collective drawers in a bunch over him.

The link above isn't working, btw.  I can't figure out why unless it's because it's updating hourly.


----------



## Big Fitz

I prefer his radio show, so there's that.

And now we can cue the new mutation of BDS... BECK Derangement Syndrome in 

3...
2...
1...


----------



## gslack

LOL, every time I speak to either Goatsucker or Biff, I get this visual..


----------



## Foxfyre

Murf76 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's what I love about Glenn Beck.  He's doing a fabulous job getting the word out on the evil that is progressivism.
> 
> He his almost singlehandedly sabotaging the leftist plans for this nation by teaching, exposing and alerting millions around the world to what's going on and what the endgame is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's at his best when he's "teaching", particularly when he does it with humor.  I have to admit though... sometimes he gets a bit preachy and off-topic.  But all in all, he's doing a heckuva job.  It's no wonder the left has it's collective drawers in a bunch over him.
> 
> The link above isn't working, btw.  I can't figure out why unless it's because it's updating hourly.
Click to expand...


Beck really is in a class all by himself when it comes to the depth of his research and the stuff he is bringing to the surface that would otherwise be mostly buried.  He has kind of taken over Matt Drudge's role in that as Drudge doesn't seem to be doing as much of it as he used to.  And Beck is usually entertaining, but I do limit exposure to avoid information overload.  And sometimes he can be depressing when he illustrates how far off the rails we have gone in so many areas.

And like anybody who is on television and the radio for several hours every week, he will be sometimes over the top, sometimes exaggerates for effect, is sometimes wrong.

Of course it is any error or exaggeration that his critics focus on and build into huge issues while ignoring all the stuff they can't attack because they have no ammunition to do so.  And that doesn't even count the lies they make up about him and put out there as 'fact'.

But just like the Tea Partiers and groups like them, it is the Glenn Becks of the world that the Left wants to shut up or destroy the most.

And I again, I believe it is because deep down, they know they are right, and if they prevail will destroy the myths that support and sustain the wingnut segment of the Left.  They would rather see the country go down the tubes than have to admit that somebody like Glenn Beck was right.


----------



## gslack

Foxfyre said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's what I love about Glenn Beck.  He's doing a fabulous job getting the word out on the evil that is progressivism.
> 
> He his almost singlehandedly sabotaging the leftist plans for this nation by teaching, exposing and alerting millions around the world to what's going on and what the endgame is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's at his best when he's "teaching", particularly when he does it with humor.  I have to admit though... sometimes he gets a bit preachy and off-topic.  But all in all, he's doing a heckuva job.  It's no wonder the left has it's collective drawers in a bunch over him.
> 
> The link above isn't working, btw.  I can't figure out why unless it's because it's updating hourly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Beck really is in a class all by himself when it comes to the depth of his research and the stuff he is bringing to the surface that would otherwise be mostly buried.  He has kind of taken over Matt Drudge's role in that as Drudge doesn't seem to be doing as much of it as he used to.  And Beck is usually entertaining, but I do limit exposure to avoid information overload.  And sometimes he can be depressing when he illustrates how far off the rails we have gone in so many areas.
> 
> And like anybody who is on television and the radio for several hours every week, he will be sometimes over the top, sometimes exaggerates for effect, is sometimes wrong.
> 
> Of course it is any error or exaggeration that his critics focus on and build into huge issues while ignoring all the stuff they can't attack because they have no ammunition to do so.  And that doesn't even count the lies they make up about him and put out there as 'fact'.
> 
> But just like the Tea Partiers and groups like them, it is the Glenn Becks of the world that the Left wants to shut up or destroy the most.
> 
> And I again, I believe it is because deep down, they know they are right, and if they prevail will destroy the myths that support and sustain the wingnut segment of the Left.  They would rather see the country go down the tubes than have to admit that somebody like Glenn Beck was right.
Click to expand...


To be perfectly honest fox, I try and avoid beck, hannity, limbaugh, etc... Just as i avoid olberman and his ilk... Just don't trust any big networks not to mess with information anymore. And all of them have big networks and their corporations hands in their broadcasts... 

Maybe beck is the least suspect, but I still feel if I am going to dismiss olberman I have to do the same with other ones as well.... Hope I am wrong though, we need an authentic and trustworthy voice out there..


----------



## Foxfyre

gslack said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's at his best when he's "teaching", particularly when he does it with humor.  I have to admit though... sometimes he gets a bit preachy and off-topic.  But all in all, he's doing a heckuva job.  It's no wonder the left has it's collective drawers in a bunch over him.
> 
> The link above isn't working, btw.  I can't figure out why unless it's because it's updating hourly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beck really is in a class all by himself when it comes to the depth of his research and the stuff he is bringing to the surface that would otherwise be mostly buried.  He has kind of taken over Matt Drudge's role in that as Drudge doesn't seem to be doing as much of it as he used to.  And Beck is usually entertaining, but I do limit exposure to avoid information overload.  And sometimes he can be depressing when he illustrates how far off the rails we have gone in so many areas.
> 
> And like anybody who is on television and the radio for several hours every week, he will be sometimes over the top, sometimes exaggerates for effect, is sometimes wrong.
> 
> Of course it is any error or exaggeration that his critics focus on and build into huge issues while ignoring all the stuff they can't attack because they have no ammunition to do so.  And that doesn't even count the lies they make up about him and put out there as 'fact'.
> 
> But just like the Tea Partiers and groups like them, it is the Glenn Becks of the world that the Left wants to shut up or destroy the most.
> 
> And I again, I believe it is because deep down, they know they are right, and if they prevail will destroy the myths that support and sustain the wingnut segment of the Left.  They would rather see the country go down the tubes than have to admit that somebody like Glenn Beck was right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be perfectly honest fox, I try and avoid beck, hannity, limbaugh, etc... Just as i avoid olberman and his ilk... Just don't trust any big networks not to mess with information anymore. And all of them have big networks and their corporations hands in their broadcasts...
> 
> Maybe beck is the least suspect, but I still feel if I am going to dismiss olberman I have to do the same with other ones as well.... Hope I am wrong though, we need an authentic and trustworthy voice out there..
Click to expand...


You're not alone in that.  But I don't worry about TV or Radio networks censoring the big names.   Those big names are simply too valuable to offend.  Somebody with the stature and pull of a Rush Limbaugh, for instance, isn't censored or dictated to by anybody.  A radio station takes him on HIS terms, gives him the time slot HE dictates, and edits him at their peril.  He is so coveted--any station he is featured on will almost always be or will soon become the #1 in market share in its trade area--he gets anything he wants.

But I don't accept what any of them say as gospel though, through long experience now, I trust some to be more persistently dishonest than others and some to be more persistently honest than others.   I have learned through checking them out who has done their homework and does decent research and  who doesn't.   Most of the rightwing sources do.  Most of the leftwing sources don't.

I listen though to know what the news of the day is, what is likely coming, what should be out there that isn't, and get names, keywords, topics, points of view to research further.  If you depend on the alphabet networks to inform you, you're simply gonna miss most of the information available.

And of all, I believe O'Reilly might be the least biased and I believe Beck is the most conscientious researcher.


----------



## gslack

Foxfyre said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beck really is in a class all by himself when it comes to the depth of his research and the stuff he is bringing to the surface that would otherwise be mostly buried.  He has kind of taken over Matt Drudge's role in that as Drudge doesn't seem to be doing as much of it as he used to.  And Beck is usually entertaining, but I do limit exposure to avoid information overload.  And sometimes he can be depressing when he illustrates how far off the rails we have gone in so many areas.
> 
> And like anybody who is on television and the radio for several hours every week, he will be sometimes over the top, sometimes exaggerates for effect, is sometimes wrong.
> 
> Of course it is any error or exaggeration that his critics focus on and build into huge issues while ignoring all the stuff they can't attack because they have no ammunition to do so.  And that doesn't even count the lies they make up about him and put out there as 'fact'.
> 
> But just like the Tea Partiers and groups like them, it is the Glenn Becks of the world that the Left wants to shut up or destroy the most.
> 
> And I again, I believe it is because deep down, they know they are right, and if they prevail will destroy the myths that support and sustain the wingnut segment of the Left.  They would rather see the country go down the tubes than have to admit that somebody like Glenn Beck was right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be perfectly honest fox, I try and avoid beck, hannity, limbaugh, etc... Just as i avoid olberman and his ilk... Just don't trust any big networks not to mess with information anymore. And all of them have big networks and their corporations hands in their broadcasts...
> 
> Maybe beck is the least suspect, but I still feel if I am going to dismiss olberman I have to do the same with other ones as well.... Hope I am wrong though, we need an authentic and trustworthy voice out there..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not alone in that.  But I don't worry about TV or Radio networks censoring the big names.   Those big names are simply too valuable to offend.  Somebody with the stature and pull of a Rush Limbaugh, for instance, isn't censored or dictated to by anybody.  A radio station takes him on HIS terms, gives him the time slot HE dictates, and edits him at their peril.  He is so coveted--any station he is featured on will almost always be or will soon become the #1 in market share in its trade area--he gets anything he wants.
> 
> But I don't accept what any of them say as gospel though, through long experience now, I trust some to be more persistently dishonest than others and some to be more persistently honest than others.   I have learned through checking them out who has done their homework and does decent research and  who doesn't.   Most of the rightwing sources do.  Most of the leftwing sources don't.
> 
> I listen though to know what the news of the day is, what is likely coming, what should be out there that isn't, and get names, keywords, topics, points of view to research further.  If you depend on the alphabet networks to inform you, you're simply gonna miss most of the information available.
> 
> And of all, I believe O'Reilly might be the least biased and I believe Beck is the most conscientious researcher.
Click to expand...


Sounds reasonable... I just try and remember they are paid to be extreme and talk... So I get what they are paid for....


----------



## Foxfyre

gslack said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be perfectly honest fox, I try and avoid beck, hannity, limbaugh, etc... Just as i avoid olberman and his ilk... Just don't trust any big networks not to mess with information anymore. And all of them have big networks and their corporations hands in their broadcasts...
> 
> Maybe beck is the least suspect, but I still feel if I am going to dismiss olberman I have to do the same with other ones as well.... Hope I am wrong though, we need an authentic and trustworthy voice out there..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not alone in that.  But I don't worry about TV or Radio networks censoring the big names.   Those big names are simply too valuable to offend.  Somebody with the stature and pull of a Rush Limbaugh, for instance, isn't censored or dictated to by anybody.  A radio station takes him on HIS terms, gives him the time slot HE dictates, and edits him at their peril.  He is so coveted--any station he is featured on will almost always be or will soon become the #1 in market share in its trade area--he gets anything he wants.
> 
> But I don't accept what any of them say as gospel though, through long experience now, I trust some to be more persistently dishonest than others and some to be more persistently honest than others.   I have learned through checking them out who has done their homework and does decent research and  who doesn't.   Most of the rightwing sources do.  Most of the leftwing sources don't.
> 
> I listen though to know what the news of the day is, what is likely coming, what should be out there that isn't, and get names, keywords, topics, points of view to research further.  If you depend on the alphabet networks to inform you, you're simply gonna miss most of the information available.
> 
> And of all, I believe O'Reilly might be the least biased and I believe Beck is the most conscientious researcher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sounds reasonable... I just try and remember they are paid to be extreme and talk... So I get what they are paid for....
Click to expand...


