# Tea Party Persecution...Why?



## Lumpy 1

You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..would be popular, instead their persecuted by the left and the left want-to-Be's....


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

Because they have no compunction whatsoever about telling us "commies" that they are the only true Americans and they are entirley clueless as to how completely self absorbered their hateful rhetoric comes accross to the rest of the country.

That's why.


----------



## R.C. Christian

They try to warp into a racial hated based thing and a d terrorist thing.


----------



## Sherry

It's not just the left...it's anyone who fears the status quo being attacked.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

Plus, it's the whole "were going to force the Republicans to take a step backwards" thing. 
Just calling it like I see it - maybe I'm wrong?


----------



## Sunni Man

It's because the Tea Party isn't under the Democrat's umbrella and so they must be vilified and attacked by the liberals without mercy.  ..


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

Sunni Man said:


> It's because the Tea Party isn't under the Democrat's umbrella and so they must be vilified and attacked by the liberals without mercy.  ..



Well, if I were an incumbant republican and I lost my seat all because some completely unqualified yaho got the backing of the Koch brothers, I would not hardly be blaming the dems now, would I?


----------



## HenryBHough

Sincerity test:

If you think yourself to be a liberal or a progressive have you turned off PBS and forbidden your issue to watch it?

Remember, much of the programming is sponsored by The Koch Brothers.

If you haven't why not?


----------



## Lumpy 1

Sherry said:


> It's not just the left...it's anyone who fears the status quo being attacked.



So it follows that both Democrats and establishment Republicans like their free stuff, corruption, waste and going down the road to socialism even if it dooms the future of the country, the younger generations and obliterates the middle-class.


----------



## Camp

It's because they deserve it.


----------



## R.C. Christian

Camp said:


> It's because they deserve it.



Ah, so certain Americans should be persecuted for their beliefs. Can you make a list for us?


----------



## Sherry

Lumpy 1 said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just the left...it's anyone who fears the status quo being attacked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it follows that both Democrats and establishment Republicans like their free stuff, corruption, waste and going down the road to socialism even if it dooms the future of the country, the younger generations and obliterates the middle-class.
Click to expand...


They're all drunk on power and actually believe that they can continue to control the runaway train.


----------



## aaronleland

Persecuted isn't the correct word. Ridiculed, yes.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

R.C. Christian said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's because they deserve it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so certain Americans should be persecuted for their beliefs. Can you make a list for us?
Click to expand...


Liberals? 

They seem to get a **** load of grief.


----------



## R.C. Christian

If I'm going to be persecuted and have my windows broken I had better at least get some snazzy flair.


----------



## oldfart

R.C. Christian said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's because they deserve it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so certain Americans should be persecuted for their beliefs. Can you make a list for us?
Click to expand...


You are confusing ridicule with persecution.  You call me a commie and I call you a fascist.  That is ridicule.  Trying to stop people from voting is persecution.  The Tea Party can't tell the difference.


----------



## R.C. Christian

And the same could be said for the democratic party. Both try ways to dissuade voting by intimidation or other tactics.


----------



## Vandalshandle

The Tea Party is so clueless and ignorant that it makes me think of the Moral Majority as representing the "good old days".


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

R.C. Christian said:


> And the same could be said for the democratic party. Both try ways to dissuade voting by intimidation or other tactics.



Right, like claiming 'voter fraud" and passing voter ID laws and other helpful stuf.


----------



## aaronleland

In some cases the Tea Party deserves the ridicule they receive. I would have respect for them if they stuck to a message of fiscal conservatism and small government. Instead you have the loudest people in the group bitching about things like birth certificates and vacations.


----------



## Stephanie

aaronleland said:


> Persecuted isn't the correct word. Ridiculed, yes.



man oh man, you've become a real hater


----------



## Stephanie

aaronleland said:


> In some cases the Tea Party deserves the ridicule they receive. I would have respect for them if they stuck to a message of fiscal conservatism and small government. Instead you have the loudest people in the group bitching about things like birth certificates and vacations.



you can't pin that on the Tea Party..How do you have PROOF of that?
you just paint with a broad brush like the left does


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Lumpy 1 said:


> Tea Party Persecution...Why?


Credit rating downgrade.

Sequester.

Government shutdown. 

Threat to allow the Nation to default. 

For starters

Of course, its not persecution, as that implies some sort of unjustified attack. 

Criticism of the TPM such as the above and more is indeed justified and appropriate, as House republicans have done nothing but obstruct, placing party before country, contributing nothing worthwhile.


----------



## Stephanie

Vandalshandle said:


> The Tea Party is so clueless and ignorant that it makes me think of the Moral Majority as representing the "good old days".



you shouldn't talk about morals while calling other ignorant...
look at your own


----------



## Stephanie

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Party Persecution...Why?
> 
> 
> 
> Credit rating downgrade.
> 
> Sequester.
> 
> Government shutdown.
> 
> Threat to allow the Nation to default.
> 
> For starters
> 
> Of course, its not persecution, as that implies some sort of unjustified attack.
> 
> Criticism of the TPM such as the above and more is indeed justified and appropriate, as House republicans have done nothing but obstruct, placing party before country, contributing nothing worthwhile.
Click to expand...


and like a good democrat sheep all you've done is lay blame on everyone else and whine whine whine while your party run all the people in this country
hack


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

Stephanie said:


> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> In some cases the Tea Party deserves the ridicule they receive. I would have respect for them if they stuck to a message of fiscal conservatism and small government. Instead you have the loudest people in the group bitching about things like birth certificates and vacations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you can't pin that on the Tea Party..How do you have PROOF of that?
> you just paint with a broad brush like the left does
Click to expand...


You need proof of the birther thing?


----------



## daveman

Camp said:


> It's because they deserve it.



Progressives sure do like to punish Thoughtcrime, don't they?


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

Stephanie said:


> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Persecuted isn't the correct word. Ridiculed, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> man oh man, you've become a real hater
Click to expand...


He actually made a very correct point and your rebutle was to insult him for it.

Pick up your game a bit.


----------



## Stephanie

daveman said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's because they deserve it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Progressives sure do like to punish Thoughtcrime, don't they?
Click to expand...


of course, that's that TOLERANCE they claim have more of and don't forget they claim they care more too

pfeeesh jokes


----------



## Lumpy 1

aaronleland said:


> In some cases the Tea Party deserves the ridicule they receive. I would have respect for them if they stuck to a message of fiscal conservatism and small government. Instead you have the loudest people in the group bitching about things like birth certificates and vacations.



Perhaps their detractors only hear what they want to hear. I'm pretty sure that the Tea Party would rather not get into the social issues, yet progressives attribute them with their own politically motivated lies.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Stephanie said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party is so clueless and ignorant that it makes me think of the Moral Majority as representing the "good old days".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you shouldn't talk about morals while calling other ignorant...
> look at your own
Click to expand...


I took your advice at looked at them. They are still there!


----------



## Stephanie

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Persecuted isn't the correct word. Ridiculed, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> man oh man, you've become a real hater
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He actually made a very correct point and your rebutle was to insult him for it.
> 
> Pick up your game a bit.
Click to expand...


mind your own business or post so you can get an pat on the ass from someone


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

Vandalshandle said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party is so clueless and ignorant that it makes me think of the Moral Majority as representing the "good old days".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you shouldn't talk about morals while calling other ignorant...
> look at your own
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I took your advice at looked at them. They are still there!
Click to expand...


Put those away - you'll get hairy palms.


----------



## Lumpy 1

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> In some cases the Tea Party deserves the ridicule they receive. I would have respect for them if they stuck to a message of fiscal conservatism and small government. Instead you have the loudest people in the group bitching about things like birth certificates and vacations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you can't pin that on the Tea Party..How do you have PROOF of that?
> you just paint with a broad brush like the left does
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need proof of the birther thing?
Click to expand...


yawn..


----------



## aaronleland

Stephanie said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> man oh man, you've become a real hater
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He actually made a very correct point and your rebutle was to insult him for it.
> 
> Pick up your game a bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> mind your own business or post so you can get an pat on the ass from someone
Click to expand...


Explain to me how my post exhibited any sort of hate.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

Stephanie said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> man oh man, you've become a real hater
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He actually made a very correct point and your rebutle was to insult him for it.
> 
> Pick up your game a bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> mind your own business or post so you can get an pat on the ass from someone
Click to expand...



You aren't contributing - only being antagonistic. 

Do you have an opinion on the subject or is it the go to of "Liberals suck?" 

The tea party is only reaping what they have sown ... seeds of distrust.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

Lumpy 1 said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> you can't pin that on the Tea Party..How do you have PROOF of that?
> you just paint with a broad brush like the left does
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You need proof of the birther thing?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yawn..
Click to expand...


You should hear me talk about football - that would REALLY put you to sleep!

The Tea party does tend to go for that stuff.


----------



## aaronleland

Lumpy 1 said:


> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> In some cases the Tea Party deserves the ridicule they receive. I would have respect for them if they stuck to a message of fiscal conservatism and small government. Instead you have the loudest people in the group bitching about things like birth certificates and vacations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps their detractors only hear what they want to hear. I'm pretty sure that the Tea Party would rather not get into the social issues, yet progressives attribute them with their own politically motivated lies.
Click to expand...


The Tea Party and Republicans are losing the message game to Democrats. The perception is that those people are welcomed into the Tea Party with open arms. Until the they can find a way to marginalize the crazies in their group they are giving their detractors a lot of ammunition.


----------



## Camp

They do the same stupid things over and over. That makes them stupid and insane.


----------



## aaronleland

R.C. Christian said:


> If I'm going to be persecuted and have my windows broken I had better at least get some snazzy flair.








There ya go. LET THE PERSECUTION BEGIN!


----------



## Stephanie

aaronleland said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> 
> He actually made a very correct point and your rebutle was to insult him for it.
> 
> Pick up your game a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mind your own business or post so you can get an pat on the ass from someone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain to me how my post exhibited any sort of hate.
Click to expand...


why should they be ridiculed? you are pinning the birther thing on them with no proof whatsoever it came from them...You seemed to be more tolerant but lately I haven't seen it


----------



## Lumpy 1

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Party Persecution...Why?
> 
> 
> 
> Credit rating downgrade.
> 
> Sequester.
> 
> Government shutdown.
> 
> Threat to allow the Nation to default.
> 
> For starters
> 
> Of course, its not persecution, as that implies some sort of unjustified attack.
> 
> Criticism of the TPM such as the above and more is indeed justified and appropriate, as House republicans have done nothing but obstruct, placing party before country, contributing nothing worthwhile.
Click to expand...




Obama/Democrats hold 66.6% of the federal elected power, why shouldn't their negotiation powers be questioned...

Those, what 20 (Tea Party backed) members of Congress deserve all the blame, that's just silly headed and your list is childlike.


----------



## Stephanie

Lumpy 1 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Party Persecution...Why?
> 
> 
> 
> Credit rating downgrade.
> 
> Sequester.
> 
> Government shutdown.
> 
> Threat to allow the Nation to default.
> 
> For starters
> 
> Of course, its not persecution, as that implies some sort of unjustified attack.
> 
> Criticism of the TPM such as the above and more is indeed justified and appropriate, as House republicans have done nothing but obstruct, placing party before country, contributing nothing worthwhile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obama/Democrats hold 66.6% of the federal elected power, why shouldn't their negotiation powers be questioned...
> 
> Those, what 20 (Tea Party backed) members of Congress deserve all the blame, that's just silly headed and your list is childlike.
Click to expand...


His list is a Democrat talking point HACK list...
he's become nothing but a sheep


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

aaronleland said:


> The Tea Party and Republicans are losing the message game to Democrats. The perception is that those people are welcomed into the Tea Party with open arms. Until the they can find a way to marginalize the crazies in their group they are giving their detractors a lot of ammunition.



The one thing really going for the dems, is that they aren't doing a lot of yacking. 

The republicans are doing most of this stuff to themselves by turning off the independents.


----------



## Londoner

Lumpy 1 said:


> You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..would be popular, instead their persecuted by the left and the left what-to-Be's....



They don't believe in Article 1, Section 8.

They supported Wealthy Wall Street Banks over average American home owners. (They are a pure bastardization of the old Teddy Roosevelt Populism. They are populism for the wealthy elite over the poor and powerless. They support the tax agenda of large transnationals that have shipped middle class jobs to Chinese sweatshops. They support Walmart's right to get over 40% of its products made in Communist China. They are one of the most anti-patriotic groups in American history)

Many prominent members of the group were silent as Bush turned a record surplus into record deficits. 

They accept massive cash infusions from mega-lobbying firms like Freedom Works. Meaning: they don't oppose the power of concentrated wealth over the political process, they embody it. They represent those in power.

In a capitalist economy, money _is_ political power. Money funds elections and staffs government. Money _is_ the lobbying pressure which captures regulators and writes legislation. The Tea Party has more money flowing into it than any group on the Right or Left by a factor of 10. They are pure astroturf. 

Powerful business leaders use the Tea Party to wrap their special interests in grass roots.


----------



## aaronleland

Stephanie said:


> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> mind your own business or post so you can get an pat on the ass from someone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain to me how my post exhibited any sort of hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why should they be ridiculed? you are pinning the birther thing on them with no proof whatsoever it came from them...You seemed to be more tolerant but lately I haven't seen it
Click to expand...


I never said the Tea Party should be ridiculed. I was in full support of the Tea Party until they allowed the crazies to infest their group. I was only correcting Lumpy's word usage. I would call them ridiculed, but not persecuted. And your accusation of hatred came before I posted anything about birthers.


----------



## Lumpy 1

aaronleland said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> In some cases the Tea Party deserves the ridicule they receive. I would have respect for them if they stuck to a message of fiscal conservatism and small government. Instead you have the loudest people in the group bitching about things like birth certificates and vacations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps their detractors only hear what they want to hear. I'm pretty sure that the Tea Party would rather not get into the social issues, yet progressives attribute them with their own politically motivated lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Tea Party and Republicans are losing the message game to Democrats. The perception is that those people are welcomed into the Tea Party with open arms. Until the they can find a way to marginalize the crazies in their group they are giving their detractors a lot of ammunition.
Click to expand...


If you had to pick between what you feel is best for the country or what's popular to win elections, what would you choose? 

The cost to you would be persecution and false accusations by the reigning power and all their media minions.


----------



## Stephanie

aaronleland said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain to me how my post exhibited any sort of hate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why should they be ridiculed? you are pinning the birther thing on them with no proof whatsoever it came from them...You seemed to be more tolerant but lately I haven't seen it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said the Tea Party should be ridiculed. I was in full support of the Tea Party until they allowed the crazies to infest their group. I was only correcting Lumpy's word usage. I would call them ridiculed, but not persecuted. And your accusation of hatred came before I posted anything about birthers.
Click to expand...


If I jumped the gun as you say, then I will apologize
I just get fed up how everything today is because of the Tea party, especially from the elected Democrats in Congress then their sheep regurgitates it with no care they are dumping on their fellow countrymen and women


----------



## Lumpy 1

Camp said:


> They do the same stupid things over and over. That makes them stupid and insane.



Coming from a Democrat, your comment could only be considered irony and rather funny..


----------



## Camp

Why are Teabaggers being attacked by Republicans? Why are the silly hatter candidates being attacked by Republicans?


----------



## daveman

Stephanie said:


> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> mind your own business or post so you can get an pat on the ass from someone
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain to me how my post exhibited any sort of hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why should they be ridiculed? you are pinning the birther thing on them with no proof whatsoever it came from them...You seemed to be more tolerant but lately I haven't seen it
Click to expand...

The birther movement started in Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign.

Forgotten Truth: Hillary Clinton Mother of ?Birther? Movement!

That Hillary -- what a teabagger!!


----------



## HenryBHough

Quoting "Camp":   "Why are Teabaggers being attacked by Republicans? Why are the silly hatter candidates being attacked by Republicans?


"Hatters" were frequently mentally unbalanced because of occupational exposure to mercury.

Do you really see a whole lot of candidates whose employment is in the manufacture or hats these days?

Or are you just careless as well as irresponsible?


----------



## daveman

Mad_Cabbie said:


> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party and Republicans are losing the message game to Democrats. The perception is that those people are welcomed into the Tea Party with open arms. Until the they can find a way to marginalize the crazies in their group they are giving their detractors a lot of ammunition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The one thing really going for the dems, is that they aren't doing a lot of yacking.
> 
> The republicans are doing most of this stuff to themselves by turning off the independents.
Click to expand...

Wait until millions more fall victim to Obama's "you can keep your coverage" lie.

Gonna be tough to pin that on the TEA Party, innit?


----------



## aaronleland

Lumpy 1 said:


> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps their detractors only hear what they want to hear. I'm pretty sure that the Tea Party would rather not get into the social issues, yet progressives attribute them with their own politically motivated lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party and Republicans are losing the message game to Democrats. The perception is that those people are welcomed into the Tea Party with open arms. Until the they can find a way to marginalize the crazies in their group they are giving their detractors a lot of ammunition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you had to pick between what you feel is best for the country or what's popular to win elections, what would you choose?
> 
> The cost to you would be persecution and false accusations by the reigning power and all their media minions.
Click to expand...


It may not be right, but politics has always been an image game. The fact that Republicans and the Tea Party are losing that game is a failure on their part.


----------



## Lumpy 1

Camp said:


> Why are Teabaggers being attacked by Republicans? Why are the silly hatter candidates being attacked by Republicans?



Democrats operate like a horde, think the same, react the same, talk the same, persecute the same..with very few exceptions.

The Republican Party has a much too large liberal light faction and a conservative side.


----------



## daveman

Camp said:


> Why are Teabaggers being attacked by Republicans? Why are the silly hatter candidates being attacked by Republicans?


Because, obviously, the Republicans (or, as they're more accurately described, "The Democrat Party Lite") fear being turned out of office in favor of conservatives.


----------



## Lumpy 1

aaronleland said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party and Republicans are losing the message game to Democrats. The perception is that those people are welcomed into the Tea Party with open arms. Until the they can find a way to marginalize the crazies in their group they are giving their detractors a lot of ammunition.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you had to pick between what you feel is best for the country or what's popular to win elections, what would you choose?
> 
> The cost to you would be persecution and false accusations by the reigning power and all their media minions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It may not be right, but politics has always been an image game. The fact that Republicans and the Tea Party are losing that game is a failure on their part.
Click to expand...


I suppose if principles and a concern for future generations holds no importance, what you're saying would be true.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

daveman said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain to me how my post exhibited any sort of hate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why should they be ridiculed? you are pinning the birther thing on them with no proof whatsoever it came from them...You seemed to be more tolerant but lately I haven't seen it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The birther movement started in Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign.
> 
> Forgotten Truth: Hillary Clinton Mother of ?Birther? Movement!
> 
> That Hillary -- what a teabagger!!
Click to expand...




*Chronology of the birth certificate controversy. *



1) Some anonymous blogger claims that Obama wasn't born in America.



2) Obama says fine, sends away to Hawaii for a copy of his birth certificate. Gets sent official certificate of live birth just like everyone else who asks Hawaiii for their documentation.



3) Obama puts original stamped certificate in his Chicago campaign office, invites anyone to come look at it.



4) No one comes to look at it except Factcheck and the Chicago Sun Times.



5) Anonymous bloggers continue to say that Obama wasn't born in the US - pretend that certificate does not exist.



6) Obama says fine, takes a picture of the certificate and posts it on his website.



7) Anonymous blogger named "Polarik" says "it's a forgery" (because anonymous blogger is too stupid to understand how .jpeg compression works). No real experts ever step up to say anything of the sort.



8) Stupid people think that anonymous blogger is right, start to scream conspiracy, demand "long form" that Obama does not have and Hawaii does not issue.



9) Hawaii Department of Health says its not a forgery. (They must be in on the conspiracy!!!!)



10) Someone checks newspaper archives, finds two separate birth announcements. (They must have been planted because his mom knew in 1961 that her newborn black son would be President someday!!!!)



11) Still no one goes to look at original certificate in Chicago.



12) Obama is inaugurated. Not one of the 535 members of congress objects. (I guess they are all intimidated and blackmailed).



13) WorldNetDaily jumps on board, starts feeding the flames. WND's page hits go though the roof.



14) New rumors start to fly, made up mostly on FreeRepublic and other message boards by undereducated and paranoid people who never bother to check if what they are speculating about has any basis in reality. Every rumor is treated as true by those who want to believe.



A - "Obama must have abandoned his American citizenship and gotten an Indonesian passport because he traveled to Pakistan in 1981 when there was a travel ban against Americans going there." (problem - there never was a travel ban to Pakistan).



B - "Obama is hiding his long form - he said in Dreams From My Father that he had the original." (Problem - Obama actually said in his book that he saw it at his grandmothers house decades ago when he was a teenager. He never said he had it himself.)



C - "Obama travelled to Hawaii just before the election to destroy the original long certificate and murdered his grandmother to keep her quiet." (Oh come on...)



D - "Obama's Kenyan grandmother said on tape that she was present at his birth in Kenya." (No she didn't - if you listen to the entire tape it is clear that she is talking about being present at the birth of Barack Obama Senior, the president's father).



E - "The announcements in the Hawaiian newspaper were faked - that property has been owned by the same family since the 50s and it's not Obama's family" (problem - other records demonstrate that Obama's grandparents rented that property - ownership is not the issue).



F - "even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he's not a natural born citizen because both of his parents were not American citizens." (problem - this "legal" definition is made up by birthers from an obscure French treatise by a guy named de Vattel. Not only is there zero reason to think that the Founders intended to use de Vattel for this definition, the definition is counter to English common law (which we follow in America) and even de Vattel admits it. Ask any lawyer what they think of this theory.)



G - "Obama's mom abandoned his American citizenship to enroll him in school in Indonesia' (problem - no one can take away your American citizenship but you - not your parents, not the government, no one.)



H - "Attorney General Holder was spotted in Georgia intimidating a federal judge hearing a birther case" (LOL. Actually, some guy says he saw a guy that looks like Holder in a coffee shop - Holder was in California that day).



And so on. More and more ignorant people fall for it.



(by the way, I left out about a hundred more false rumors, all easily explained).



15) Three insane lawyers file lawsuits. The first, Phil Berg, is a 9/11 truther who believes every conspiracy ever. The second, Leo Donofrio, is a professional poker player who thinks that he is being stalked by government agents in yellow rain slickers. The third, Orly Taitz, is a dentist who graduated from correspondence law school and has never tried a case. The several hundred thousand other Republican attorneys in the country recognize a stinker when they see it, and stay well away.



The lawsuits are pathetic on the law and the facts. The lawyers get sanctioned. The birthers decide that every judge in the nation is in on the conspiracy too.



15) Rush, Hannity, Beck, Levin, Coulter and every other major conservative commentator looks into the issue, learns that it is stupidity incarnate, and refuses to play along (OMG, even THEY have been bought off or blackmailed - I weep for America)



16) Obama laughs, says what the hell. Let these people marginalize themselves all they want.


----------



## Camp

HenryBHough said:


> Quoting "Camp":   "Why are Teabaggers being attacked by Republicans? Why are the silly hatter candidates being attacked by Republicans?
> 
> 
> "Hatters" were frequently mentally unbalanced because of occupational exposure to mercury.
> 
> Do you really see a whole lot of candidates whose employment is in the manufacture or hats these days?
> 
> Or are you just careless as well as irresponsible?



If baggers don't want to be viewed as mentally unbalanced they should stop having mentally unbalanced spokespeople and candidates.


----------



## aaronleland

Lumpy 1 said:


> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you had to pick between what you feel is best for the country or what's popular to win elections, what would you choose?
> 
> The cost to you would be persecution and false accusations by the reigning power and all their media minions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It may not be right, but politics has always been an image game. The fact that Republicans and the Tea Party are losing that game is a failure on their part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose if principles and a concern for future generations holds no importance, what you're saying would be true.
Click to expand...


Allowing lying politicians to lie and get elected has been a hallmark of politics since politics has existed. Sad but true.