Good policy.  Just about everybody on the planet puts their pants on one leg at a time.  None of us are infallable or incapable of making a mistake or drawing a wrong conclusion or making imprudent remarks.  Beck is intentionally politically incorrect which of course I love.  Rush sometimes wanders into really bad taste which I hate though he does seem to be getting better not to do that as he gets older.  Sean shows his ideological bias the most of any of the big names I think.  Michael Savage does excellent research but goes on such over the top rants that much of it is lost.   But every one of them is going to get a lot of stuff right, is going to get some stuff wrong, and will probably say something offensive now and then that in retrospect they might think better of.

They're all human.  As are the Tea Partiers and those who speak at their rallies and/or serve as their spokespersons.  They're just gonna goof every now and then just as all humans do.   And the same holds true for the Obama Administration, Congress, and leftwing talking heads.  I can cut anybody some slack when it is obviously an inadvertent goof.

I prefer to judge them all on their entire track record.  The Tea Partiers and conservative talk radio and TV come up pretty good overall.  And so far the Obama Administration and Congress isn't showing us much that a whole lot of us like.

So the Obama supporters really really fear the Tea Parties.


----------



## gslack

Foxfyre said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not alone in that.  But I don't worry about TV or Radio networks censoring the big names.   Those big names are simply too valuable to offend.  Somebody with the stature and pull of a Rush Limbaugh, for instance, isn't censored or dictated to by anybody.  A radio station takes him on HIS terms, gives him the time slot HE dictates, and edits him at their peril.  He is so coveted--any station he is featured on will almost always be or will soon become the #1 in market share in its trade area--he gets anything he wants.
> 
> But I don't accept what any of them say as gospel though, through long experience now, I trust some to be more persistently dishonest than others and some to be more persistently honest than others.   I have learned through checking them out who has done their homework and does decent research and  who doesn't.   Most of the rightwing sources do.  Most of the leftwing sources don't.
> 
> I listen though to know what the news of the day is, what is likely coming, what should be out there that isn't, and get names, keywords, topics, points of view to research further.  If you depend on the alphabet networks to inform you, you're simply gonna miss most of the information available.
> 
> And of all, I believe O'Reilly might be the least biased and I believe Beck is the most conscientious researcher.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds reasonable... I just try and remember they are paid to be extreme and talk... So I get what they are paid for....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good policy.  Just about everybody on the planet puts their pants on one leg at a time.  None of us are infallable or incapable of making a mistake or drawing a wrong conclusion or making imprudent remarks.  Beck is intentionally politically incorrect which of course I love.  Rush sometimes wanders into really bad taste which I hate though he does seem to be getting better not to do that as he gets older.  Sean shows his ideological bias the most of any of the big names I think.  Michael Savage does excellent research but goes on such over the top rants that much of it is lost.   But every one of them is going to get a lot of stuff right, is going to get some stuff wrong, and will probably say something offensive now and then that in retrospect they might think better of.
> 
> They're all human.  As are the Tea Partiers and those who speak at their rallies and/or serve as their spokespersons.  They're just gonna goof every now and then just as all humans do.   And the same holds true for the Obama Administration, Congress, and leftwing talking heads.  I can cut anybody some slack when it is obviously an inadvertent goof.
> 
> I prefer to judge them all on their entire track record.  The Tea Partiers and conservative talk radio and TV come up pretty good overall.  And so far the Obama Administration and Congress isn't showing us much that a whole lot of us like.
> 
> So the Obama supporters really really fear the Tea Parties.
Click to expand...


yeah when I saw some of the names who spoke, i cringed... kind of like when the cons had Ann Coulter speak at that dinner party/fund raiser a year or so back.. LOL, they are still wishing they had that one back....

Like you said none are infallible, and all of them have some bit of preference in them. I have to admit, I do like a person who riles people up LOL...


----------



## Bfgrn

gslack said:


> LOL, every time I speak to either Goatsucker or Biff, I get this visual..



Really? Having raised two children to adulthood, that picture reminds me of a stage of human development where there is little or no control, bodily or emotionally...kind of like YOU, yelling, screaming and crying over something that was a simple function of the board.


----------



## gslack

Bfgrn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, every time I speak to either Goatsucker or Biff, I get this visual..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Having raised two children to adulthood, that picture reminds me of a stage of human development where there is little or no control, bodily or emotionally...kind of like YOU, yelling, screaming and crying over something that was a simple function of the board.
Click to expand...


Welcome back troll... You crying again? LOL...

I seriously doubt you are old enough to have raised 2 children to adulthood, but hey anything is possible... I met other parents of grown kids who act like teenage crybabies, so I suppose you are not so rare...

So anything of substance to add or are you just trolling again??


----------



## Bfgrn

Murf76 said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> These progressives on the thread here REALLY fear the tea parties because out of the blue, a popular uprising of like-minded Americans are about to dismantle what it took the left 90 years to build in less than 2-4 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People are reeducating themselves on the founding principles, economic concepts, the Constitution, etc.
> 
> Here's today's Amazon.com bestseller list.  There's a 50-year old title at #1 that Glenn Beck talked about on his show just yesterday, _The Road to Serfdom_.  His show was on a 5pm EST yesterday, and by 9am this morning... it's #1.
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books]Amazon.com Books Bestsellers: The most popular items on Amazon.com. Updated hourly.[/ame]
Click to expand...


Here is the pied piper on the road to serfdom...






The Road To Economic Serfdom

By Peter Boone and Simon Johnson

According to Friedrich von Hayek, the development of welfare socialism after World War II undermined freedom and would lead western democracies inexorably to some form of state-run serfdom. 

Hayek had the sign and the destination right but was entirely wrong about the mechanism.  Unregulated finance, the ideology of unfettered free markets, and state capture by corporate interests are what ended up undermining democracy both in North America and in Europe.  All industrialized countries are at risk...

The Road To Economic Serfdom  The Baseline Scenario

Here is an enlightening piece written by Friedrich von Hayek...Why I Am Not a Conservative By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek


----------



## gslack

Trolling got it...


----------



## Bfgrn

gslack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, every time I speak to either Goatsucker or Biff, I get this visual..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Having raised two children to adulthood, that picture reminds me of a stage of human development where there is little or no control, bodily or emotionally...kind of like YOU, yelling, screaming and crying over something that was a simple function of the board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Welcome back troll... You crying again? LOL...
> *
> I seriously doubt you are old enough to have raised 2 children to adulthood*, but hey anything is possible... I met other parents of grown kids who act like teenage crybabies, so I suppose you are not so rare...
> 
> So anything of substance to add or are you just trolling again??
Click to expand...


That doesn't surprise me. You already KNOW what other people's motivations and intentions are. So your accusation just reinforces your consistent ignorance.

Yea, let's get back to the original Boston Tea Party, and how all the articles you posted and I posted have basically the same narrative.

Here's your question for the day...when the British Parliament reduced or increased duties to the colonies, WHO did the Parliament hold responsible to collect and pay those funds to Britain?

Would you like me to send you a teenage crybaby to help you?


----------



## gslack

Bfgrn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Having raised two children to adulthood, that picture reminds me of a stage of human development where there is little or no control, bodily or emotionally...kind of like YOU, yelling, screaming and crying over something that was a simple function of the board.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome back troll... You crying again? LOL...
> *
> I seriously doubt you are old enough to have raised 2 children to adulthood*, but hey anything is possible... I met other parents of grown kids who act like teenage crybabies, so I suppose you are not so rare...
> 
> So anything of substance to add or are you just trolling again??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't surprise me. You already KNOW what other people's motivations and intentions are. So your accusation just reinforces your consistent ignorance.
> 
> Yea, let's get back to the original Boston Tea Party, and how all the articles you posted and I posted have basically the same narrative.
> 
> Here's your question for the day...when the British Parliament reduced or increased duties to the colonies, WHO did the Parliament hold responsible to collect and pay those funds to Britain?
> 
> Would you like me to send you a teenage crybaby to help you?
Click to expand...


No douchebag, I don't have to know your intentions, you show them here all too well.. And your motivation is most likely your childish need to save  face...

I showed you how your article was wrong and used much more accurate sources to do so.. You tried to lie about the sources in both what they were and what they said... So fuck you, lying little weasel.... Go get your own answers junior, I am done educating you.. You ran your mouth thinking you were brilliant and in reality, once again, you were dead wrong. So again instead of acting like an adult and shutting the fuck up, you tried to lie your way out of it.... You need help asshole....


----------



## Bfgrn

gslack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome back troll... You crying again? LOL...
> *
> I seriously doubt you are old enough to have raised 2 children to adulthood*, but hey anything is possible... I met other parents of grown kids who act like teenage crybabies, so I suppose you are not so rare...
> 
> So anything of substance to add or are you just trolling again??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't surprise me. You already KNOW what other people's motivations and intentions are. So your accusation just reinforces your consistent ignorance.
> 
> Yea, let's get back to the original Boston Tea Party, and how all the articles you posted and I posted have basically the same narrative.
> 
> Here's your question for the day...when the British Parliament reduced or increased duties to the colonies, WHO did the Parliament hold responsible to collect and pay those funds to Britain?
> 
> Would you like me to send you a teenage crybaby to help you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No douchebag, I don't have to know your intentions, you show them here all too well.. And your motivation is most likely your childish need to save  face...
> 
> I showed you how your article was wrong and used much more accurate sources to do so.. You tried to lie about the sources in both what they were and what they said... So fuck you, lying little weasel.... Go get your own answers junior, I am done educating you.. You ran your mouth thinking you were brilliant and in reality, once again, you were dead wrong. So again instead of acting like an adult and shutting the fuck up, you tried to lie your way out of it.... You need help asshole....
Click to expand...


I may not be brilliant, but compared to you I'm Albert Einstein...

Any adult reading your tantrum filled response would elicit this image...







The agents of the British government were corporations. These corporations were tools of the king's oppression. The rich formed joint-stock corporations and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had the autonomy to pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce.

THEY were 'responsible' to pay the British government, whether or not they were able to collect the duties...SO reducing the duty on tea, was a tax cut to the corporation.

YOU tried to twist the semantics...you FAILED.

BTW, your first source, you know, the author-less one that made the PR claim of 'presenting history through the perspective of those who actually lived it' 

Well, it's website give no information on who wrote any of the articles. Also, if you search for Ibis Communications, it leads to this site, which uses the SAME logo, but makes no mention of EyeWitnesstoHistory.com 

Ibis Communications Home

Were Ibis Communications, a full-service advertising firm expert at inclusive and multicultural marketing. It has been our forté and our hallmark for over a decade. In more recent years, we have expanded our brand to include green marketing and business practices as part of our commitment to our clients, partners and the global community.

You can now continue you tantrum...