----------



## Lumpy 1

Mad_Cabbie said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> why should they be ridiculed? you are pinning the birther thing on them with no proof whatsoever it came from them...You seemed to be more tolerant but lately I haven't seen it
> 
> 
> 
> The birther movement started in Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign.
> 
> Forgotten Truth: Hillary Clinton Mother of ?Birther? Movement!
> 
> That Hillary -- what a teabagger!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1) Some anonymous blogger claims that Obama wasn't born in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 2) Obama says fine, sends away to Hawaii for a copy of his birth certificate. Gets sent official certificate of live birth just like everyone else who asks Hawaiii for their documentation.
> 
> 
> 
> 3) Obama puts original stamped certificate in his Chicago campaign office, invites anyone to come look at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 4) No one comes to look at it except Factcheck and the Chicago Sun Times.
> 
> 
> 
> 5) Anonymous bloggers continue to say that Obama wasn't born in the US - pretend that certificate does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 6) Obama says fine, takes a picture of the certificate and posts it on his website.
> 
> 
> 
> 7) Anonymous blogger named "Polarik" says "it's a forgery" (because anonymous blogger is too stupid to understand how .jpeg compression works). No real experts ever step up to say anything of the sort.
> 
> 
> 
> 8) Stupid people think that anonymous blogger is right, start to scream conspiracy, demand "long form" that Obama does not have and Hawaii does not issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 9) Hawaii Department of Health says its not a forgery. (They must be in on the conspiracy!!!!)
> 
> 
> 
> 10) Someone checks newspaper archives, finds two separate birth announcements. (They must have been planted because his mom knew in 1961 that her newborn black son would be President someday!!!!)
> 
> 
> 
> 11) Still no one goes to look at original certificate in Chicago.
> 
> 
> 
> 12) Obama is inaugurated. Not one of the 535 members of congress objects. (I guess they are all intimidated and blackmailed).
> 
> 
> 
> 13) WorldNetDaily jumps on board, starts feeding the flames. WND's page hits go though the roof.
> 
> 
> 
> 14) New rumors start to fly, made up mostly on FreeRepublic and other message boards by undereducated and paranoid people who never bother to check if what they are speculating about has any basis in reality. Every rumor is treated as true by those who want to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> A - "Obama must have abandoned his American citizenship and gotten an Indonesian passport because he traveled to Pakistan in 1981 when there was a travel ban against Americans going there." (problem - there never was a travel ban to Pakistan).
> 
> 
> 
> B - "Obama is hiding his long form - he said in Dreams From My Father that he had the original." (Problem - Obama actually said in his book that he saw it at his grandmothers house decades ago when he was a teenager. He never said he had it himself.)
> 
> 
> 
> C - "Obama travelled to Hawaii just before the election to destroy the original long certificate and murdered his grandmother to keep her quiet." (Oh come on...)
> 
> 
> 
> D - "Obama's Kenyan grandmother said on tape that she was present at his birth in Kenya." (No she didn't - if you listen to the entire tape it is clear that she is talking about being present at the birth of Barack Obama Senior, the president's father).
> 
> 
> 
> E - "The announcements in the Hawaiian newspaper were faked - that property has been owned by the same family since the 50s and it's not Obama's family" (problem - other records demonstrate that Obama's grandparents rented that property - ownership is not the issue).
> 
> 
> 
> F - "even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he's not a natural born citizen because both of his parents were not American citizens." (problem - this "legal" definition is made up by birthers from an obscure French treatise by a guy named de Vattel. Not only is there zero reason to think that the Founders intended to use de Vattel for this definition, the definition is counter to English common law (which we follow in America) and even de Vattel admits it. Ask any lawyer what they think of this theory.)
> 
> 
> 
> G - "Obama's mom abandoned his American citizenship to enroll him in school in Indonesia' (problem - no one can take away your American citizenship but you - not your parents, not the government, no one.)
> 
> 
> 
> H - "Attorney General Holder was spotted in Georgia intimidating a federal judge hearing a birther case" (LOL. Actually, some guy says he saw a guy that looks like Holder in a coffee shop - Holder was in California that day).
> 
> 
> 
> And so on. More and more ignorant people fall for it.
> 
> 
> 
> (by the way, I left out about a hundred more false rumors, all easily explained).
> 
> 
> 
> 15) Three insane lawyers file lawsuits. The first, Phil Berg, is a 9/11 truther who believes every conspiracy ever. The second, Leo Donofrio, is a professional poker player who thinks that he is being stalked by government agents in yellow rain slickers. The third, Orly Taitz, is a dentist who graduated from correspondence law school and has never tried a case. The several hundred thousand other Republican attorneys in the country recognize a stinker when they see it, and stay well away.
> 
> 
> 
> The lawsuits are pathetic on the law and the facts. The lawyers get sanctioned. The birthers decide that every judge in the nation is in on the conspiracy too.
> 
> 
> 
> 15) Rush, Hannity, Beck, Levin, Coulter and every other major conservative commentator looks into the issue, learns that it is stupidity incarnate, and refuses to play along (OMG, even THEY have been bought off or blackmailed - I weep for America)
> 
> 
> 
> 16) Obama laughs, says what the hell. Let these people marginalize themselves all they want.
Click to expand...


You seem far more concerned with "the birth-er thing" than most anyone.

Most people figure we're stuck with this pathetic "excuse filled" president regardless of that issue.. yeh or nay.


----------



## OODA_Loop

Smaller government and more individual freedom takes power from Democrats.


----------



## Stephanie

daveman said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are Teabaggers being attacked by Republicans? Why are the silly hatter candidates being attacked by Republicans?
> 
> 
> 
> Because, obviously, the Republicans (or, as they're more accurately described, "The Democrat Party Lite") fear being turned out of office in favor of conservatives.
Click to expand...


a liberal cant' understand a party who doesn't walk in lockstep like they do the Democrat party..there can't be dissent, not one difference of opinion, etc etc...so according to them that makes enough reason the Tea party should be looked at as the enemy and should be ridiculed..

that is very sad and speaks a lot about where they are as voters and why these elected Democrats feels it's ok for them to call the people in this all kinds of vile names, terrorist, hostage takers, etc etc

this country is gone and hopeless with a base of people who see's nothing wrong with that


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

Camp said:


> If baggers don't want to be viewed as mentally unbalanced they should stop having mentally unbalanced spokespeople and candidates.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

Lumpy 1 said:


> You seem far more concerned with "the birth-er thing" than most anyone.
> 
> Most people figure we're stuck with this pathetic president regardless of that issue.. yeh or nay.



Just my response to the "It's Hillary's fault" crowd. 

I was a staunch oponent of the whole stupid thing, so I reserched the hell out of it and yes, the voters have not forgotten.


----------



## Lumpy 1

aaronleland said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> It may not be right, but politics has always been an image game. The fact that Republicans and the Tea Party are losing that game is a failure on their part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose if principles and a concern for future generations holds no importance, what you're saying would be true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Allowing lying politicians to lie and get elected has been a hallmark of politics since politics has existed. Sad but true.
Click to expand...


I can't disagree..at least in the past they didn't just throw it in our faces and laugh about it..sheesh


----------



## The T

Sherry said:


> It's not just the left...it's anyone who fears the status quo being attacked.


That would include the Republican Elites themselves.


----------



## daveman

Mad_Cabbie said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> why should they be ridiculed? you are pinning the birther thing on them with no proof whatsoever it came from them...You seemed to be more tolerant but lately I haven't seen it
> 
> 
> 
> The birther movement started in Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign.
> 
> Forgotten Truth: Hillary Clinton Mother of ?Birther? Movement!
> 
> That Hillary -- what a teabagger!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Chronology of the birth certificate controversy. *
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Some anonymous blogger claims that Obama wasn't born in America.
> 
> 
> 
> 2) Obama says fine, sends away to Hawaii for a copy of his birth certificate. Gets sent official certificate of live birth just like everyone else who asks Hawaiii for their documentation.
> 
> 
> 
> 3) Obama puts original stamped certificate in his Chicago campaign office, invites anyone to come look at it.
> 
> 
> 
> 4) No one comes to look at it except Factcheck and the Chicago Sun Times.
> 
> 
> 
> 5) Anonymous bloggers continue to say that Obama wasn't born in the US - pretend that certificate does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 6) Obama says fine, takes a picture of the certificate and posts it on his website.
> 
> 
> 
> 7) Anonymous blogger named "Polarik" says "it's a forgery" (because anonymous blogger is too stupid to understand how .jpeg compression works). No real experts ever step up to say anything of the sort.
> 
> 
> 
> 8) Stupid people think that anonymous blogger is right, start to scream conspiracy, demand "long form" that Obama does not have and Hawaii does not issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 9) Hawaii Department of Health says its not a forgery. (They must be in on the conspiracy!!!!)
> 
> 
> 
> 10) Someone checks newspaper archives, finds two separate birth announcements. (They must have been planted because his mom knew in 1961 that her newborn black son would be President someday!!!!)
> 
> 
> 
> 11) Still no one goes to look at original certificate in Chicago.
> 
> 
> 
> 12) Obama is inaugurated. Not one of the 535 members of congress objects. (I guess they are all intimidated and blackmailed).
> 
> 
> 
> 13) WorldNetDaily jumps on board, starts feeding the flames. WND's page hits go though the roof.
> 
> 
> 
> 14) New rumors start to fly, made up mostly on FreeRepublic and other message boards by undereducated and paranoid people who never bother to check if what they are speculating about has any basis in reality. Every rumor is treated as true by those who want to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> A - "Obama must have abandoned his American citizenship and gotten an Indonesian passport because he traveled to Pakistan in 1981 when there was a travel ban against Americans going there." (problem - there never was a travel ban to Pakistan).
> 
> 
> 
> B - "Obama is hiding his long form - he said in Dreams From My Father that he had the original." (Problem - Obama actually said in his book that he saw it at his grandmothers house decades ago when he was a teenager. He never said he had it himself.)
> 
> 
> 
> C - "Obama travelled to Hawaii just before the election to destroy the original long certificate and murdered his grandmother to keep her quiet." (Oh come on...)
> 
> 
> 
> D - "Obama's Kenyan grandmother said on tape that she was present at his birth in Kenya." (No she didn't - if you listen to the entire tape it is clear that she is talking about being present at the birth of Barack Obama Senior, the president's father).
> 
> 
> 
> E - "The announcements in the Hawaiian newspaper were faked - that property has been owned by the same family since the 50s and it's not Obama's family" (problem - other records demonstrate that Obama's grandparents rented that property - ownership is not the issue).
> 
> 
> 
> F - "even if Obama was born in Hawaii, he's not a natural born citizen because both of his parents were not American citizens." (problem - this "legal" definition is made up by birthers from an obscure French treatise by a guy named de Vattel. Not only is there zero reason to think that the Founders intended to use de Vattel for this definition, the definition is counter to English common law (which we follow in America) and even de Vattel admits it. Ask any lawyer what they think of this theory.)
> 
> 
> 
> G - "Obama's mom abandoned his American citizenship to enroll him in school in Indonesia' (problem - no one can take away your American citizenship but you - not your parents, not the government, no one.)
> 
> 
> 
> H - "Attorney General Holder was spotted in Georgia intimidating a federal judge hearing a birther case" (LOL. Actually, some guy says he saw a guy that looks like Holder in a coffee shop - Holder was in California that day).
> 
> 
> 
> And so on. More and more ignorant people fall for it.
> 
> 
> 
> (by the way, I left out about a hundred more false rumors, all easily explained).
> 
> 
> 
> 15) Three insane lawyers file lawsuits. The first, Phil Berg, is a 9/11 truther who believes every conspiracy ever. The second, Leo Donofrio, is a professional poker player who thinks that he is being stalked by government agents in yellow rain slickers. The third, Orly Taitz, is a dentist who graduated from correspondence law school and has never tried a case. The several hundred thousand other Republican attorneys in the country recognize a stinker when they see it, and stay well away.
> 
> 
> 
> The lawsuits are pathetic on the law and the facts. The lawyers get sanctioned. The birthers decide that every judge in the nation is in on the conspiracy too.
> 
> 
> 
> 15) Rush, Hannity, Beck, Levin, Coulter and every other major conservative commentator looks into the issue, learns that it is stupidity incarnate, and refuses to play along (OMG, even THEY have been bought off or blackmailed - I weep for America)
> 
> 
> 
> 16) Obama laughs, says what the hell. Let these people marginalize themselves all they want.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that works, but only if you _completely_ ignore the Clinton lawyer filing the suit against Obama's candidacy as described in my link.