----------



## gslack

Bfgrn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't surprise me. You already KNOW what other people's motivations and intentions are. So your accusation just reinforces your consistent ignorance.
> 
> Yea, let's get back to the original Boston Tea Party, and how all the articles you posted and I posted have basically the same narrative.
> 
> Here's your question for the day...when the British Parliament reduced or increased duties to the colonies, WHO did the Parliament hold responsible to collect and pay those funds to Britain?
> 
> Would you like me to send you a teenage crybaby to help you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No douchebag, I don't have to know your intentions, you show them here all too well.. And your motivation is most likely your childish need to save  face...
> 
> I showed you how your article was wrong and used much more accurate sources to do so.. You tried to lie about the sources in both what they were and what they said... So fuck you, lying little weasel.... Go get your own answers junior, I am done educating you.. You ran your mouth thinking you were brilliant and in reality, once again, you were dead wrong. So again instead of acting like an adult and shutting the fuck up, you tried to lie your way out of it.... You need help asshole....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I may not be brilliant, but compared to you I'm Albert Einstein...
> 
> Any adult reading your tantrum filled response would elicit this image...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The agents of the British government were corporations. These corporations were tools of the king's oppression. The rich formed joint-stock corporations and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had the autonomy to pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce.
> 
> THEY were 'responsible' to pay the British government, whether or not they were able to collect the duties...SO reducing the duty on tea, was a tax cut to the corporation.
> 
> YOU tried to twist the semantics...you FAILED.
> 
> BTW, your first source, you know, the author-less one that made the PR claim of 'presenting history through the perspective of those who actually lived it'
> 
> Well, it's website give no information on who wrote any of the articles. Also, if you search for Ibis Communications, it leads to this site, which uses the SAME logo, but makes no mention of EyeWitnesstoHistory.com
> 
> Ibis Communications Home
> 
> We&#8217;re Ibis Communications, a full-service advertising firm expert at inclusive and multicultural marketing. It has been our forté and our hallmark for over a decade. In more recent years, we have expanded our brand to include green marketing and business practices as part of our commitment to our clients, partners and the global community.
> 
> You can now continue you tantrum...
Click to expand...


Still trying to fix your fuck up huh tool????

Wow what a hopeless imbecile......

You were busted lying on that ... I have the posts right here in this thread so just stop lying already. it makes you looks stupid....

EDIT* why did you give a link to IBIS? it doesn't help you dumbass.. LOL...

http://www.ibiscommunications.com/about_1.html



> Diverse, Inclusive and Green
> 
> The Ibis is the bird of wisdom and symbol of knowledge, an omen of good things to come, the mythical scribe of powerful, transformative and beautiful messages. That&#8217;s the Ibis specialty, reaching niche markets across a broad spectrum of demographics, with fluent, resonant, and persuasive communications.
> 
> Who are we? We are writers, artists, strategists, media masters, computer geeks, philosophers, visionaries, baby-boomers, echo-boomers, vegetarians, meat eaters, bikers, golfers, bowlers, skiers, pet lovers, and yes, even a couple of wannabe rock stars. Like birds of a feather, we have flocked here from major cities and small towns to bring a multicultural, multi-perspective blend of creative and strategic talent to every solution.
> 
> We are specialists, linguists, if you will, when it comes to communicating to a diverse community. We&#8217;ve taken the best of our professional experiences and poured them into our own melting pot. Our creative solutions come by tapping into that collective cauldron of knowledge. When working together, or collaborating with outside professionals, we celebrate differences. And there&#8217;s nothing more euphoric than when a myriad of ideas evolves into one universal concept in which we all can believe and embrace.


----------



## Bfgrn

gslack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No douchebag, I don't have to know your intentions, you show them here all too well.. And your motivation is most likely your childish need to save  face...
> 
> I showed you how your article was wrong and used much more accurate sources to do so.. You tried to lie about the sources in both what they were and what they said... So fuck you, lying little weasel.... Go get your own answers junior, I am done educating you.. You ran your mouth thinking you were brilliant and in reality, once again, you were dead wrong. So again instead of acting like an adult and shutting the fuck up, you tried to lie your way out of it.... You need help asshole....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I may not be brilliant, but compared to you I'm Albert Einstein...
> 
> Any adult reading your tantrum filled response would elicit this image...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The agents of the British government were corporations. These corporations were tools of the king's oppression. The rich formed joint-stock corporations and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had the autonomy to pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce.
> 
> THEY were 'responsible' to pay the British government, whether or not they were able to collect the duties...SO reducing the duty on tea, was a tax cut to the corporation.
> 
> YOU tried to twist the semantics...you FAILED.
> 
> BTW, your first source, you know, the author-less one that made the PR claim of 'presenting history through the perspective of those who actually lived it'
> 
> Well, it's website give no information on who wrote any of the articles. Also, if you search for Ibis Communications, it leads to this site, which uses the SAME logo, but makes no mention of EyeWitnesstoHistory.com
> 
> Ibis Communications Home
> 
> Were Ibis Communications, a full-service advertising firm expert at inclusive and multicultural marketing. It has been our forté and our hallmark for over a decade. In more recent years, we have expanded our brand to include green marketing and business practices as part of our commitment to our clients, partners and the global community.
> 
> You can now continue you tantrum...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still trying to fix your fuck up huh tool????
> 
> Wow what a hopeless imbecile......
> 
> You were busted lying on that ... I have the posts right here in this thread so just stop lying already. it makes you looks stupid....
Click to expand...


YES all the posts are here for all to see...the TRUTH stands no matter what bluster you employ. You are wrong, but maybe what you need to do to make your bluster seem authoritative is the YELL some more...


----------



## Foxfyre

Bfgrn said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> These progressives on the thread here REALLY fear the tea parties because out of the blue, a popular uprising of like-minded Americans are about to dismantle what it took the left 90 years to build in less than 2-4 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People are reeducating themselves on the founding principles, economic concepts, the Constitution, etc.
> 
> Here's today's Amazon.com bestseller list.  There's a 50-year old title at #1 that Glenn Beck talked about on his show just yesterday, _The Road to Serfdom_.  His show was on a 5pm EST yesterday, and by 9am this morning... it's #1.
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books]Amazon.com Books Bestsellers: The most popular items on Amazon.com. Updated hourly.[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the pied piper on the road to serfdom...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Road To Economic Serfdom
> 
> By Peter Boone and Simon Johnson
> 
> According to Friedrich von Hayek, the development of welfare socialism after World War II undermined freedom and would lead western democracies inexorably to some form of state-run serfdom.
> 
> Hayek had the sign and the destination right but was entirely wrong about the mechanism.  Unregulated finance, the ideology of unfettered free markets, and state capture by corporate interests are what ended up undermining democracy both in North America and in Europe.  All industrialized countries are at risk...
> 
> The Road To Economic Serfdom  The Baseline Scenario
> 
> Here is an enlightening piece written by Friedrich von Hayek...Why I Am Not a Conservative By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek
Click to expand...


Boone and Johnson, neo-socialists, of course would try to discredit Hayek who did not advocate unregulated anything.  Hayek is the quentissential classical liberal (i.e. modern American conservative) advocating as much freedom as can be allowed.  He, however, as all classical liberals are, was a rule of law guy and certainly supported whatever regulation was necessary to keep us from doing violence to each other including intrusion on the unalienable, Constitution, civil, and legal rights of others.  But, like all classical liberals, Hayek then wanted government out of it and let the private sector do it.

Peter Boone and Simon Johnson, like all modern liberals, see government as the solution for all human ills.

In the intro to  _The Road to Serfdom _ , published in England 1944, was Hayek's effort to teach English socialists that they were on the same path that brought the National Socialists (the "Nazis") to power in Germany and the Communists to power in Russia. It did not express all of Hayek's philosophy re government and economics.

from Wiki but right on the money:


> Hayek disapproved strongly of the notion of 'social justice'. He compared the market to a game in which 'there is no point in calling the outcome just or unjust'[45] and argued that 'social justice is an empty phrase with no determinable content';[46] likewise 'the results of the individual's efforts are necessarily unpredictable, and the question as to whether the resulting distribution of incomes is just has no meaning.'[47] *He regarded any attempt by government to redistribute income or capital as an unacceptable intrusion upon individual freedom: 'the principle of distributive justice, once introduced, would not be fulfilled until the whole of society was organized in accordance with it. This would produce a kind of society which in all essential respects would be the opposite of a free society.[48]*
> 
> However, Hayek was prepared to tolerate 'some provision for those threatened by the extremes of indigence or starvation, be it only in the interest of those who require protection against acts of desperation on the part of the needy.



And within my understanding of consequences that we know of world history, Hayek's point of view holds up a whole lot better than does Johnson and Boones'.

The thing that boggles my mind is how liberals keep convincing themselves that the only reason their way hasn't worked thus far is that nobody has done it right.  So they keep repeating the same mistakes over and over and over ignoring the fact that such attempts are taking us straight into economic and social hell.

Repeat:   Classical liberal = modern American conservative.


----------



## Big Fitz

Bfgrn said:


> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> 
> These progressives on the thread here REALLY fear the tea parties because out of the blue, a popular uprising of like-minded Americans are about to dismantle what it took the left 90 years to build in less than 2-4 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People are reeducating themselves on the founding principles, economic concepts, the Constitution, etc.
> 
> Here's today's Amazon.com bestseller list.  There's a 50-year old title at #1 that Glenn Beck talked about on his show just yesterday, _The Road to Serfdom_.  His show was on a 5pm EST yesterday, and by 9am this morning... it's #1.
> [ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books]Amazon.com Books Bestsellers: The most popular items on Amazon.com. Updated hourly.[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the pied piper on the road to serfdom...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Road To Economic Serfdom
> 
> By Peter Boone and Simon Johnson
> 
> According to Friedrich von Hayek, the development of welfare socialism after World War II undermined freedom and would lead western democracies inexorably to some form of state-run serfdom.
> 
> Hayek had the sign and the destination right but was entirely wrong about the mechanism.  Unregulated finance, the ideology of unfettered free markets, and state capture by corporate interests are what ended up undermining democracy both in North America and in Europe.  All industrialized countries are at risk...
> 
> The Road To Economic Serfdom  The Baseline Scenario
> 
> Here is an enlightening piece written by Friedrich von Hayek...Why I Am Not a Conservative By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek
Click to expand...

You haven't a fucking clue, do you?


----------



## LANMaster

Bfgrn said:


> Social Security didn't run out. The money was stolen by Ronald Reagan.


  Thanks for the laugh .... but it was the Democrat Congress that pilliaged SS.  Along with the help of Republican incumbents who need to be voted out.



> Social Security does steal from others, everyone pays into it, and everyone becomes eligible to collect benefits. Paying into Social Security does not prohibit or prevent an individual from saving for their own retirement.


 On this point, I agree with you.   I don't have a problem with Social Security.  I have a problem with Congress raping SS to fund other projects.
This is the essense of the TEA party.   You would probably agree more with the TEA Party movement if you understood that it really has nothing to do with Republican or Democrat, but everything to do with fiscal responsibility.

Want to extend unemployment?   Fine ... cut somewhere else in the budget to pay for it.  Don't just add it to the debt.
Want Gubmint funded healthcare?   Find a way to pay for it other than borrowing from China.
Want to cut military spending?  PUT IT ON THE BALLOT!   I suggest to you, that the American people do not want to under-fund our military efforts.
There's no reason to assume that everything can be solved with another tax increase.  Liberals ... sorry .... "progressives" cant get it through their heads that private industry and Capitalism are the engines of prosperity in the USA.  Kill private enterprise, and you kill the prosperity.  The Jobs go away, and tax revenues *D R O P .*

[/QUOTE]The mentality that I hate is how the right always diminishes human beings and finds a way to dehumanize poverty.[/QUOTE]

Your rhetoric shows just how poisonous your ilk has become.
We see compassion differently than you.
You view compassion by how many people receive help by the government
We view compassion by how many people no longer need the government help.

We both have compassion for the impoverished.  Unfortunately there is so much waste and fraud that the inefficiency of all those entitlement dollars ends up doing far more harm to the impoverished than good.
THE WELL IS DRYING UP - PROGRESSIVES THINK POURING SAND IN THE WELL WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM.  



> "Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
> Ted Sorensen



If that were the only quote from Ted, I would assume he was an idiot. 

Conservatives are far more charitable than liberals ... that is a proven fact.  
I will link to the multiple studies if you would like.  I'm new here, but I suspect that someone has already posted that fact.
I say that, not to brag or boast, but to show how utterly incorrect you are about your opposition, and how willing your Commerades are to outright lie about your oppositions motives and practices.


----------



## Bfgrn

LANMaster said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Social Security didn't run out. The money was stolen by Ronald Reagan.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the laugh .... but it was the Democrat Congress that pilliaged SS.  Along with the help of Republican incumbents who need to be voted out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Social Security does steal from others, everyone pays into it, and everyone becomes eligible to collect benefits. Paying into Social Security does not prohibit or prevent an individual from saving for their own retirement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On this point, I agree with you.   I don't have a problem with Social Security.  I have a problem with Congress raping SS to fund other projects.
> This is the essense of the TEA party.   You would probably agree more with the TEA Party movement if you understood that it really has nothing to do with Republican or Democrat, but everything to do with fiscal responsibility.
> 
> Want to extend unemployment?   Fine ... cut somewhere else in the budget to pay for it.  Don't just add it to the debt.
> Want Gubmint funded healthcare?   Find a way to pay for it other than borrowing from China.
> Want to cut military spending?  PUT IT ON THE BALLOT!   I suggest to you, that the American people do not want to under-fund our military efforts.
> There's no reason to assume that everything can be solved with another tax increase.  Liberals ... sorry .... "progressives" cant get it through their heads that private industry and Capitalism are the engines of prosperity in the USA.  Kill private enterprise, and you kill the prosperity.  The Jobs go away, and tax revenues *D R O P .*
Click to expand...

The mentality that I hate is how the right always diminishes human beings and finds a way to dehumanize poverty.[/QUOTE]

Your rhetoric shows just how poisonous your ilk has become.
We see compassion differently than you.
You view compassion by how many people receive help by the government
We view compassion by how many people no longer need the government help.

We both have compassion for the impoverished.  Unfortunately there is so much waste and fraud that the inefficiency of all those entitlement dollars ends up doing far more harm to the impoverished than good.
THE WELL IS DRYING UP - PROGRESSIVES THINK POURING SAND IN THE WELL WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM.  



> "Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
> Ted Sorensen



If that were the only quote from Ted, I would assume he was an idiot. 

Conservatives are far more charitable than liberals ... that is a proven fact.  
I will link to the multiple studies if you would like.  I'm new here, but I suspect that someone has already posted that fact.
I say that, not to brag or boast, but to show how utterly incorrect you are about your opposition, and how willing your Commerades are to outright lie about your oppositions motives and practices.[/QUOTE]

Here is what you don't understand...the jobs HAVE gone away. Trickle down FAILED miserably. We are now in the same wealth to poor ratio as the 1920's during the reign of the robber barons. During the despot Bush administration the FEWEST jobs were created since job creation statistics have been kept.

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ






Ronald Reagan stole SS money to pay down the deficit created by the lose of revenue from his tax cuts. THEN Reagan raised taxes

 In 1981, Reagan signed a law that sharply reduced the income tax for the wealthiest Americans and corporations. The president asserted his program would create jobs, purge inflation and, get this, trim the budget deficit. However, following the tax cut, the deficit soared from 2.5 percent of GDP to over 6 percent, alarming financial markets, sending interest rates sky high, and culminating in the worst recession since the 1930's.

    Soon the president realized he needed new revenues to trim the deficit, bring down interest rates and improve his chances for reelection. He would not rescind the income tax cut, but other taxes were acceptable. In 1982, taxes were raised on gasoline and cigarettes, but the deficit hardly budged. In 1983, the president signed the biggest tax rise on payrolls, promising to create a surplus in the Social Security system, while knowing all along that the new revenue would be used to finance the deficit.

    The retirement system was looted from the first day the Social Security surplus came into being, because the legislation itself gave the president a free hand to spend the surplus in any way he liked. Thus began a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class, especially the self-employed small businessman, to the wealthy. The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent.

    In 1986, Reagan slashed the top tax rate further. His redistributionist obsession led to a perversity in the law. The wealthiest faced a 28 percent tax rate, while those with lower incomes faced a 33 percent rate; in addition, the bottom rate climbed from 11 percent to 15 percent. For the first time in history, the top rate fell and the bottom rate rose simultaneously. Even unemployment compensation was not spared. The jobless had to pay income tax on their benefits. A year later, the man who would not spare unemployment compensation from taxation called for a cut in the capital gains tax. Thus, Reagan was a staunch socialist, totally committed to his cause of wealth redistribution towards the affluent.

    How much wealth transfer has occurred through Reagan's policies? At least $3 trillion.

    The Social Security hike generated over $2 trillion in surplus between 1984 and 2007, and if it had been properly invested, say, in AAA corporate bonds it could have earned another trillion by now. At present, the fund is empty, because it has been used up to finance the federal deficits resulting from frequent cuts in income tax rates. If this is not redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, what else is?

    Thus, Reagan was the first Republican socialist - and a great one, because his wealth transfer occurred on a massive scale. His accomplishment dwarfs even FDR's, and if today the small businessman suffers a crippling tax burden, he must thank Reagan the redistributionist. However, FDR took pains to help the poor, while Reagan took pains to help the wealthiest like himself.

    Reagan's measures were similar to those that the Republicans adopted during the 1920's, which were followed by the catastrophic Depression. More recently, such policies were mimicked by President George W. Bush and they are about to plunge the world into a depression as well. Ironically, the Reagan-style socialism or wealth redistribution is about to destroy monopoly capitalism, the very system that he wanted to preserve and enrich. 

Reagan: The Great American Socialist


----------



## gslack

Bfgrn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I may not be brilliant, but compared to you I'm Albert Einstein...
> 
> Any adult reading your tantrum filled response would elicit this image...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The agents of the British government were corporations. These corporations were tools of the king's oppression. The rich formed joint-stock corporations and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had the autonomy to pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce.
> 
> THEY were 'responsible' to pay the British government, whether or not they were able to collect the duties...SO reducing the duty on tea, was a tax cut to the corporation.
> 
> YOU tried to twist the semantics...you FAILED.
> 
> BTW, your first source, you know, the author-less one that made the PR claim of 'presenting history through the perspective of those who actually lived it'
> 
> Well, it's website give no information on who wrote any of the articles. Also, if you search for Ibis Communications, it leads to this site, which uses the SAME logo, but makes no mention of EyeWitnesstoHistory.com
> 
> Ibis Communications Home
> 
> Were Ibis Communications, a full-service advertising firm expert at inclusive and multicultural marketing. It has been our forté and our hallmark for over a decade. In more recent years, we have expanded our brand to include green marketing and business practices as part of our commitment to our clients, partners and the global community.
> 
> You can now continue you tantrum...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still trying to fix your fuck up huh tool????
> 
> Wow what a hopeless imbecile......
> 
> You were busted lying on that ... I have the posts right here in this thread so just stop lying already. it makes you looks stupid....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES all the posts are here for all to see...the TRUTH stands no matter what bluster you employ. You are wrong, but maybe what you need to do to make your bluster seem authoritative is the YELL some more...
Click to expand...


No one yelled but you douchebag... Funny you disappeared until there was a comfortable bit of room from your getting busted lying..... ok dickhead, you asked for it..


----------



## gslack

gslack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> And WTH difference does it make what they protested for specifically? Seriously whether it was corporate tax cuts supported by the crown, or direct crown tax by proxy using the east india company makes no difference they felt it unfair and protested it. How the hell you can make this argument is beyond me....
> 
> And more importantly I would like some historical evidence of that claim.... Really....
> 
> Try and read something accurate and historical and not liberal slanted once in a while....
> 
> The Boston Tea Party, 1773
> 
> 
> 
> Want another reference?
> 
> Boston Tea Party Historical Society
> 
> Boston Tea Party Ship & Museum
> 
> This ignorant liberal talking point posting style of yours is getting old now.... You just posted a revisionist version of what happened and thats undeniable...
> 
> The tea party was caused by quite a few things, and one of the main things was the following...
> 
> 
> 
> Stop citing pundits and calling it factual man..its old now...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you trying to PROVE you are the most obtuse pea brain on this planet?
> 
> _'something accurate and historical and not liberal slanted once in a while'._.. from WHOM? A marketing firm? Your posted has no author. The site has no information or even an 'About' tab.
> 
> _'This ignorant liberal talking point'_ and _'a revisionist version of what happened'_... you mean from a 'liberal' like Bruce Bartlett, who was a domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan and was a Treasury official under President George H.W. Bush???
> 
> Clearly, your brain is of the right wing type from birth, totally incapable of comprehension or conceptualization.
> 
> A 'word' bound right wing pea brain...
> 
> BTW, Thom Hartmann's reference..."Retrospect of the Boston Tea Party with a Memoir of George R.T. Hewes, a Survivor of the Little Band of Patriots Who Drowned the Tea in Boston Harbor in 1773,"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which link are you referring to moron I gave you 3 of them..
> 
> First link: The Boston Tea Party, 1773 Their about us page is reached from a link on their homepage... Here ..EyeWitness to History - history through the eyes of those who lived it..... THen the link near the top is to their publisher called ibis Communications. ...That link goes here....Ibis Communications, Inc.... A brief from that page.....
> 
> 
> 
> Ibis Communications is a publisher of award-winning educational websites and CD-ROMs.
> 
> EyeWitnesstoHistory.com (Website)
> An award-winning website presenting history through the perspective of those who actually lived it - from the ancient world through the 20th century.
> 
> Awards include: Yahoo! Pick of the Week, USA Today Outstanding Website, Best of History Website, Innovative Teaching Award and Kim Komando Cool Site of the Day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So moving on...
> 
> My second link: Boston Tea Party Historical Society...Its to the boston tea party historical society.... yeah I would call them experts.... Their about us page is linked at the top it says "about" on the upper tab... the link ...Boston Tea Party Historical Society ... And a brief from that page...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About this Website
> The Boston Tea Party Historical Society is a non-profit educational and cultural organization established to preserve and share the Tea Party history. The Society collects and tells the story of the B.T.P. through an interactive website and publishing. We also occasionally debunk popular myths about the famous destruction of tea in Boston Harbor.
> 
> We hope to engage the public with the excitement of discovery, inspire people with new perspectives on the past, and illuminate the relevance of history in our lives today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude I am two for two now.... So far it looks like you just lied your ass off.... Moving on..
> 
> My third link: Boston Tea Party Ship & Museum..the site is to the Boston tea party ship and museum.... yeah another of what I would consider an expert on this subject.... ya see douchebag, their description is in the title... yeah, its a website for the people renovating the ship and creating the museum... THey are renovating and they tell you so flat out in the page. BUt if you look and follow the obvious links, you find out quite easily what they are all about... their parent company is "Historic tours of America... and in the renovation overview of the ship and museum site it says the following....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the goal of Historic Tours of America® to immerse Boston residents, heritage visitors, and students in the historical experiences and important events of and around December 16th 1773, to tell the stories of the participating men and their families, and to reinforce the way that the Boston Tea Party changed the lives of Americans forever. Indeed in bringing to life this historic event we feel that we have a responsibility and a commitment to historic preservation, heritage education, and the advancement of patriotic ideals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So in a nutshell you are a lying little POS weasel...... Now go fuck yourself toad, you just showed what lowlife lying scumbag you truly are....
Click to expand...