----------



## daveman

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> If baggers don't want to be viewed as mentally unbalanced they should stop having mentally unbalanced spokespeople and candidates.
Click to expand...


Good example.  Because the person who made that image is PERFECTLY sane and rational.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

daveman said:


> Good example.  Because the person who made that image is PERFECTLY sane and rational.


----------



## Lumpy 1

OODA_Loop said:


> Smaller government and more individual freedom takes power from Democrats.



Yup.. Democrats/progressives/socialists/ are no doubt threatened.

The middle-class are the only ones truly paying the price, for now.

Everyone should know...Keep piling on taxes/fees/shit etc. on the middle-class and the country is doomed....Dooooomed I tells Ya...


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

Lumpy 1 said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smaller government and more individual freedom takes power from Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.. Democrats/progressives/socialists/ are no doubt threatened.
> 
> The middle-class are the only ones truly paying the price for now.
Click to expand...


Spin, spin, spin ... the republicans need to OWN the spot they are in.


----------



## earlycuyler

Sunni Man said:


> It's because the Tea Party isn't under the Democrat's umbrella and so they must be vilified and attacked by the liberals without mercy.  ..



Any time the political ruling class join forces to attack a groupe, that groupe must be doing something right. Tea Party is ok for a bunch of stodgy old farts.


----------



## The T

Lumpy 1 said:


> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smaller government and more individual freedom takes power from Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.. Democrats/progressives/socialists/ are no doubt threatened.
> 
> The middle-class are the only ones truly paying the price for now.
Click to expand...

As the very same pretend to defend them as they place them into slavery to the government.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Sunni Man said:


> It's because the Tea Party isn't under the Democrat's umbrella and so they must be vilified and attacked by the liberals without mercy.  ..



The mainstream GOP leadership and membership are grouped with the 80% of Americans that despise the TPM.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

And again: so much for the conservative doctrine of personal responsibility. 

Like petulant children the TPM attempts to cast blame for their woes everywhere but where it belongs  with TPM members themselves.


----------



## Pennywise

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Party Persecution...Why?
> 
> 
> 
> Credit rating downgrade.
> 
> Sequester.
> 
> Government shutdown.
> 
> Threat to allow the Nation to default.
> 
> For starters
> 
> Of course, its not persecution, as that implies some sort of unjustified attack.
> 
> Criticism of the TPM such as the above and more is indeed justified and appropriate, as House republicans have done nothing but obstruct, placing party before country, contributing nothing worthwhile.
Click to expand...


You're a fucking idiot. Period.


----------



## JakeStarkey

R.C. Christian said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's because they deserve it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so certain Americans should be persecuted for their beliefs. Can you make a list for us?
Click to expand...


You don't need a link when you can watch the TeaPs in action and speech every day.


----------



## Camp

daveman said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> If baggers don't want to be viewed as mentally unbalanced they should stop having mentally unbalanced spokespeople and candidates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good example.  Because the person who made that image is PERFECTLY sane and rational.
Click to expand...


Do you believe Bachman is mentally balanced, sane and rational?


----------



## The T

JakeStarkey said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's because the Tea Party isn't under the Democrat's umbrella and so they must be vilified and attacked by the liberals without mercy. ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mainstream GOP leadership and membership are grouped with the 80% of Americans that despise the TPM.
Click to expand...

The TPM IS the people, the Constitution... you DOLT.


----------



## The T

Camp said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good example. Because the person who made that image is PERFECTLY sane and rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe Bachman is mentally balanced, sane and rational?
Click to expand...

Is Obama? Reid? Pelosi? By YOUR reckoning? Same applies, doesn't it?


----------



## Stephanie

earlycuyler said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's because the Tea Party isn't under the Democrat's umbrella and so they must be vilified and attacked by the liberals without mercy.  ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any time the political ruling class join forces to attack a groupe, that groupe must be doing something right. Tea Party is ok for a bunch of stodgy old farts.
Click to expand...


they've been around long enough to see where this government has gone....Bloated with useless idiot incompetent congresscritters, take OfailCare for example... agencies on top of agencies we are paying for, waste, fraud, thieves, liars,  heading towards fascism, take Ofailcare for an example,  etc etc

so of course the elected career politicians throw out their hate against them...what's awful is the people in this country don't see it


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

daveman said:


> Yeah, that works, but only if you _completely_ ignore the Clinton lawyer filing the suit against Obama's candidacy as described in my link.




That was NOT Clinton's lawyer, that was Pennsylvanias former deputy attorney general and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter Philip J. Berg.


----------



## Lumpy 1

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smaller government and more individual freedom takes power from Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.. Democrats/progressives/socialists/ are no doubt threatened.
> 
> The middle-class are the only ones truly paying the price for now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spin, spin, spin ... the republicans need to OWN the spot they are in.
Click to expand...


I agree...you win, for the most part their political idiots holding hands with the Democrats and screwing us all over...wait...I need a...


----------



## Flopper

Lumpy 1 said:


> You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..would be popular, instead their persecuted by the left and the left what-to-Be's....


It is not your beliefs that makes the Tea Party unpopular, it's the means you advocate of achieving your goals.  I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone that doesn't believe in a reduced national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government.  It is how we go about doing those things where we differ.


----------



## Stephanie

The T said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good example. Because the person who made that image is PERFECTLY sane and rational.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe Bachman is mentally balanced, sane and rational?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is Obama? Reid? Pelosi? By YOUR reckoning? Same applies, doesn't it?
Click to expand...


oh boy, another rdean-luddy-etc type
just what we needed


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

The T said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good example. Because the person who made that image is PERFECTLY sane and rational.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe Bachman is mentally balanced, sane and rational?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is Obama? Reid? Pelosi? By YOUR reckoning? Same applies, doesn't it?
Click to expand...


No, those would not be the same apples. 


1. Comparing Herself to a Serial Killer
Bachmann kicked off her presidential campaign this week in her home town of Waterloo, Iowa. She made a point to compare herself to fellow Waterloo resident, John Wayne. Yes! John Wayne = America. That is a logical comparison to make when running for President. Buuuuuuuuut perhaps she should've done more than skim the Wikipedia page she got that info from, as the John Wayne who once called Waterloo home is John Wayne Gacy. 

Who's that, you ask? Dynamite question. Gacy is a serial killer, better known as "Killer Clown" after he raped and murdered 33 teenage boys in the 70s. Totally spot on comparison when you consider Bachmann's new campaign poster: 
 (or 6thâ&#8364;¦or 7thâ&#8364;¦or, oh fuck it, you had it every year in middle school)

2. Founding Fathers' Mission to Abolish Slavery
Said Bachmann: "The very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States."

Yes yes, our founding fathers fought a vigorous fight against slavery. But just to be sure, let me just crunch some numbers here. By the time slavery was abolished, known slave-owner/founding father Thomas Jefferson had been dead for 39 years and known slave-owner/founding father George Washington had been dead for 66. That can't be right. Oh wait, the founding father she specified was John Quincy Adams. That's fair. He was in fact nine years old when the Declaration of Independence was signed and was clearly a major player. Silly me. 


3. Lexington and Concord Fought in New Hampshire
In a speech in New Hampshire, she announced  she was in the "state where the shot was heard round the world at Lexington and Concord."

Remember that history lesson you had in 5th grade about the shots at Lexington and Concord? That was a great lesson, right? It evoked the spirit of the American Revolution. It's like you could feel yourself fighting for our freedom on the Massachusetts soil! Key word being "Massachusetts." 

4. Just Flat Out Talking Gibberish
She once claimed that the Hoot-Smalley Tariff caused the Great Depression. Listen, we're not gonna pretend that we know what the Hoot-Smalley Tariff is. And that is because it does not exist. 

5. Democrats = Swine Flu Fanatics
Finding faults in the opposing party's leaders is not out of the ordinary. You find your weaknesses and you attack. It's an unfortunate, yet necessary, aspect of the two-party system. Like if you think there's a connection between Swine Flu and having a Democrat in the White House, you may go ahead make that claim because it is an obvious Achilles' heel of the Democrats and it needs to be exploited. Democrats love giving people diseases and that's been as clear as day since FDR advocated that all Americans be injected with the polio virus. 

Bachmann was astute enough to make the connection that before Obama, the last time we saw an outbreak of Swine Flu was during Jimmy Carter's term. Great catch, Michelle! Also totally false. Not that it matters, but it was actually Gerald Ford in office. Whatever, Democrats love sick people because it's all part of their twisted plan to make sure everyone who needs healthcare gets it. Obviously. 


Michele Bachmann's 5 Biggest Factual Gaffes from As Usual and Live Funny or Die


----------



## daveman

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OODA_Loop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Smaller government and more individual freedom takes power from Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.. Democrats/progressives/socialists/ are no doubt threatened.
> 
> The middle-class are the only ones truly paying the price for now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spin, spin, spin ... the republicans need to OWN the spot they are in.
Click to expand...

Guess you haven't figured out yet that eventually, you run out of other people's money.


----------



## Vandalshandle

I think this pretty much sums up the Tea Party:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyIZIiY81Ek]The Mad (Republican) Tea Party - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daveman

Camp said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good example.  Because the person who made that image is PERFECTLY sane and rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe Bachman is mentally balanced, sane and rational?
Click to expand...


Compared to the artist eaten alive with irrational hatred for Bachmann?  Probably.

Some people confuse their irrational hatred for sanity.


----------



## The T

Flopper said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..would be popular, instead their persecuted by the left and the left what-to-Be's....
> 
> 
> 
> It is not your beliefs that makes the Tea Party unpopular, it's the means you advocate of achieving your goals.
Click to expand...

Which means what? Restoring the rule of LAW that the present occupant only does with law he likes? Upholding the LAW doesn't mean picking and choosing to appease your cronies in favour. It means ALL LAW.

And what of reverence for the Constitution...that IS the LAW...but I suppose in YOUR world? Restoring it, and this Republic isn't worth it, right? Status quo all the way with the criminals that run it, correct?

The TPM is all about the Constitution...and getting the elected to pay attention...and adhere. But you admonish it and them...er rather US, by your comment the very same.

YOU are disgusting. Nevermind you support the seeds of even YOUR demise if the Progressives succeed. YOU are an enemy to your own liberty. Typical unthinking progressive dupe.


----------



## daveman

Mad_Cabbie said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that works, but only if you _completely_ ignore the Clinton lawyer filing the suit against Obama's candidacy as described in my link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was NOT Clinton's lawyer, that was Pennsylvanias former deputy attorney general and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter Philip J. Berg.
Click to expand...


Oh, so you DID read the article...eventually.

I think, however, we can all agree that Berg is NOT a TEA Party member.  Right?


----------



## Vandalshandle

Bachmann actually works for Sarah. Palin keeps Bachmann around to make herself appear smarter....


----------



## Lumpy 1

JakeStarkey said:


> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's because the Tea Party isn't under the Democrat's umbrella and so they must be vilified and attacked by the liberals without mercy.  ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The mainstream GOP leadership and membership are grouped with the 80% of Americans that despise the TPM.
Click to expand...


At least their less despised than Obama and they're patriotic Americans..


----------



## daveman

Flopper said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..would be popular, instead their persecuted by the left and the left what-to-Be's....
> 
> 
> 
> It is not your beliefs that makes the Tea Party unpopular, it's the means you advocate of achieving your goals.  I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone that doesn't believe in a reduced national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government.  It is how we go about doing those things where we differ.
Click to expand...

Those are admirable goals, but advocating increased debt, higher taxes, and larger and therefore more wasteful, corrupt, and fiscally irresponsible government probably isn't the way to achieve them.

Might want to tell the Democratic Party.


----------



## Lumpy 1

Camp said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good example.  Because the person who made that image is PERFECTLY sane and rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you believe Bachman is mentally balanced, sane and rational?
Click to expand...


She was pilloried (unfairly in my view) by the Democrat Party and their media to the point she was rejected by the wimps in the Republican electorate. How many more pounds of flesh do you require.

Should I bring up A. Weiner and beat you over the head with that?...


----------



## Stephanie

Lumpy 1 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunni Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's because the Tea Party isn't under the Democrat's umbrella and so they must be vilified and attacked by the liberals without mercy.  ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The mainstream GOP leadership and membership are grouped with the 80% of Americans that despise the TPM*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At least their less despised than Obama and their patriotic Americans..
Click to expand...


that's the one trick ponies (jakie the fakie) wet dream only..he has such an hardon for them all his postings are about them no matter what the thread is....that's an Obsession that needs a shrink I think....lol


----------



## JakeStarkey

Stephanie said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The mainstream GOP leadership and membership are grouped with the 80% of Americans that despise the TPM*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least their less despised than Obama and their patriotic Americans..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's the one trick ponies (jakie the fakie) wet dream only..he has such an hardon for them all his postings are about them no matter what the thread is....that's an Obsession that needs a shrink I think....lol
Click to expand...


little stephie again, whining and stomping her misshapen little cloven hoov  er   feet  

The obsession is that the TeaPs think they are holders of American values.


----------



## Lumpy 1

Stephanie said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The mainstream GOP leadership and membership are grouped with the 80% of Americans that despise the TPM*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least their less despised than Obama and their patriotic Americans..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's the one trick ponies (jakie the fakie) wet dream only..he has such an hardon for them all his postings are about them no matter what the thread is....that's an Obsession that needs a shrink I think....lol
Click to expand...


Maybe he went to a Tea Party function and they told him he didn't fit in..

Rejection is tough...we should be more understanding, poor heartbroken fellow..


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Vandalshandle said:


> Bachmann actually works for Sarah. Palin keeps Bachmann around to make herself appear smarter....



Someone should tell Palin it isnt working


----------



## Stephanie

Lumpy 1 said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least their less despised than Obama and their patriotic Americans..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's the one trick ponies (jakie the fakie) wet dream only..he has such an hardon for them all his postings are about them no matter what the thread is....that's an Obsession that needs a shrink I think....lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe he went to a Tea Party function and they told him he didn't fit in..
> 
> Rejection is tough...we should be more understanding, poor heartbroken fellow..
Click to expand...


maybe, but he used up my sympathy a long time ago..Now I mostly just ignore his posting...
I find them repetitive and boring


----------



## Lumpy 1

JakeStarkey said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least their less despised than Obama and their patriotic Americans..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's the one trick ponies (jakie the fakie) wet dream only..he has such an hardon for them all his postings are about them no matter what the thread is....that's an Obsession that needs a shrink I think....lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> little stephie again, whining and stomping her misshapen little cloven hoov  er   feet
> 
> The obsession is that the TeaPs think they are holders of American values.
Click to expand...


I kinda wonder what you consider "American Values" Jake..sorry about that..


----------



## The T

Lumpy 1 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good example. Because the person who made that image is PERFECTLY sane and rational.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe Bachman is mentally balanced, sane and rational?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was pilloried (unfairly in my view) by the Democrat Party and their media to the point she was rejected by the wimps in the Republican electorate. How many more pounds of flesh do you require.
> 
> Should I bring up A. Weiner and beat you over the head with that?...
Click to expand...

Make it a whole pack...


----------



## Lumpy 1

Stephanie said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> that's the one trick ponies (jakie the fakie) wet dream only..he has such an hardon for them all his postings are about them no matter what the thread is....that's an Obsession that needs a shrink I think....lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe he went to a Tea Party function and they told him he didn't fit in..
> 
> Rejection is tough...we should be more understanding, poor heartbroken fellow..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> maybe, but he used up my sympathy a long time ago..Now I mostly just ignore his posting...
> I find them repetitive and boring
Click to expand...


Soooo you're the one at the Tea Party Rally that told him he just didn't fit in or you at least wish you were .


----------



## JakeStarkey

Lumpy 1 said:


> I kinda wonder what you consider "American Values" Jake..sorry about that..



As I have posted before.

I have said repeatedly I have voted for Romney, and I worked very hard for him in my region and state. 

I supported Afghanistan, opposed Iraq.   Neo-conservatism (modern American imperialism) never has served Americas long-term interests.

The social programs need reform.  The items of food need to exclude candy, steak, soda pop, chip, and so forth along with the tobacco and booze: those are not a right.  

The physically fit should be mandated to give ten hours a week to the city or the county in return for assistance.  Those who aren't but can assist should be found adaptive work.  

Those who can't get off drugs should be forced to give up parental rights.  And, phased in, no benefits for children out of wedlock.

I opposed the drug prescriptions program for seniors and No Child Left Behind as incredibly costly programs in both cases and an unwarranted intrusion into education that was best left in the hands of the school boards and the state education agencies. 

I support the 2d Amendment's guarantee that I may own and bear arms. 

I believe that abortion best be limited to cases of incest, rape, and the health and life of the mother.

I oppose absolute abortion, I oppose neo-conservative imperialism, I oppose birtherism, I oppose trutherism, I oppose Tentherism, and I oppose any suggestion that we are individuals only and not a part of a social compact. 

I oppose reactionary hatred. 

I am a mainstream Republican and have been since the day I went to school with Jack (John) Ford, the president's son. I have served the party honorably since I was my state's GOP Young Republican Chair so many years ago and all through the following decades in many posts. I will continue opposing the reactionaries as I serve the best interests of the Republican Party.


----------



## Lumpy 1

JakeStarkey said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I kinda wonder what you consider "American Values" Jake..sorry about that..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have posted before.
> 
> I have said repeatedly I have voted for Romney, and I worked very hard for him in my region and state.
> 
> I supported Afghanistan, opposed Iraq.   Neo-conservatism (modern American imperialism) never has served America&#8217;s long-term interests.
> 
> The social programs need reform.  The items of food need to exclude candy, steak, soda pop, chip, and so forth along with the tobacco and booze: those are not a right.
> 
> The physically fit should be mandated to give ten hours a week to the city or the county in return for assistance.  Those who aren't but can assist should be found adaptive work.
> 
> Those who can't get off drugs should be forced to give up parental rights.  And, phased in, no benefits for children out of wedlock.
> 
> I opposed the drug prescriptions program for seniors and No Child Left Behind as incredibly costly programs in both cases and an unwarranted intrusion into education that was best left in the hands of the school boards and the state education agencies.
> 
> I support the 2d Amendment's guarantee that I may own and bear arms.
> 
> I believe that abortion best be limited to cases of incest, rape, and the health and life of the mother.
> 
> I oppose absolute abortion, I oppose neo-conservative imperialism, I oppose birtherism, I oppose trutherism, I oppose Tentherism, and I oppose any suggestion that we are individuals only and not a part of a social compact.
> 
> I oppose reactionary hatred.
> 
> I am a mainstream Republican and have been since the day I went to school with Jack (John) Ford, the president's son. I have served the party honorably since I was my state's GOP Young Republican Chair so many years ago and all through the following decades in many posts. I will continue opposing the reactionaries as I serve the best interests of the Republican Party.
Click to expand...


..and now I know, thanks my friend..Who confuses me at times...


----------



## Lumpy 1

Jake..you killed my thread...


----------



## The T

Lumpy 1 said:


> Jake..you killed my thread...


 nah Lumpster...many are still reading, digesting...it's all good.


----------



## Stephanie

Pennywise said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Party Persecution...Why?
> 
> 
> 
> Credit rating downgrade.
> 
> Sequester.
> 
> Government shutdown.
> 
> Threat to allow the Nation to default.
> 
> For starters
> 
> Of course, its not persecution, as that implies some sort of unjustified attack.
> 
> Criticism of the TPM such as the above and more is indeed justified and appropriate, as House republicans have done nothing but obstruct, placing party before country, contributing nothing worthwhile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a fucking idiot. Period.
Click to expand...


Straight forward no sugar coating...
tried to rep ya but couldn't


----------



## BlackSand

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Party Persecution...Why?
> 
> 
> 
> Credit rating downgrade.
> 
> Sequester.
> 
> Government shutdown.
> 
> Threat to allow the Nation to default.
> 
> For starters
> 
> Of course, its not persecution, as that implies some sort of unjustified attack.
> 
> Criticism of the TPM such as the above and more is indeed justified and appropriate, as House republicans have done nothing but obstruct, placing party before country, contributing nothing worthwhile.
Click to expand...


Since it is the spending that threatens our credit rating ... Caused the sequester ... Ignites opposition to the ACA that lead to the Government shutdown ... And threatens to put our country in default ... Then it is safe to say who is to blame.
*It isn't the Tea Party.*

.


----------



## The T

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bachmann actually works for Sarah. Palin keeps Bachmann around to make herself appear smarter....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone should tell Palin it isnt working
Click to expand...

Tell Palin WHAT isn't working exactly?


----------



## Stephanie

The T said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bachmann actually works for Sarah. Palin keeps Bachmann around to make herself appear smarter....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone should tell Palin it isnt working
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell Palin WHAT isn't working exactly?
Click to expand...


that's how pathetic they are...palin has no bearing on their lives yet they can't let her go and use her for their useless dribble of hate

sad people who follows a vile and vicious hateful party


----------



## Lumpy 1

The T said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bachmann actually works for Sarah. Palin keeps Bachmann around to make herself appear smarter....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone should tell Palin it isn&#8217;t working&#8230;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell Palin WHAT isn't working exactly?
Click to expand...


No worries...He's just dwelling on dishonorable and vicious persecutions he thinks of as  victories. (misogyny is the word for it)


----------



## The T

Lumpy 1 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone should tell Palin it isnt working
> 
> 
> 
> Tell Palin WHAT isn't working exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No worries...He's just dwelling on dishonorable and vicious persecutions he thinks of as a victory.
Click to expand...

They're taking this to the nth degree until they cross the line...Sad for them that the line was crossed  long ago. They better hold on to their lugnuts...many lefties are about to be un employed from Gubmint.


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

daveman said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that works, but only if you _completely_ ignore the Clinton lawyer filing the suit against Obama's candidacy as described in my link.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was NOT Clinton's lawyer, that was Pennsylvanias former deputy attorney general and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter Philip J. Berg.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, so you DID read the article...eventually.
> 
> I think, however, we can all agree that Berg is NOT a TEA Party member.  Right?
Click to expand...


Yes, how is this relivent? Some wack job fanatic jumped on this story after it had been around for quite a while. The tea party were huge suporters of this garbage. Now people are saying that Clinton herself was involved? Doubtful.


----------



## Stephanie

The T said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell Palin WHAT isn't working exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No worries...He's just dwelling on dishonorable and vicious persecutions he thinks of as a victory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They're taking this to the nth degree until they cross the line...Sad for them that the line was crossed  long ago. They better hold on to their lugnuts...many lefties are about to be un employed from Gubmint.
Click to expand...


I do think the elected party of hate see's their jobs swirling around the toilet and their base of hateful followers see's it too..

that's why the hate is more vicious..


----------



## The T

Stephanie said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No worries...He's just dwelling on dishonorable and vicious persecutions he thinks of as a victory.
> 
> 
> 
> They're taking this to the nth degree until they cross the line...Sad for them that the line was crossed long ago. They better hold on to their lugnuts...many lefties are about to be un employed from Gubmint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do think the elected party of hate see's their jobs swirling around the toilet and their base of hateful followers see's it too..
> 
> that's why the hate is more vicious..
Click to expand...

As 2014 fast approaches? Just watch many in Obama's own party to save their own skins/jobs turn against him. It's inevitable. These people have sewn their fate...and ObamaCare is the catalyst. Mark my words.


----------



## Stephanie

The T said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're taking this to the nth degree until they cross the line...Sad for them that the line was crossed long ago. They better hold on to their lugnuts...many lefties are about to be un employed from Gubmint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do think the elected party of hate see's their jobs swirling around the toilet and their base of hateful followers see's it too..
> 
> that's why the hate is more vicious..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As 2014 fast approaches? Just watch many in Obama's own party to save their own skins/jobs turn against him. It's inevitable. These people have sewn their fate...and ObamaCare is the catalyst. Mark my words.
Click to expand...


Oh yes it is...They think they can calm the people and the country who have been getting cancelation notices, they have another thing coming at them..

it can't happen to a more deceitful, hateful party of elected lowlifes I have seen or lived under...Obama ruined it for any black person running for President...that's the only shame I see out it...Other than that I can't wait to see them go down


----------



## Vandalshandle

Stephanie said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No worries...He's just dwelling on dishonorable and vicious persecutions he thinks of as a victory.
> 
> 
> 
> They're taking this to the nth degree until they cross the line...Sad for them that the line was crossed  long ago. They better hold on to their lugnuts...many lefties are about to be un employed from Gubmint.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do think the elected party of hate see's their jobs swirling around the toilet and their base of hateful followers see's it too..
> 
> that's why the hate is more vicious..
Click to expand...