There is a big fat chunk of reality liar boy... Notice my quotes are all there and intact?????? Yeah funny how you claimed it cut out one of them and begged people to quote it and show it again.... Huh, but there it is working just fine, a full quote..... So any more excuses liar??


----------



## Foxfyre

The thing that drives me crazy are charts like this that Bfgrn posted:






It doesn't take into account world economic conditions which invariably affect our own.

It doesn't specify the length of time in office which is really a major factor in analyzing something like that wouldn't you think?  And do you suppose it was an untentional oversight to leave out the Nixon administration who by a wide margin outperformed everybody else on that list so far as job creation goes?  And it doesn't take into account that it is the laws, regulation, and policies established by Congress that creates any effect that government might have on the process.

Yes the Bush 43 record looks abysmal, but there is no attempt to be fair and show the devastating effects on the economy generated by 9/11, something no other president has ever had to contend with, and no attempt to explain that much of the job loss happened in the severe recession in the wake of the 2008 housing bubble burst for which the blame must be shared by every President and Congress since the Carter administration.

If you look at the jobs created during the prosperous Bush 43 years, the record ain't that bad.

But for all of them, there are many more factors involved than who occupied the White House at the time.


----------



## gslack

Foxfyre said:


> The thing that drives me crazy are charts like this that Bfgrn posted:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't take into account world economic conditions which invariably affect our own.
> 
> It doesn't specify the length of time in office which is really a major factor in analyzing something like that wouldn't you think?  And do you suppose it was an untentional oversight to leave out the Nixon administration who by a wide margin outperformed everybody else on that list so far as job creation goes?  And it doesn't take into account that it is the laws, regulation, and policies established by Congress that creates any effect that government might have on the process.
> 
> Yes the Bush 43 record looks abysmal, but there is no attempt to be fair and show the devastating effects on the economy generated by 9/11, something no other president has ever had to contend with, and no attempt to explain that much of the job loss happened in the severe recession in the wake of the 2008 housing bubble burst for which the blame must be shared by every President and Congress since the Carter administration.
> 
> If you look at the jobs created during the prosperous Bush 43 years, the record ain't that bad.
> 
> But for all of them, there are many more factors involved than who occupied the White House at the time.



What else do you expect from a pig but a grunt?


----------



## LANMaster

You left leaners simply do not understand that proper tax cuts actually INCREASE Federal tax receipts.
More growth, more employment, more taxpayers = more revenus
Tax hikes generally reduce Federal tax receipts.
Growth stifled, investing drops. jobless rates go up, fewer taxpayers = lower revenues


----------



## AllieBaba

Bfgrn said:


> LANMaster said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Social Security didn't run out. The money was stolen by Ronald Reagan.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the laugh .... but it was the Democrat Congress that pilliaged SS.  Along with the help of Republican incumbents who need to be voted out.
> 
> On this point, I agree with you.   I don't have a problem with Social Security.  I have a problem with Congress raping SS to fund other projects.
> This is the essense of the TEA party.   You would probably agree more with the TEA Party movement if you understood that it really has nothing to do with Republican or Democrat, but everything to do with fiscal responsibility.
> 
> Want to extend unemployment?   Fine ... cut somewhere else in the budget to pay for it.  Don't just add it to the debt.
> Want Gubmint funded healthcare?   Find a way to pay for it other than borrowing from China.
> Want to cut military spending?  PUT IT ON THE BALLOT!   I suggest to you, that the American people do not want to under-fund our military efforts.
> There's no reason to assume that everything can be solved with another tax increase.  Liberals ... sorry .... "progressives" cant get it through their heads that private industry and Capitalism are the engines of prosperity in the USA.  Kill private enterprise, and you kill the prosperity.  The Jobs go away, and tax revenues *D R O P .*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The mentality that I hate is how the right always diminishes human beings and finds a way to dehumanize poverty.
Click to expand...


Your rhetoric shows just how poisonous your ilk has become.
We see compassion differently than you.
You view compassion by how many people receive help by the government
We view compassion by how many people no longer need the government help.

We both have compassion for the impoverished.  Unfortunately there is so much waste and fraud that the inefficiency of all those entitlement dollars ends up doing far more harm to the impoverished than good.
THE WELL IS DRYING UP - PROGRESSIVES THINK POURING SAND IN THE WELL WILL SOLVE THE PROBLEM.  



> "Republicans care more about property, Democrats care more about people"
> Ted Sorensen



If that were the only quote from Ted, I would assume he was an idiot. 

Conservatives are far more charitable than liberals ... that is a proven fact.  
I will link to the multiple studies if you would like.  I'm new here, but I suspect that someone has already posted that fact.
I say that, not to brag or boast, but to show how utterly incorrect you are about your opposition, and how willing your Commerades are to outright lie about your oppositions motives and practices.[/QUOTE]

Here is what you don't understand...the jobs HAVE gone away. Trickle down FAILED miserably. We are now in the same wealth to poor ratio as the 1920's during the reign of the robber barons. During the despot Bush administration the FEWEST jobs were created since job creation statistics have been kept.

Bush On Jobs: The Worst Track Record On Record - Real Time Economics - WSJ






Ronald Reagan stole SS money to pay down the deficit created by the lose of revenue from his tax cuts. THEN Reagan raised taxes

 In 1981, Reagan signed a law that sharply reduced the income tax for the wealthiest Americans and corporations. The president asserted his program would create jobs, purge inflation and, get this, trim the budget deficit. However, following the tax cut, the deficit soared from 2.5 percent of GDP to over 6 percent, alarming financial markets, sending interest rates sky high, and culminating in the worst recession since the 1930's.

    Soon the president realized he needed new revenues to trim the deficit, bring down interest rates and improve his chances for reelection. He would not rescind the income tax cut, but other taxes were acceptable. In 1982, taxes were raised on gasoline and cigarettes, but the deficit hardly budged. In 1983, the president signed the biggest tax rise on payrolls, promising to create a surplus in the Social Security system, while knowing all along that the new revenue would be used to finance the deficit.

    The retirement system was looted from the first day the Social Security surplus came into being, because the legislation itself gave the president a free hand to spend the surplus in any way he liked. Thus began a massive transfer of wealth from the poor and the middle class, especially the self-employed small businessman, to the wealthy. The self-employment tax jumped as much as 66 percent.

    In 1986, Reagan slashed the top tax rate further. His redistributionist obsession led to a perversity in the law. The wealthiest faced a 28 percent tax rate, while those with lower incomes faced a 33 percent rate; in addition, the bottom rate climbed from 11 percent to 15 percent. For the first time in history, the top rate fell and the bottom rate rose simultaneously. Even unemployment compensation was not spared. The jobless had to pay income tax on their benefits. A year later, the man who would not spare unemployment compensation from taxation called for a cut in the capital gains tax. Thus, Reagan was a staunch socialist, totally committed to his cause of wealth redistribution towards the affluent.

    How much wealth transfer has occurred through Reagan's policies? At least $3 trillion.

    The Social Security hike generated over $2 trillion in surplus between 1984 and 2007, and if it had been properly invested, say, in AAA corporate bonds it could have earned another trillion by now. At present, the fund is empty, because it has been used up to finance the federal deficits resulting from frequent cuts in income tax rates. If this is not redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich, what else is?

    Thus, Reagan was the first Republican socialist - and a great one, because his wealth transfer occurred on a massive scale. His accomplishment dwarfs even FDR's, and if today the small businessman suffers a crippling tax burden, he must thank Reagan the redistributionist. However, FDR took pains to help the poor, while Reagan took pains to help the wealthiest like himself.

    Reagan's measures were similar to those that the Republicans adopted during the 1920's, which were followed by the catastrophic Depression. More recently, such policies were mimicked by President George W. Bush and they are about to plunge the world into a depression as well. Ironically, the Reagan-style socialism or wealth redistribution is about to destroy monopoly capitalism, the very system that he wanted to preserve and enrich. 

Reagan: The Great American Socialist[/QUOTE]

You are such an idiot.

All anyone needs to know about you they can learn from your moronic assertion that it's "poisonous" to point out when people are behaving in a way that dehumanizes others.


----------



## Bfgrn

gslack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still trying to fix your fuck up huh tool????
> 
> Wow what a hopeless imbecile......
> 
> You were busted lying on that ... I have the posts right here in this thread so just stop lying already. it makes you looks stupid....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YES all the posts are here for all to see...the TRUTH stands no matter what bluster you employ. You are wrong, but maybe what you need to do to make your bluster seem authoritative is the YELL some more...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one yelled but you douchebag... Funny you disappeared until there was a comfortable bit of room from your getting busted lying..... ok dickhead, you asked for it..
Click to expand...


You are the most obnoxious and ignorant moron I have encountered here. Were you raised by wolves? You blindly continue to act like you KNOW what other people's motivations and intentions. Now you KNOW why I was absent??? I had an appointment at 2:30, but that is none of your business.

You are an ill-mannered cretin. Do your knuckles touch the ground when you walk? 

Like you said, all the posts are here for all to see...Yelling: http://www.usmessageboard.com/2388450-post278.html


----------



## Bfgrn

LANMaster said:


> You left leaners simply do not understand that proper tax cuts actually INCREASE Federal tax receipts.
> More growth, more employment, more taxpayers = more revenus
> Tax hikes generally reduce Federal tax receipts.
> Growth stifled, investing drops. jobless rates go up, fewer taxpayers = lower revenues



I understand the 'theory', but it just hasn't worked.






September 19, 2004 

The large tax cuts passed by Congress in 2001, 2002 and 2003 were signature items in President Bush's fiscal policy. All provisions of those tax cuts, however, expire by the end of 2010 and some expire earlier. A prominent feature of the president's campaign is to make almost all the tax cuts permanent.