Good one Steph! You managed to get "hate" 3 times into one 31 word post! Even by your standards you are on overdrive!


----------



## JakeStarkey

Lumpy 1 said:


> Jake..you killed my thread...



Nah, I would never do that, my friend.


----------



## Stephanie

Vandalshandle said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're taking this to the nth degree until they cross the line...Sad for them that the line was crossed  long ago. They better hold on to their lugnuts...many lefties are about to be un employed from Gubmint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do think the elected party of hate see's their jobs swirling around the toilet and their base of hateful followers see's it too..
> 
> that's why the hate is more vicious..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good one Steph! You managed to get "hate" 3 times into one 31 word post! Even by your standards you are on overdrive!
Click to expand...


and you managed to post another useless post off topic...good one you are on your usual


----------



## The T

Vandalshandle said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're taking this to the nth degree until they cross the line...Sad for them that the line was crossed long ago. They better hold on to their lugnuts...many lefties are about to be un employed from Gubmint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do think the elected party of hate see's their jobs swirling around the toilet and their base of hateful followers see's it too..
> 
> that's why the hate is more vicious..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good one Steph! You managed to get "hate" 3 times into one 31 word post! Even by your standards you are on overdrive!
Click to expand...

And THIS comment has to do with the topic, HOW exactly?


----------



## Flopper

The T said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..would be popular, instead their persecuted by the left and the left what-to-Be's....
> 
> 
> 
> It is not your beliefs that makes the Tea Party unpopular, it's the means you advocate of achieving your goals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which means what? Restoring the rule of LAW that the present occupant only does with law he likes? Upholding the LAW doesn't mean picking and choosing to appease your cronies in favour. It means ALL LAW.
> 
> And what of reverence for the Constitution...that IS the LAW...but I suppose in YOUR world? Restoring it, and this Republic isn't worth it, right? Status quo all the way with the criminals that run it, correct?
> 
> The TPM is all about the Constitution...and getting the elected to pay attention...and adhere. But you admonish it and them...er rather US, by your comment the very same.
> 
> YOU are disgusting. Nevermind you support the seeds of even YOUR demise if the Progressives succeed. YOU are an enemy to your own liberty. Typical unthinking progressive dupe.
Click to expand...

Restore the constitution?  The constitution consists of the base document and 27 amendments.  There's nothing to restore.  Your post is a wonderful example of why the Tea Party will join a long list of obscure political movements.

If you want the support of the American people, you're going to have to produce legislation that works within the framework of government preserving the services that people expect.  The Democratic and Republican Party are committed to making government work better.  The Tea Party is committed to dismantling most of it and that will never work.


----------



## birddog

Flopper said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is not your beliefs that makes the Tea Party unpopular, it's the means you advocate of achieving your goals.
> 
> 
> 
> Which means what? Restoring the rule of LAW that the present occupant only does with law he likes? Upholding the LAW doesn't mean picking and choosing to appease your cronies in favour. It means ALL LAW.
> 
> And what of reverence for the Constitution...that IS the LAW...but I suppose in YOUR world? Restoring it, and this Republic isn't worth it, right? Status quo all the way with the criminals that run it, correct?
> 
> The TPM is all about the Constitution...and getting the elected to pay attention...and adhere. But you admonish it and them...er rather US, by your comment the very same.
> 
> YOU are disgusting. Nevermind you support the seeds of even YOUR demise if the Progressives succeed. YOU are an enemy to your own liberty. Typical unthinking progressive dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Restore the constitution?  The constitution consists of the base document and 27 amendments.  There's nothing to restore.  Your post is a wonderful example of why the Tea Party will join a long list of obscure political movements.
> 
> If you want the support of the American people, you're going to have to produce legislation that works within the framework of government preserving the services that people expect.  The Democratic and Republican Party are committed to making government work better.  The Tea Party is committed to dismantling most of it and that will never work.
Click to expand...


The Tea Party is for less taxes and a stronger support of The Constitution.  What's wrong with that?

If my memory serves me correctly, the actor Bogart in your avatar was accused of being a Commie probably like you.


----------



## Flopper

birddog said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which means what? Restoring the rule of LAW that the present occupant only does with law he likes? Upholding the LAW doesn't mean picking and choosing to appease your cronies in favour. It means ALL LAW.
> 
> And what of reverence for the Constitution...that IS the LAW...but I suppose in YOUR world? Restoring it, and this Republic isn't worth it, right? Status quo all the way with the criminals that run it, correct?
> 
> The TPM is all about the Constitution...and getting the elected to pay attention...and adhere. But you admonish it and them...er rather US, by your comment the very same.
> 
> YOU are disgusting. Nevermind you support the seeds of even YOUR demise if the Progressives succeed. YOU are an enemy to your own liberty. Typical unthinking progressive dupe.
> 
> 
> 
> Restore the constitution?  The constitution consists of the base document and 27 amendments.  There's nothing to restore.  Your post is a wonderful example of why the Tea Party will join a long list of obscure political movements.
> 
> If you want the support of the American people, you're going to have to produce legislation that works within the framework of government preserving the services that people expect.  The Democratic and Republican Party are committed to making government work better.  The Tea Party is committed to dismantling most of it and that will never work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Tea Party is for less taxes and a stronger support of The Constitution.  What's wrong with that?
> 
> If my memory serves me correctly, the actor Bogart in your avatar was accused of being a Commie probably like you.
Click to expand...

Nothing.  It's like God, mother and apple pie.  Most anyone on Main Street will support it,  myself include.  Then tell them exactly how you plan to accomplish the Tea Party goals and watch them disappear.  People want government services to run more efficiently and become more cost effective.  That doesn't mean they want to do away with them.


----------



## The2ndAmendment

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Because they have no compunction whatsoever about telling us "commies" that they are the only true Americans and they are entirley clueless as to how completely self absorbered their hateful rhetoric comes accross to the rest of the country.
> 
> That's why.



I bet you said the same thing about the lefties at Occupy Wall Street; and then you cheer when Obama ordered the FBI to declare them a terrorist organization


----------



## BlackSand

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Because they have no compunction whatsoever about telling us "commies" that they are the only true Americans and they are entirley clueless as to how completely self absorbered their hateful rhetoric comes accross to the rest of the country.
> 
> That's why.



*Well now ... As far as your comments about how "their hateful rhetoric comes across to the rest of the country" ... Understanding and Caring can be two completely different things.*
You show them no respect ... Likewise they really don't owe you any either ... And with that in mind, don't act like they are the ones self-absorbed, because they don't want crap from you.

.


----------



## Toro

Lumpy 1 said:


> You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..would be popular, instead their persecuted by the left and the left what-to-Be's....



Conservative Persecution Syndrome  -->

Not popular 

=/= 

being persecuted


----------



## Vox

Lumpy 1 said:


> You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..would be popular, instead their persecuted by the left and the left what-to-Be's....



*Tea Party Persecution...Why?*

Why?

because it interferes with "business as usual" and that means filling the pockets of those god-like inhabitants inside the belt of the Olympus


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I kinda wonder what you consider "American Values" Jake..sorry about that..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have posted before.
> 
> I have said repeatedly I have voted for Romney, and I worked very hard for him in my region and state.
> 
> I supported Afghanistan, opposed Iraq.   Neo-conservatism (modern American imperialism) never has served Americas long-term interests.
> 
> The social programs need reform.  The items of food need to exclude candy, steak, soda pop, chip, and so forth along with the tobacco and booze: those are not a right.
> 
> The physically fit should be mandated to give ten hours a week to the city or the county in return for assistance.  Those who aren't but can assist should be found adaptive work.
> 
> Those who can't get off drugs should be forced to give up parental rights.  And, phased in, no benefits for children out of wedlock.
> 
> I opposed the drug prescriptions program for seniors and No Child Left Behind as incredibly costly programs in both cases and an unwarranted intrusion into education that was best left in the hands of the school boards and the state education agencies.
> 
> I support the 2d Amendment's guarantee that I may own and bear arms.
> 
> I believe that abortion best be limited to cases of incest, rape, and the health and life of the mother.
> 
> I oppose absolute abortion, I oppose neo-conservative imperialism, I oppose birtherism, I oppose trutherism, I oppose Tentherism, and I oppose any suggestion that we are individuals only and not a part of a social compact.
> 
> I oppose reactionary hatred.
> 
> I am a mainstream Republican and have been since the day I went to school with Jack (John) Ford, the president's son. I have served the party honorably since I was my state's GOP Young Republican Chair so many years ago and all through the following decades in many posts. I will continue opposing the reactionaries as I serve the best interests of the Republican Party.
Click to expand...

Then why do you suck Obama's ass, boy?


----------



## daveman

Mad_Cabbie said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was NOT Clinton's lawyer, that was Pennsylvanias former deputy attorney general and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter Philip J. Berg.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so you DID read the article...eventually.
> 
> I think, however, we can all agree that Berg is NOT a TEA Party member.  Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, how is this relivent? Some wack job fanatic jumped on this story after it had been around for quite a while. The tea party were huge suporters of this garbage. Now people are saying that Clinton herself was involved? Doubtful.
Click to expand...

The TEA Party were NOT huge supporters.

At least make an effort to be honest, willya?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Actually there is no such thing as the Tea Party, consequently theres no persecution. 

The TPM is merely republicans, mostly an aggregate of the Old Bush Base, pseudo-libertarians, and others from the extreme fiscal right.


----------



## Political Junky

The Tea Party is nothing new ... they used to be called the John Birch Society.


----------



## JakeStarkey

birddog said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which means what? Restoring the rule of LAW that the present occupant only does with law he likes? Upholding the LAW doesn't mean picking and choosing to appease your cronies in favour. It means ALL LAW.
> 
> And what of reverence for the Constitution...that IS the LAW...but I suppose in YOUR world? Restoring it, and this Republic isn't worth it, right? Status quo all the way with the criminals that run it, correct?
> 
> The TPM is all about the Constitution...and getting the elected to pay attention...and adhere. But you admonish it and them...er rather US, by your comment the very same.
> 
> YOU are disgusting. Nevermind you support the seeds of even YOUR demise if the Progressives succeed. YOU are an enemy to your own liberty. Typical unthinking progressive dupe.
> 
> 
> 
> Restore the constitution?  The constitution consists of the base document and 27 amendments.  There's nothing to restore.  Your post is a wonderful example of why the Tea Party will join a long list of obscure political movements.
> 
> If you want the support of the American people, you're going to have to produce legislation that works within the framework of government preserving the services that people expect.  The Democratic and Republican Party are committed to making government work better.  The Tea Party is committed to dismantling most of it and that will never work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Tea Party is for less taxes and a stronger support of The Constitution.  What's wrong with that?
> 
> If my memory serves me correctly, the actor Bogart in your avatar was accused of being a Commie probably like you.
Click to expand...


Birddog is probably more a commie than Flopper.

You have to throw off the neo-con and socon filth and trash, birddog, and produce legislation that works for America.

Shutting down the govt and trying to wreck the world's economy, son, is frowned upon.


----------



## Stephanie

Political Junky said:


> The Tea Party is nothing new ... they used to be called the John Birch Society.



aww, how cute
and the party you belong used to be called the Democrat party, now they should be called, the Socialist/Communist party

oh how two can play with words and labels


----------



## JakeStarkey

TPM = victimizers victimizing victims then crying when called out about it


----------



## Luddly Neddite

> Tea Party Persecution



This thread belongs in Conspiracies, Political Satire AND Dumbed Down Humor.

Grow up and get used to the tee potty being blamed for what they do.


----------



## Political Junky

Stephanie said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party is nothing new ... they used to be called the John Birch Society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aww, how cute
> and the party you belong used to be called the Democrat party, now they should be called, the Socialist/Communist party
> 
> oh how two can play with words and labels
Click to expand...

Fred C. Koch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Political views[edit]

During his time in the Soviet Union, Koch came to despise communism and Joseph Stalin's regime,[6][7] writing in his 1960 book, A Business Man Looks at Communism, that he found the Soviet Union to be "a land of hunger, misery, and terror".[16] He toured the countryside with his handler Jerome Livshitz. Livshitz gave Fred Koch what he would call a "liberal education in Communist techniques and methods" and Koch grew persuaded that the Soviet threat needed to be countered in America.[11]
According to his son, Charles, Many of the Soviet engineers he worked with were longtime Bolsheviks who had helped bring on the revolution. It deeply bothered Fred Koch that so many of those so committed to the Communist cause were later purged.[11]
*He was one of the founding members of the John Birch Society.[17]
He claimed that the Democratic and Republican Parties were infiltrated by the Communist Party, and he supported Mussolini's suppression of communists. *He wrote that "The colored man looms large in the Communist plan to take over America," and that public welfare was a secret plot to attract rural blacks and Puerto Ricans to Eastern cities to vote for Communist causes and "getting a vicious race war started."[16]
<
His sons, Charles and David control the Tea Party.


----------



## birddog

daveman said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I kinda wonder what you consider "American Values" Jake..sorry about that..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have posted before.
> 
> I have said repeatedly I have voted for Romney, and I worked very hard for him in my region and state.
> 
> I supported Afghanistan, opposed Iraq.   Neo-conservatism (modern American imperialism) never has served Americas long-term interests.
> 
> The social programs need reform.  The items of food need to exclude candy, steak, soda pop, chip, and so forth along with the tobacco and booze: those are not a right.
> 
> The physically fit should be mandated to give ten hours a week to the city or the county in return for assistance.  Those who aren't but can assist should be found adaptive work.
> 
> Those who can't get off drugs should be forced to give up parental rights.  And, phased in, no benefits for children out of wedlock.
> 
> I opposed the drug prescriptions program for seniors and No Child Left Behind as incredibly costly programs in both cases and an unwarranted intrusion into education that was best left in the hands of the school boards and the state education agencies.
> 
> I support the 2d Amendment's guarantee that I may own and bear arms.
> 
> I believe that abortion best be limited to cases of incest, rape, and the health and life of the mother.
> 
> I oppose absolute abortion, I oppose neo-conservative imperialism, I oppose birtherism, I oppose trutherism, I oppose Tentherism, and I oppose any suggestion that we are individuals only and not a part of a social compact.
> 
> I oppose reactionary hatred.
> 
> I am a mainstream Republican and have been since the day I went to school with Jack (John) Ford, the president's son. I have served the party honorably since I was my state's GOP Young Republican Chair so many years ago and all through the following decades in many posts. I will continue opposing the reactionaries as I serve the best interests of the Republican Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why do you suck Obama's ass, boy?
Click to expand...

''

That's a very good question.  I agree with most of what Jake stated, but is he being honest?   Besides, isn't the republican Party supposed to be The Big Tent Party?  Jake should concentrate on criticizing the lying dimocrats and leave the non-RINO Republicans alone. Conservatism is what we need!


----------



## JakeStarkey

The TPM should remember that it occupies only a small portion of the Republican tent.

I can't change the Democratic Party and don't want to because when they lean further to the left the easier they are to beat.

The mainstream Republicans cannot let the TPM Rinos get us defeated again, like they did in 2008 and 2012 and this last month in Congress.


----------



## Article 15

> Tea Party Persecution...Why?



If you not only have ask this type of question but also choose to use the term "persecute" when asking it...

...and still believe this...



Lumpy 1 said:


> You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..would be popular, instead their persecuted by the left and the left what-to-Be's....



...then you are one clueless motherfucker.

BUT!

You're not alone.  

Check out all the other clueless motherfuckers you have to hang with here!

USMB is an Idiot Brigade safehouse.


----------



## Katzndogz

The tea party is not being persecuted.  We are at war, being treated the way enemies are normally treated.  It's just time to give a little back.


----------



## oldfart

aaronleland said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> 
> He actually made a very correct point and your rebutle was to insult him for it.
> 
> Pick up your game a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mind your own business or post so you can get an pat on the ass from someone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain to me how my post exhibited any sort of hate.
Click to expand...


Tea Partiers and their apologists have a persecution complex.  If you don't agree with them you must be hateful.  I hope it keeps up long enough to primary the GOP into extinction.


----------



## Lumpy 1

Article 15 said:


> Tea Party Persecution...Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you not only have ask this type of question but also choose to use the term "persecute" when asking it...
> 
> ...and still believe this...
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..would be popular, instead their persecuted by the left and the left what-to-Be's....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...then you are one clueless motherfucker.
> 
> BUT!
> 
> You're not alone.
> 
> Check out all the other clueless motherfuckers you have to hang with here!
> 
> USMB is an Idiot Brigade safehouse.
Click to expand...


You've never struck me as actually being sane, it makes it difficult to trust your judgement.


----------



## BDBoop

daveman said:


> Mad_Cabbie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> If baggers don't want to be viewed as mentally unbalanced they should stop having mentally unbalanced spokespeople and candidates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good example.  Because the person who made that image is PERFECTLY sane and rational.
Click to expand...


Did you say anything like that during the five years that Obama was photoshopped as the joker, a witch doctor, etc?


----------



## Camp

The Republican Party is trying to get a refund on that thing they thought was a tent. It came full of Tea and that is making it impossible to get anything else in there.


----------



## HUGGY

*Tea Party Persecution...Why? *

Because you have to ask why.


----------



## manifold

Lumpy 1 said:


> You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..would be popular, instead their persecuted by the left and the left want-to-Be's....



Never heard of those guys, but they sound okay in my book.


----------



## HUGGY

*Tea Party Persecution...Why?*

Many folks take offense to political terrorism.

Go figure ...


----------



## JakeStarkey

"the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government"

Too bad the TPM does not really believe that


----------



## Foxfyre

The Tea Party is systematically demonized in an effort to discredit and minimalize it as are ALL people or movements in America that value smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and Constitutional liberties.  The liberals/leftists/progressives/statists, whether by speeches or media coverage or more blatantly in totally unacceptable government overreach HAVE to do that in order to keep the ignorant on their big government plantation.

The liberals/leftists/progressives/statists don't seem to care how dishonest or hypocritical or cruel they the propaganda is.  Just so it works.

So you see it done to ANY conservative, most especially a woman, who is gaining any public following.  You see it done to ANY person of color or other minority groups who are gaining any public following.

And you see it done to the Tea Party.


----------



## manifold

The Tea Party may have sprung from noble origins, but it has since been co-opted by the GOP and not at all for the better.

If I were part of the original grass-roots movement, that would piss me off to no end.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Foxfyre said:


> The Tea Party is systematically demonized in an effort to discredit and minimalize it as are ALL people or movements in America that value smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and Constitutional liberties.  The liberals/leftists/progressives/statists, whether by speeches or media coverage or more blatantly in totally unacceptable government overreach HAVE to do that in order to keep the ignorant on their big government plantation.
> 
> The liberals/leftists/progressives/statists don't seem to care how dishonest or hypocritical or cruel they the propaganda is.  Just so it works.
> 
> So you see it done to ANY conservative, most especially a woman, who is gaining any public following.  You see it done to ANY person of color or other minority groups who are gaining any public following.
> 
> And you see it done to the Tea Party.



Damn! You can turn the AM radio off, but the exact same message is plastered all over the country, no matter where you are or what you are doing! It is on this board everywhere, in my E-mail, and even some nut who stands outside of the Safeway parking lot 5 days per week is carrying the signs with the same talking points! I'm waiting for them to start renting audio commercial time from Shell stations so that i will be forced to listen to it while I am filliing up my tank!

Thank god I drive a motorcycle and it only takes a couple of minutes to top it off!


----------



## Foxfyre

Vandalshandle said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party is systematically demonized in an effort to discredit and minimalize it as are ALL people or movements in America that value smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and Constitutional liberties.  The liberals/leftists/progressives/statists, whether by speeches or media coverage or more blatantly in totally unacceptable government overreach HAVE to do that in order to keep the ignorant on their big government plantation.
> 
> The liberals/leftists/progressives/statists don't seem to care how dishonest or hypocritical or cruel they the propaganda is.  Just so it works.
> 
> So you see it done to ANY conservative, most especially a woman, who is gaining any public following.  You see it done to ANY person of color or other minority groups who are gaining any public following.
> 
> And you see it done to the Tea Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn! You can turn the AM radio off, but the exact same message is plastered all over the country, no matter where you are or what you are doing! It is on this board everywhere, in my E-mail, and even some nut who stands outside of the Safeway parking lot 5 days per week is carrying the signs with the same talking points! I'm waiting for them to start renting audio commercial time from Shell stations so that i will be forced to listen to it while I am filliing up my tank!
> 
> Thank god I drive a motorcycle and it only takes a couple of minutes to top it off!
Click to expand...


Non sequitur much?

Exactly what message are you being plagued with--apparently only in your neck of the woods--that justifies demonizing the Tea Party who, everywhere I know of, focuses on individual liberties, and restoring the government to a more honorable institution more typical of its Constitutional roots?


----------



## manifold

[MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]

What ideals does the Tea Party espouse that in your opinion differentiates them from the GOP?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Foxfyre said:


> The Tea Party is systematically demonized in an effort to discredit and minimalize it as are ALL people or movements in America that value smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and Constitutional liberties.  The liberals/leftists/progressives/statists, whether by speeches or media coverage or more blatantly in totally unacceptable government overreach HAVE to do that in order to keep the ignorant on their big government plantation.
> 
> The liberals/leftists/progressives/statists don't seem to care how dishonest or hypocritical or cruel they the propaganda is.  Just so it works.
> 
> So you see it done to ANY conservative, most especially a woman, who is gaining any public following.  You see it done to ANY person of color or other minority groups who are gaining any public following.
> 
> And you see it done to the Tea Party.



You see it done to all parties and movements, and you certainly see the TeaPs on this Board pulling that nonsense, Foxfyre.

If the movement would strip the libertarian revision of American narrative as well as the social conservatism from its general program, I would support it in a heart beat.


----------



## Foxfyre

manifold said:


> [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]
> 
> What ideals does the Tea Party espouse that in your opinion differentiates them from the GOP?



The GOP platform includes social issues and proposes government initiatives in areas the Tea Party simply does not involve itself.  The GOP platform does NOT take on the graft and corruption that our left leaning entitlement driven government automatically infuses into both parties, and the Tea Party does.

The GOP has actually been quite hostile to the Tea Party, but the GOP does promote more positive emphasis to fix some problems than the Democxrats do.   So rather than form a third party, the Tea Party pretty much universally chose to try to infuse the GOP with enough reformers to get some reform accomplished--reform the GOP so to speak.

Many Republicans of course court the Tea Party vote because they would be nuts not to do so.  But the Tea Party does not conform to GOP goals.  The Tea Party is trying to get the GOP to conform to Tea Party goals.


----------



## manifold

Foxfyre said:


> *But the Tea Party does not conform to GOP goals.*



Such as?


----------



## Foxfyre

manifold said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But the Tea Party does not conform to GOP goals.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such as?
Click to expand...


I'll refer you to the GOP platform.  Just pick out whatever does not include smaller, more efficient, more effective government, far less intrusion into individual liberties. and returning government to its constitutional roots.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Foxfyre said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]
> 
> What ideals does the Tea Party espouse that in your opinion differentiates them from the GOP?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP platform includes social issues and proposes government initiatives in areas the Tea Party simply does not involve itself.  The GOP platform does NOT take on the graft and corruption that our left leaning entitlement driven government automatically infuses into both parties, and the Tea Party does.
> 
> The GOP has actually been quite hostile to the Tea Party, but the GOP does promote more positive emphasis to fix some problems than the Democxrats do.   So rather than form a third party, the Tea Party pretty much universally chose to try to infuse the GOP with enough reformers to get some reform accomplished--reform the GOP so to speak.
> 
> Many Republicans of course court the Tea Party vote because they would be nuts not to do so.  But the Tea Party does not conform to GOP goals.  The Tea Party is trying to get the GOP to conform to Tea Party goals.
Click to expand...


The tail does not wag the dog.