We have analyzed that proposal and reached the following conclusions:

Making the tax cuts permanent would generate large, backloaded revenue losses over the next 10 years. Combined with a minimal but necessary fix to the government's Alternative Minimum Tax, making the tax cuts permanent would reduce federal revenues by almost $1.8 trillion over 10 years  and that's in addition to the $1.7 trillion of revenue losses already locked into law. By 2014, the annual revenue loss would amount to $400 billion, or 2 percent of gross domestic product  almost the size of this year's federal budget deficit.

· Paying for the tax cuts would require monumental reductions in spending or increases in other taxes. To offset the revenue losses in 2014 would require, for example, a 48 percent reduction in Social Security benefits, a 57 percent cut in Medicare benefits, or a 117 percent increase in corporate taxes.

· Over the long run, making the tax cuts permanent would cost as much as repairing the shortfalls in the Social Security and Medicare Hospital Insurance trust funds. Thus, to the extent that Social Security and Medicare are considered major long-term fiscal problems, making the tax cuts permanent should be seen as creating a fiscal problem of equivalent magnitude.

· Making the tax cuts permanent would be regressive; that is, it would confer by far the biggest benefits on high-income taxpayers. After-tax income would increase by more than 6 percent for households in the top 1 percent of the nation's income distribution, 2 percent for households in the middle 60 percent, and only 0.3 percent for households in the bottom 20 percent. The share of the tax cut accruing to high-income taxpayers would exceed their share of federal tax payments today, so their share of the federal tax burden would decline. The tax cuts will ultimately have to be financed with other tax increases or spending cuts. Once plausible methods of financing the tax cuts are taken into account, more than three-quarters of households are likely to end up worse off than they would have been if the tax cuts had never taken effect.

· Making the tax cuts permanent is likely to reduce long-term economic growth, not increase it. Studies by the Federal Reserve, the Congressional Budget Office and the Joint Committee on Taxation, as well as our own research, indicate that making the tax cuts permanent would increase the size of the economy slightly and temporarily but would reduce growth in the long term, in part because higher federal deficits will have a negative effect on long-term saving, investment and capital accumulation.

More...


----------



## Bfgrn

gslack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No douchebag, I don't have to know your intentions, you show them here all too well.. And your motivation is most likely your childish need to save  face...
> 
> I showed you how your article was wrong and used much more accurate sources to do so.. You tried to lie about the sources in both what they were and what they said... So fuck you, lying little weasel.... Go get your own answers junior, I am done educating you.. You ran your mouth thinking you were brilliant and in reality, once again, you were dead wrong. So again instead of acting like an adult and shutting the fuck up, you tried to lie your way out of it.... You need help asshole....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I may not be brilliant, but compared to you I'm Albert Einstein...
> 
> Any adult reading your tantrum filled response would elicit this image...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The agents of the British government were corporations. These corporations were tools of the king's oppression. The rich formed joint-stock corporations and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had the autonomy to pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce.
> 
> THEY were 'responsible' to pay the British government, whether or not they were able to collect the duties...SO reducing the duty on tea, was a tax cut to the corporation.
> 
> YOU tried to twist the semantics...you FAILED.
> 
> BTW, your first source, you know, the author-less one that made the PR claim of 'presenting history through the perspective of those who actually lived it'
> 
> Well, it's website give no information on who wrote any of the articles. Also, if you search for Ibis Communications, it leads to this site, which uses the SAME logo, but makes no mention of EyeWitnesstoHistory.com
> 
> Ibis Communications Home
> 
> Were Ibis Communications, a full-service advertising firm expert at inclusive and multicultural marketing. It has been our forté and our hallmark for over a decade. In more recent years, we have expanded our brand to include green marketing and business practices as part of our commitment to our clients, partners and the global community.
> 
> You can now continue you tantrum...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still trying to fix your fuck up huh tool????
> 
> Wow what a hopeless imbecile......
> 
> You were busted lying on that ... I have the posts right here in this thread so just stop lying already. it makes you looks stupid....
> 
> EDIT* why did you give a link to IBIS? it doesn't help you dumbass.. LOL...
> 
> Ibis Communications :: A Passion for Diversity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Diverse, Inclusive and Green
> 
> The Ibis is the bird of wisdom and symbol of knowledge, an omen of good things to come, the mythical scribe of powerful, transformative and beautiful messages. Thats the Ibis specialty, reaching niche markets across a broad spectrum of demographics, with fluent, resonant, and persuasive communications.
> 
> Who are we? We are writers, artists, strategists, media masters, computer geeks, philosophers, visionaries, baby-boomers, echo-boomers, vegetarians, meat eaters, bikers, golfers, bowlers, skiers, pet lovers, and yes, even a couple of wannabe rock stars. Like birds of a feather, we have flocked here from major cities and small towns to bring a multicultural, multi-perspective blend of creative and strategic talent to every solution.
> 
> *We are specialists, linguists,* if you will, when it comes to communicating to a diverse community. Weve taken the best of our professional experiences and poured them into our own melting pot. Our creative solutions come by tapping into that collective cauldron of knowledge. When working together, or collaborating with outside professionals, we celebrate differences. And theres nothing more euphoric than when a myriad of ideas evolves into one universal concept in which we all can believe and embrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


WOW...I guess you can't tell chocolate from dogshit without tasting it. What a long winded PR written bunch of rhetorical crap...

WHO is the author? Can you answer that basic and pertinent question?


----------



## RevRabbiJCG

gslack said:


> I will wait for someone who actually read the post and has a reasonable, thoughtful response....



I've read a portion of what you have written. While I am not a Tea Party member I am however, someone who can identify with what they are doing. Also, I can identify on the level of why they are doing it. They are made up by and large of all political parties and not just Reps only. These people are sick and tired of a government that is run by crooked lobbists and other socialist ilk who wish to transform American in to another socialist nation that's run on a system of government that is a dismal failure. Large government with a pletora of govt run programs are costly and will bancrupt us as a nation. 

    Our nation was built on the proposition that, "_all men are created equal, and endowed by our Creator certain inaliable rights_". The far left wacko , nut jobs see the Tea Party as a threat to their ever grown power. Folks like Boxer, Shumer, Reid and Frank are greedy, pious gas bags who want to keep what the public entrusted them with. But instead of doing what is best for the nation as a whole, they used it for corruptble, and damnable things. These people and the ilk they represent desire nothing more then to destroy the US Constitution, and get rid of the Bill of Rights. These folks must be removed by the electoriate (that's us) and reminded that it's "We The People" and not "We the States" These folks hate us and want to make us into slaves [ liberal dems and not the Tea Party]

   Tea Party member want a return to the Founders and what they the Founders wanted.

  In Summery: 
     I hope that this answers a few questions.


----------



## Bfgrn

Foxfyre said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murf76 said:
> 
> 
> 
> People are reeducating themselves on the founding principles, economic concepts, the Constitution, etc.
> 
> Here's today's Amazon.com bestseller list.  There's a 50-year old title at #1 that Glenn Beck talked about on his show just yesterday, _The Road to Serfdom_.  His show was on a 5pm EST yesterday, and by 9am this morning... it's #1.
> Amazon.com Books Bestsellers: The most popular items on Amazon.com. Updated hourly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the pied piper on the road to serfdom...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Road To Economic Serfdom
> 
> By Peter Boone and Simon Johnson
> 
> According to Friedrich von Hayek, the development of welfare socialism after World War II undermined freedom and would lead western democracies inexorably to some form of state-run serfdom.
> 
> Hayek had the sign and the destination right but was entirely wrong about the mechanism.  Unregulated finance, the ideology of unfettered free markets, and *state capture by corporate interests *are what ended up undermining democracy both in North America and in Europe.  All industrialized countries are at risk...
> 
> The Road To Economic Serfdom  The Baseline Scenario
> 
> Here is an enlightening piece written by Friedrich von Hayek...Why I Am Not a Conservative By Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Boone and Johnson, neo-socialists, of course would try to discredit Hayek who did not advocate unregulated anything.  Hayek is the quentissential classical liberal (i.e. modern American conservative) advocating as much freedom as can be allowed.  He, however, as all classical liberals are, was a rule of law guy and certainly supported whatever regulation was necessary to keep us from doing violence to each other including intrusion on the unalienable, Constitution, civil, and legal rights of others.  But, like all classical liberals, Hayek then wanted government out of it and let the private sector do it.
> 
> Peter Boone and Simon Johnson, like all modern liberals, see government as the solution for all human ills.
> 
> In the intro to  _The Road to Serfdom _ , published in England 1944, was Hayek's effort to teach English socialists that they were on the same path that brought the National Socialists (the "Nazis") to power in Germany and the Communists to power in Russia. It did not express all of Hayek's philosophy re government and economics.
> 
> from Wiki but right on the money:
> 
> 
> 
> Hayek disapproved strongly of the notion of 'social justice'. He compared the market to a game in which 'there is no point in calling the outcome just or unjust'[45] and argued that 'social justice is an empty phrase with no determinable content';[46] likewise 'the results of the individual's efforts are necessarily unpredictable, and the question as to whether the resulting distribution of incomes is just has no meaning.'[47] *He regarded any attempt by government to redistribute income or capital as an unacceptable intrusion upon individual freedom: 'the principle of distributive justice, once introduced, would not be fulfilled until the whole of society was organized in accordance with it. This would produce a kind of society which in all essential respects would be the opposite of a free society.[48]*
> 
> However, Hayek was prepared to tolerate 'some provision for those threatened by the extremes of indigence or starvation, be it only in the interest of those who require protection against acts of desperation on the part of the needy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And within my understanding of consequences that we know of world history, Hayek's point of view holds up a whole lot better than does Johnson and Boones'.
> 
> The thing that boggles my mind is how liberals keep convincing themselves that the only reason their way hasn't worked thus far is that nobody has done it right.  So they keep repeating the same mistakes over and over and over ignoring the fact that such attempts are taking us straight into economic and social hell.
> 
> Repeat:   Classical liberal = modern American conservative.
Click to expand...


WOW, you just licked the ass of rodeo clown Glenn Beck, and now you call Boone and Johnson, neo-socialists?

You are moving WAY beyond the pea brain class into the dire need to see a psychiatrist. 

Simon Johnson is former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, is a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, and a member of the CBOs Panel of Economic Advisers.

Peter Boone is the Chair of Effective Intervention. From 1997-2003 he was a Managing Partner and Research Director for Brunswick-UBS, an investment bank in Moscow. From 1993-1997 he was a lecturer at the London School of Economics and Director of the Emerging Markets Finance Programme at the CEP. He completed a Ph.D. in economics from Harvard University in 1990.

What do you think they teach a Harvard, socialism?

Here's a clue for you...we don't HAVE a free market. 

Ronald Reagan and what has evolved into a fascist-like GOP has made Regulatory Capture a preferred policy...they CALL it privatization.

Hayek would NEVER agree that Regulatory capture had any place in a free market!

Regulatory capture occurs when a state regulatory agency created to act in the public interest instead acts in favor of the commercial or special interests that dominate in the industry or sector it is charged with regulating. Regulatory capture is a form of government failure, as it can act as an encouragement for large firms to produce negative externalities. The agencies are called Captured Agencies.

We, the people absorb about 4 trillion dollars per year in corporate cost externalization. Properly called corporate WELFARE and corporate SOCIALISM...

In a TRUE free market, you can't get rich by making other people poor.


----------



## gslack

Bfgrn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I may not be brilliant, but compared to you I'm Albert Einstein...
> 
> Any adult reading your tantrum filled response would elicit this image...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The agents of the British government were corporations. These corporations were tools of the king's oppression. The rich formed joint-stock corporations and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had the autonomy to pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce.
> 
> THEY were 'responsible' to pay the British government, whether or not they were able to collect the duties...SO reducing the duty on tea, was a tax cut to the corporation.
> 
> YOU tried to twist the semantics...you FAILED.
> 
> BTW, your first source, you know, the author-less one that made the PR claim of 'presenting history through the perspective of those who actually lived it'
> 
> Well, it's website give no information on who wrote any of the articles. Also, if you search for Ibis Communications, it leads to this site, which uses the SAME logo, but makes no mention of EyeWitnesstoHistory.com
> 
> Ibis Communications Home
> 
> We&#8217;re Ibis Communications, a full-service advertising firm expert at inclusive and multicultural marketing. It has been our forté and our hallmark for over a decade. In more recent years, we have expanded our brand to include green marketing and business practices as part of our commitment to our clients, partners and the global community.
> 
> You can now continue you tantrum...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still trying to fix your fuck up huh tool????
> 
> Wow what a hopeless imbecile......
> 
> You were busted lying on that ... I have the posts right here in this thread so just stop lying already. it makes you looks stupid....
> 
> EDIT* why did you give a link to IBIS? it doesn't help you dumbass.. LOL...
> 
> Ibis Communications :: A Passion for Diversity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Diverse, Inclusive and Green
> 
> The Ibis is the bird of wisdom and symbol of knowledge, an omen of good things to come, the mythical scribe of powerful, transformative and beautiful messages. That&#8217;s the Ibis specialty, reaching niche markets across a broad spectrum of demographics, with fluent, resonant, and persuasive communications.
> 
> Who are we? We are writers, artists, strategists, media masters, computer geeks, philosophers, visionaries, baby-boomers, echo-boomers, vegetarians, meat eaters, bikers, golfers, bowlers, skiers, pet lovers, and yes, even a couple of wannabe rock stars. Like birds of a feather, we have flocked here from major cities and small towns to bring a multicultural, multi-perspective blend of creative and strategic talent to every solution.
> 
> *We are specialists, linguists,* if you will, when it comes to communicating to a diverse community. We&#8217;ve taken the best of our professional experiences and poured them into our own melting pot. Our creative solutions come by tapping into that collective cauldron of knowledge. When working together, or collaborating with outside professionals, we celebrate differences. And there&#8217;s nothing more euphoric than when a myriad of ideas evolves into one universal concept in which we all can believe and embrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOW...I guess you can't tell chocolate from dogshit without tasting it. What a long winded PR written bunch of rhetorical crap...
> 
> WHO is the author? Can you answer that basic and pertinent question?
Click to expand...



LOL you don't know what a linguist is?? LOL ,my brother was a linguist for the navy... He spoke Russian.... That give you a clue dumbass....LOL You imbecile they (eyewitnesstohistory.com)are a group who have won awards for their work on history and educational aids you moron....LOL From their about us page... You know the one YOU claimed wasn't there....


> EyeWitnesstoHistory.com (Website)
> An award-winning website presenting history through the perspective of those who actually lived it - from the ancient world through the 20th century.
> 
> Awards include: Yahoo! Pick of the Week, USA Today Outstanding Website, Best of History Website, Innovative Teaching Award and Kim Komando Cool Site of the Day.American Journey 1896-1945 (CD-ROM)
> Explores American history from the Klondike Goldrush to the Atomic bomb. Sold in 5,000 retail outlets across the country.
> 
> King Arthur Through the Ages (CD-ROM)
> An introduction to one of the most enduring legends in European literature. An interactive, multimedia production. Developed in conjunction with Calvert School and winner of the Parents' Choice Award.



Yeah busted again...... Gettin tired of slappin you know retard...


----------



## Bfgrn

gslack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still trying to fix your fuck up huh tool????
> 
> Wow what a hopeless imbecile......
> 
> You were busted lying on that ... I have the posts right here in this thread so just stop lying already. it makes you looks stupid....
> 
> EDIT* why did you give a link to IBIS? it doesn't help you dumbass.. LOL...
> 
> Ibis Communications :: A Passion for Diversity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW...I guess you can't tell chocolate from dogshit without tasting it. What a long winded PR written bunch of rhetorical crap...
> 
> WHO is the author? Can you answer that basic and pertinent question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL you don't know what a linguist is?? LOL ,my brother was a linguist for the navy... He spoke Russian.... That give you a clue dumbass....LOL You imbecile they are a group who have won awards fro their work on history and educational aids you moron....LOL
Click to expand...


Whatever you say it tastes like Monica...

Our world is changing.

Consult the latest Census data or simply step out on the street to see for yourself. We find ourselves interfacing with people of every race, culture, religion and sexual persuasion. As a result, your business needs a new perspective on *marketing* communications. Its called inclusive *marketing*, and it embraces the entire multicultural fabric of our community. Done well, inclusive* marketing* means increased market share, stronger brands, more loyalty and greater profits.

Were Ibis Communications, a full-service *advertising firm *expert at inclusive and multicultural *marketing. *It has been our forté and our hallmark for over a decade. In more recent years, we have expanded our brand to include green *marketing *and business practices as part of our commitment to our clients, partners and the global community.
Ibis Communications Home

gslack...Simply give me the author's name. A fair and reasonable request. Do you comprehend? I'm not speaking Russian...


----------



## gslack

Bfgrn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW...I guess you can't tell chocolate from dogshit without tasting it. What a long winded PR written bunch of rhetorical crap...
> 
> WHO is the author? Can you answer that basic and pertinent question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL you don't know what a linguist is?? LOL ,my brother was a linguist for the navy... He spoke Russian.... That give you a clue dumbass....LOL You imbecile they are a group who have won awards fro their work on history and educational aids you moron....LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whatever you say it tastes like Monica...
> 
> Our world is changing.
> 
> Consult the latest Census data or simply step out on the street to see for yourself. We find ourselves interfacing with people of every race, culture, religion and sexual persuasion. As a result, your business needs a new perspective on *marketing* communications. Its called inclusive *marketing*, and it embraces the entire multicultural fabric of our community. Done well, inclusive* marketing* means increased market share, stronger brands, more loyalty and greater profits.
> 
> Were Ibis Communications, a full-service *advertising firm *expert at inclusive and multicultural *marketing. *It has been our forté and our hallmark for over a decade. In more recent years, we have expanded our brand to include green *marketing *and business practices as part of our commitment to our clients, partners and the global community.
> Ibis Communications Home
> 
> gslack...Simply give me the author's name. A fair and reasonable request. Do you comprehend? I'm not speaking Russian...
Click to expand...


LOL that it ? Do you understand what a text book is? Who writes text books dipshit? Can you tell me who wrote your 9th grade text book? How about a chapter of it?.. They are called copywriters you moron....They are paid to copy write..As in write copy... With no accreditation just a paycheck....

Now grow the fuck up you little nitwit... You fucked up now deal with it...


----------



## Bfgrn

gslack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL you don't know what a linguist is?? LOL ,my brother was a linguist for the navy... He spoke Russian.... That give you a clue dumbass....LOL You imbecile they are a group who have won awards fro their work on history and educational aids you moron....LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever you say it tastes like Monica...
> 
> Our world is changing.
> 
> Consult the latest Census data or simply step out on the street to see for yourself. We find ourselves interfacing with people of every race, culture, religion and sexual persuasion. As a result, your business needs a new perspective on *marketing* communications. Its called inclusive *marketing*, and it embraces the entire multicultural fabric of our community. Done well, inclusive* marketing* means increased market share, stronger brands, more loyalty and greater profits.
> 
> Were Ibis Communications, a full-service *advertising firm *expert at inclusive and multicultural *marketing. *It has been our forté and our hallmark for over a decade. In more recent years, we have expanded our brand to include green *marketing *and business practices as part of our commitment to our clients, partners and the global community.
> Ibis Communications Home
> 
> gslack...Simply give me the author's name. A fair and reasonable request. Do you comprehend? I'm not speaking Russian...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL that it ? Do you understand what a text book is? Who writes text books dipshit? Can you tell me who wrote your 9th grade text book? How about a chapter of it?.. They are called copywriters you moron....They are paid to copy write..As in write copy... With no accreditation just a paycheck....
> 
> Now grow the fuck up you little nitwit... You fucked up now deal with it...
Click to expand...


Ohhhhh, so the 'copywriters', the automatons that copy and transfer at the marketing firm Ibis Communications are the REAL people qualified to report history from 'the perspective of those who actually lived it'

Thanks for clearing that up...


----------



## gslack

Bfgrn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I may not be brilliant, but compared to you I'm Albert Einstein...
> 
> Any adult reading your tantrum filled response would elicit this image...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The agents of the British government were corporations. These corporations were tools of the king's oppression. The rich formed joint-stock corporations and gave them names like the Hudson Bay Company, the British East India Company and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Because they were so far from their sovereign - the king - the agents for these corporations had the autonomy to pass laws, levy taxes, and even raise armies to manage and control property and commerce.
> 
> THEY were 'responsible' to pay the British government, whether or not they were able to collect the duties...SO reducing the duty on tea, was a tax cut to the corporation.
> 
> YOU tried to twist the semantics...you FAILED.
> 
> BTW, your first source, you know, the author-less one that made the PR claim of 'presenting history through the perspective of those who actually lived it'
> 
> Well, it's website give no information on who wrote any of the articles. Also, if you search for Ibis Communications, it leads to this site, which uses the SAME logo, but makes no mention of EyeWitnesstoHistory.com
> 
> Ibis Communications Home
> 
> We&#8217;re Ibis Communications, a full-service advertising firm expert at inclusive and multicultural marketing. It has been our forté and our hallmark for over a decade. In more recent years, we have expanded our brand to include green marketing and business practices as part of our commitment to our clients, partners and the global community.
> 
> You can now continue you tantrum...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still trying to fix your fuck up huh tool????
> 
> Wow what a hopeless imbecile......
> 
> You were busted lying on that ... I have the posts right here in this thread so just stop lying already. it makes you looks stupid....
> 
> EDIT* why did you give a link to IBIS? it doesn't help you dumbass.. LOL...
> 
> Ibis Communications :: A Passion for Diversity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Diverse, Inclusive and Green
> 
> The Ibis is the bird of wisdom and symbol of knowledge, an omen of good things to come, the mythical scribe of powerful, transformative and beautiful messages. That&#8217;s the Ibis specialty, reaching niche markets across a broad spectrum of demographics, with fluent, resonant, and persuasive communications.
> 
> Who are we? We are writers, artists, strategists, media masters, computer geeks, philosophers, visionaries, baby-boomers, echo-boomers, vegetarians, meat eaters, bikers, golfers, bowlers, skiers, pet lovers, and yes, even a couple of wannabe rock stars. Like birds of a feather, we have flocked here from major cities and small towns to bring a multicultural, multi-perspective blend of creative and strategic talent to every solution.
> 
> *We are specialists, linguists,* if you will, when it comes to communicating to a diverse community. We&#8217;ve taken the best of our professional experiences and poured them into our own melting pot. Our creative solutions come by tapping into that collective cauldron of knowledge. When working together, or collaborating with outside professionals, we celebrate differences. And there&#8217;s nothing more euphoric than when a myriad of ideas evolves into one universal concept in which we all can believe and embrace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WOW...I guess you can't tell chocolate from dogshit without tasting it. What a long winded PR written bunch of rhetorical crap...
> 
> WHO is the author? Can you answer that basic and pertinent question?
Click to expand...



LOL you don't know what a linguist is?? LOL ,my brother was a linguist for the navy... He spoke Russian.... That give you a clue dumbass....LOL You imbecile they (eyewitnesstohistory.com)are a group who have won awards for their work on history and educational aids you moron....LOL From their about us page... You know the one YOU claimed wasn't there....


> EyeWitnesstoHistory.com (Website)
> An award-winning website presenting history through the perspective of those who actually lived it - from the ancient world through the 20th century.
> 
> Awards include: Yahoo! Pick of the Week, USA Today Outstanding Website, Best of History Website, Innovative Teaching Award and Kim Komando Cool Site of the Day.American Journey 1896-1945 (CD-ROM)
> Explores American history from the Klondike Goldrush to the Atomic bomb. Sold in 5,000 retail outlets across the country.
> 
> King Arthur Through the Ages (CD-ROM)
> An introduction to one of the most enduring legends in European literature. An interactive, multimedia production. Developed in conjunction with Calvert School and winner of the Parents' Choice Award.



Yeah busted again...... Gettin tired of slappin you know retard...

BTW, I re-posted that because you are a liar and a weasel and the forum should know this.... You claimed the site had no About us on it.. well there it is tool... here is the link to their ABOUT US page you claimed wasn't there.....Ibis Communications, Inc.  I found it going to their homepage douchebag..... Right on top of their awards listed in the front....

So you lied again huh..yeah ya did dumbass...

So then you can tell me who wrote chapter one of your last text book you had in school?? please then enlighten us all.....


----------



## Bfgrn

gslack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still trying to fix your fuck up huh tool????
> 
> Wow what a hopeless imbecile......
> 
> You were busted lying on that ... I have the posts right here in this thread so just stop lying already. it makes you looks stupid....
> 
> EDIT* why did you give a link to IBIS? it doesn't help you dumbass.. LOL...
> 
> Ibis Communications :: A Passion for Diversity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW...I guess you can't tell chocolate from dogshit without tasting it. What a long winded PR written bunch of rhetorical crap...
> 
> WHO is the author? Can you answer that basic and pertinent question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL you don't know what a linguist is?? LOL ,my brother was a linguist for the navy... He spoke Russian.... That give you a clue dumbass....LOL You imbecile they (eyewitnesstohistory.com)are a group who have won awards for their work on history and educational aids you moron....LOL From their about us page... You know the one YOU claimed wasn't there....
> 
> 
> 
> EyeWitnesstoHistory.com (Website)
> An award-winning website presenting history through the perspective of those who actually lived it - from the ancient world through the 20th century.
> 
> Awards include: Yahoo! Pick of the Week, USA Today Outstanding Website, Best of History Website, Innovative Teaching Award and Kim Komando Cool Site of the Day.American Journey 1896-1945 (CD-ROM)
> Explores American history from the Klondike Goldrush to the Atomic bomb. Sold in 5,000 retail outlets across the country.
> 
> King Arthur Through the Ages (CD-ROM)
> An introduction to one of the most enduring legends in European literature. An interactive, multimedia production. Developed in conjunction with Calvert School and winner of the Parents' Choice Award.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah busted again...... Gettin tired of slappin you know retard...
> 
> BTW, I re-posted that because you are a liar and a weasel and the forum should know this.... You claimed the site had no About us on it.. well there it is tool... here is the link to their ABOUT US page you claimed wasn't there.....Ibis Communications, Inc.  I found it going to their homepage douchebag..... Right on top of their awards listed in the front....
> 
> So you lied again huh..yeah ya did dumbass...
> 
> *So then you can tell me who wrote chapter one of your last text book you had in school?? *please then enlighten us all.....
Click to expand...


Yea, a 'copywriter', an automaton that copies and transfers. The people called TOOLS...


----------



## gslack

Bfgrn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW...I guess you can't tell chocolate from dogshit without tasting it. What a long winded PR written bunch of rhetorical crap...
> 
> WHO is the author? Can you answer that basic and pertinent question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL you don't know what a linguist is?? LOL ,my brother was a linguist for the navy... He spoke Russian.... That give you a clue dumbass....LOL You imbecile they (eyewitnesstohistory.com)are a group who have won awards for their work on history and educational aids you moron....LOL From their about us page... You know the one YOU claimed wasn't there....
> 
> 
> 
> EyeWitnesstoHistory.com (Website)
> An award-winning website presenting history through the perspective of those who actually lived it - from the ancient world through the 20th century.
> 
> Awards include: Yahoo! Pick of the Week, USA Today Outstanding Website, Best of History Website, Innovative Teaching Award and Kim Komando Cool Site of the Day.American Journey 1896-1945 (CD-ROM)
> Explores American history from the Klondike Goldrush to the Atomic bomb. Sold in 5,000 retail outlets across the country.
> 
> King Arthur Through the Ages (CD-ROM)
> An introduction to one of the most enduring legends in European literature. An interactive, multimedia production. Developed in conjunction with Calvert School and winner of the Parents' Choice Award.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah busted again...... Gettin tired of slappin you know retard...
> 
> BTW, I re-posted that because you are a liar and a weasel and the forum should know this.... You claimed the site had no About us on it.. well there it is tool... here is the link to their ABOUT US page you claimed wasn't there.....Ibis Communications, Inc.  I found it going to their homepage douchebag..... Right on top of their awards listed in the front....
> 
> So you lied again huh..yeah ya did dumbass...
> 
> *So then you can tell me who wrote chapter one of your last text book you had in school?? *please then enlighten us all.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yea, a 'copywriter', an automaton that copies and transfers. The people called TOOLS...
Click to expand...


Again no comment on the fact YOU WERE WRONG AGAIN.....

Typical little troll behavior.... You lied douchebag, and ya got caught in it several times here.... Now grow up and show some sense...


----------



## Bfgrn

gslack said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL you don't know what a linguist is?? LOL ,my brother was a linguist for the navy... He spoke Russian.... That give you a clue dumbass....LOL You imbecile they (eyewitnesstohistory.com)are a group who have won awards for their work on history and educational aids you moron....LOL From their about us page... You know the one YOU claimed wasn't there....
> 
> 
> Yeah busted again...... Gettin tired of slappin you know retard...
> 
> BTW, I re-posted that because you are a liar and a weasel and the forum should know this.... You claimed the site had no About us on it.. well there it is tool... here is the link to their ABOUT US page you claimed wasn't there.....Ibis Communications, Inc.  I found it going to their homepage douchebag..... Right on top of their awards listed in the front....
> 
> So you lied again huh..yeah ya did dumbass...
> 
> *So then you can tell me who wrote chapter one of your last text book you had in school?? *please then enlighten us all.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, a 'copywriter', an automaton that copies and transfers. The people called TOOLS...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again no comment on the fact YOU WERE WRONG AGAIN.....
> 
> Typical little troll behavior.... You lied douchebag, and ya got caught in it several times here.... Now grow up and show some sense...
Click to expand...


You keep saying I lied. I didn't lie about anything. The FACTS are in, and your site is the handiwork of a marketing firm. Deal with it and move on. But that is irrelevant to the fact that the British East India Company was responsible to pay the crown any duties the crown placed on goods. So when duties are removed or decreased, they are literally a corporate tax (duty) cut. 

You are 'word bound' maybe someone manufactures brain Exlax that will relieve your cognitive constipation ...


----------



## gslack

Bfgrn said:


> gslack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yea, a 'copywriter', an automaton that copies and transfers. The people called TOOLS...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again no comment on the fact YOU WERE WRONG AGAIN.....
> 
> Typical little troll behavior.... You lied douchebag, and ya got caught in it several times here.... Now grow up and show some sense...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep saying I lied. I didn't lie about anything. The FACTS are in, and your site is the handiwork of a marketing firm. Deal with it and move on. But that is irrelevant to the fact that the British East India Company was responsible to pay the crown any duties the crown placed on goods. So when duties are removed or decreased, they are literally a corporate tax (duty) cut.
> 
> You are 'word bound' maybe someone manufactures brain Exlax that will relieve your cognitive constipation ...
Click to expand...


oh really? how about your claim there was no about page?  how about what the site actually was? its a site promoting educational products they produce douchebag... they won awards for them....so you can kiss my ass retard...LOL


----------



## stela

Great article the tea party movement are people  from all walks democrats, republicans, independants who believe in preserving the dream of America promoting a free society and protecting the law of the land the constitution and nothing more. The document has worked for 200 years why debunk it now.  

The foreign banking such as the federal reserve bank has got us into this mess just like they did during the first depression,maybe they should be audited and charged as the criminals they truly are and collateral damages be paid back in gold and our property returned. The dollar is not backed by silver and gold, fiat cash is nothing but paper and that was the plan all along. 

This is nothing but British politics and if our father wanted it this way they wouldn't have fought the war.

 BP British petroleum is involved with the very same bankers from wall street who looted our tax dollars then passed out bonus's to their Ceo's Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, AIG's, the government bought the private sector of the auto industry, held our state officials and banks hostage to be compliant under certain conditions in order to receive the so called aid. The electric company holding aircraft and stealth bomber technology was purchased by the federal reserve bank. They looted us of our gold, silver, and now tax dollars by a bribe to completely crash the market if we didn't comply and now they had their party, their back again for more and the cycle will go on until there is nothing left.  

 These foreign bankers will leave us just as they have left the other nations raped and in ruins nothing but a third world country vulnerable to dictator rule, which always takes over to dispose of the waste after a country has collapsed elderly, handicapped, retired you name it. People who can not afford to pay into the system are considered a burden and therefore are put to rest, that is where the health care reform comes in, Fema camps. The government now is trying to take our guns, freedom of speech, freedom of choice, protection from home invasion, privacy.  America and christianity is on their hit list and our politicians will do what their told to do by the highest bidder if there isn't show of force to stop it. Tea (taxed enough already). Is Obama a part of the agenda, sadly yes just like all the rest of them, and he has covered more ground and done greater damage in such a short period of time. Clintons 8 YRS. BUSH FAMILY 12. Now he's back on the cap and trade something the British want pushed through badly, and were in another war and paying for multiple czars to boot.

I classify the tea party movement as individuals who know history and see the writing on the wall. Alarmists to wake up those who are still asleep, yes the Jeffersons, Paines, and Washingtons freedom is fragile it was never free and can be easily taken away.


----------