----------



## HUGGY

Foxfyre said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]
> 
> What ideals does the Tea Party espouse that in your opinion differentiates them from the GOP?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP platform includes social issues and proposes government initiatives in areas the Tea Party simply does not involve itself. * The GOP platform does NOT take on the graft and corruption *that our left leaning entitlement driven government automatically infuses into both parties, and the Tea Party does.
> 
> The GOP has actually been quite hostile to the Tea Party, but the GOP does promote more positive emphasis to fix some problems than the Democxrats do.   So rather than form a third party, the Tea Party pretty much universally chose to try to infuse the GOP with enough reformers to get some reform accomplished--reform the GOP so to speak.
> 
> Many Republicans of course court the Tea Party vote because they would be nuts not to do so.  But the Tea Party does not conform to GOP goals.  The Tea Party is trying to get the GOP to conform to Tea Party goals.
Click to expand...


*" The GOP platform does NOT take on the graft and corruption "*

That statement is a bald faced lie.  Just one example of John Boehner passing out checks ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE in the middle of the night on the vote over tobbaco interests was not only clearly flying in the face of your statement.. It is SOP for the republican party.  The corruption surrounding the whole "donut bill" where the GOP took enormous sums of money to make sure that Americans and Medicare could not negotiate with the pharms over the cost of medicines as the Canadians do was an outrageous display of working ..not to help the American people but to subvert our elderly from having any advantage as thier golden years approach.  That legislation has cost elderly U S citizens hundreds of billions of dollars at a time in thier lives when they can least afford it.  

Coming onto this message board with your out right lies does little for your credibility.


----------



## Foxfyre

HUGGY said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]
> 
> What ideals does the Tea Party espouse that in your opinion differentiates them from the GOP?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP platform includes social issues and proposes government initiatives in areas the Tea Party simply does not involve itself. * The GOP platform does NOT take on the graft and corruption *that our left leaning entitlement driven government automatically infuses into both parties, and the Tea Party does.
> 
> The GOP has actually been quite hostile to the Tea Party, but the GOP does promote more positive emphasis to fix some problems than the Democxrats do.   So rather than form a third party, the Tea Party pretty much universally chose to try to infuse the GOP with enough reformers to get some reform accomplished--reform the GOP so to speak.
> 
> Many Republicans of course court the Tea Party vote because they would be nuts not to do so.  But the Tea Party does not conform to GOP goals.  The Tea Party is trying to get the GOP to conform to Tea Party goals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *" The GOP platform does NOT take on the graft and corruption "*
> 
> That statement is a bald faced lie.  Just one example of John Boehner passing out checks ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE in the middle of the night on the vote over tobbaco interests was not only clearly flying in the face of your statement.. It is SOP for the republican party.  The corruption surrounding the whole "donut bill" where the GOP took enormous sums of money to make sure that Americans and Medicare could not negotiate with the pharms over the cost of medicines as the Canadians do was an outrageous display of working ..not to help the American people but to subvert our elderly from having any advantage as thier golden years approach.  That legislation has cost elderly U S citizens hundreds of billions of dollars at a time in thier lives when they can least afford it.
> 
> Coming onto this message board with your out right lies does little for your credibility.
Click to expand...


I think you need to read more carefully Huggy.  How does what you said in any way contradict my opinion that the GOP platform does not address graft and corruption that is infused into the system?

I could call you a liar for totally misrepresenting what I said, but not being a leftwing loon, I'll give you some credit that your reading dysfunction was unintentional.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Vandalshandle said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party is systematically demonized in an effort to discredit and minimalize it as are ALL people or movements in America that value smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and Constitutional liberties.  The liberals/leftists/progressives/statists, whether by speeches or media coverage or more blatantly in totally unacceptable government overreach HAVE to do that in order to keep the ignorant on their big government plantation.
> 
> The liberals/leftists/progressives/statists don't seem to care how dishonest or hypocritical or cruel they the propaganda is.  Just so it works.
> 
> So you see it done to ANY conservative, most especially a woman, who is gaining any public following.  You see it done to ANY person of color or other minority groups who are gaining any public following.
> 
> And you see it done to the Tea Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn! You can turn the AM radio off, but the exact same message is plastered all over the country, no matter where you are or what you are doing! It is on this board everywhere, in my E-mail, and even some nut who stands outside of the Safeway parking lot 5 days per week is carrying the signs with the same talking points! I'm waiting for them to start renting audio commercial time from Shell stations so that i will be forced to listen to it while I am filliing up my tank!
> 
> Thank god I drive a motorcycle and it only takes a couple of minutes to top it off!
Click to expand...


Wow.. sucks to be you... but hey, get used to it.. it ain't going away and it is gaining ground!!!


----------



## manifold

Foxfyre said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> *But the Tea Party does not conform to GOP goals.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such as?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll refer you to the GOP platform.  Just pick out whatever does not include smaller, more efficient, more effective government, far less intrusion into individual liberties. and returning government to its constitutional roots.
Click to expand...


So for example, Tea Partiers would support the legalization of marijuana (or at least leaving it up to the states) and doing away with the DEA, since drug enforcement is clearly not a power granted to the federal government by the US Constitution?


----------



## Uncensored2008

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Liberals?
> 
> They seem to get a **** load of grief.



Grief?

From whom? The mainstream media is literally a department of the DNC. Hollywood promotes ultra-leftism in both film and T.V.

Looks to me like leftism is immune from criticism.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Vandalshandle said:


> Damn! You can turn the AM radio off, but the exact same message is plastered all over the country, no matter where you are or what you are doing! It is on this board everywhere, in my E-mail, and even some nut who stands outside of the Safeway parking lot 5 days per week is carrying the signs with the same talking points! I'm waiting for them to start renting audio commercial time from Shell stations so that i will be forced to listen to it while I am filliing up my tank!
> 
> Thank god I drive a motorcycle and it only takes a couple of minutes to top it off!



Yeah, I know what you mean. Even watching procedural police drama and they put out this mock arrest and trial of Eric Holder for Fast & Furious...

OH WAIT, Law & Order actually did a mock arrest and trial of Dick Cheney...

Or Two and a Half Men with the constant quips of how stupid Obama is and how he looks like a monkey...

OH WAIT, they did that to Bush, not Obama.

And MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, NY Times, Chicago Tribune, Washington Post, LA Times, all running flat out Republican Party propaganda all the time..

OH WAIT, they all are basically the propaganda corps of the DNC..

What was it you were babbling about again?


----------



## HUGGY

Foxfyre said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP platform includes social issues and proposes government initiatives in areas the Tea Party simply does not involve itself. * The GOP platform does NOT take on the graft and corruption *that our left leaning entitlement driven government automatically infuses into both parties, and the Tea Party does.
> 
> The GOP has actually been quite hostile to the Tea Party, but the GOP does promote more positive emphasis to fix some problems than the Democxrats do.   So rather than form a third party, the Tea Party pretty much universally chose to try to infuse the GOP with enough reformers to get some reform accomplished--reform the GOP so to speak.
> 
> Many Republicans of course court the Tea Party vote because they would be nuts not to do so.  But the Tea Party does not conform to GOP goals.  The Tea Party is trying to get the GOP to conform to Tea Party goals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *" The GOP platform does NOT take on the graft and corruption "*
> 
> That statement is a bald faced lie.  Just one example of John Boehner passing out checks ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE in the middle of the night on the vote over tobbaco interests was not only clearly flying in the face of your statement.. It is SOP for the republican party.  The corruption surrounding the whole "donut bill" where the GOP took enormous sums of money to make sure that Americans and Medicare could not negotiate with the pharms over the cost of medicines as the Canadians do was an outrageous display of working ..not to help the American people but to subvert our elderly from having any advantage as thier golden years approach.  That legislation has cost elderly U S citizens hundreds of billions of dollars at a time in thier lives when they can least afford it.
> 
> Coming onto this message board with your out right lies does little for your credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you need to read more carefully Huggy.  How does what you said in any way contradict my opinion that the GOP platform does not address graft and corruption that is infused into the system?
> 
> I could call you a liar for totally misrepresenting what I said, but not being a leftwing loon, I'll give you some credit that your reading dysfunction was unintentional.
Click to expand...


OK...  I miss read your post.  What I said was 100% true.  It just didn't apply to your post.  But since I have you on the horn... Just what has the Tea Party done within the republican party to correct the wrongs I listed instituted by thier parent organization?


----------



## bendog

Lumpy 1 said:


> You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..would be popular, instead their persecuted by the left and the left want-to-Be's....



I'm feeling farily persecuted by the TPM, what with having a potus named Hussein who believes its appropriate for the fed govt to tell me what insurance I need, and must purchase, for my family.  Of course, it was McCain who put Sarah bat shite crazy on the ticket.  Fate gave us a chance when the first time voters and caucus states knocked off Hillary, but that move kissed it goodbye.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Mad_Cabbie said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> If baggers don't want to be viewed as mentally unbalanced they should stop having mentally unbalanced spokespeople and candidates.
Click to expand...


well, according to bachmann, she has the same spirit as john wayne gacy.


----------



## Foxfyre

HUGGY said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> *" The GOP platform does NOT take on the graft and corruption "*
> 
> That statement is a bald faced lie.  Just one example of John Boehner passing out checks ON THE FLOOR OF THE HOUSE in the middle of the night on the vote over tobbaco interests was not only clearly flying in the face of your statement.. It is SOP for the republican party.  The corruption surrounding the whole "donut bill" where the GOP took enormous sums of money to make sure that Americans and Medicare could not negotiate with the pharms over the cost of medicines as the Canadians do was an outrageous display of working ..not to help the American people but to subvert our elderly from having any advantage as thier golden years approach.  That legislation has cost elderly U S citizens hundreds of billions of dollars at a time in thier lives when they can least afford it.
> 
> Coming onto this message board with your out right lies does little for your credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to read more carefully Huggy.  How does what you said in any way contradict my opinion that the GOP platform does not address graft and corruption that is infused into the system?
> 
> I could call you a liar for totally misrepresenting what I said, but not being a leftwing loon, I'll give you some credit that your reading dysfunction was unintentional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK...  I miss read your post.  What I said was 100% true.  It just didn't apply to your post.  But since I have you on the horn... Just what has the Tea Party done within the republican party to correct the wrongs I listed instituted by thier parent organization?
Click to expand...


It has elected people to the GOP who are pledged to focus on the Tea Party goals.  One of those, Ted Cruz, did his damndest in a marathon quasi-filibuster to impress upon the Senate that it needed to follow the lead of the House and defund or postpone Obamacare until it was ready for prime time.  Who among us would now say that wouldn't have been the right call?  Every one of them has voted to repeal Obamacare when they had opportunity to do so.

Almost all have kept their campaign promises to vote against inceased irresponsible spending and ever more government intrusion onto our civil liberties and unalienable rights.

And while they have won some concessions to favorably amend some bills--Boehner does need their votes after all to get stuff passed--they are still too few, most especially in the Senate--to have much power.

And unfortunately those who get their information only from the partisan leftwing media are being told constantly how evil the Tea Party is and are misled into believing that the Tea Party is doing all sorts of things and promoting all sorts of things that Tea Party groups overall simply don't do.  But that's how the left stays in power isn't it.  By making sure that anybody who doesn't support the leftist agenda is marginalized, demonized, ridiculed, and lied into oblivion.


----------



## PrometheusBound

aaronleland said:


> persecuted isn't the correct word. Ridiculed, yes.



*xxxxxxxxxx*


----------



## PrometheusBound

Stephanie said:


> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Persecuted isn't the correct word. Ridiculed, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> man oh man, you've become a real hater
Click to expand...


The Tea Potty is the Diet Koch of hate.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

PrometheusBound said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> aaronleland said:
> 
> 
> 
> Persecuted isn't the correct word. Ridiculed, yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> man oh man, you've become a real hater
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Tea Potty is the Diet Koch of hate.
Click to expand...


Good Lord, how old are you, _six_?


----------



## PrometheusBound

Camp said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quoting "Camp":   "Why are Teabaggers being attacked by Republicans? Why are the silly hatter candidates being attacked by Republicans?
> 
> 
> "Hatters" were frequently mentally unbalanced because of occupational exposure to mercury.
> 
> Do you really see a whole lot of candidates whose employment is in the manufacture or hats these days?
> 
> Or are you just careless as well as irresponsible?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If baggers don't want to be viewed as mentally unbalanced they should stop having mentally unbalanced spokespeople and candidates.
Click to expand...


The Teapot Domes are trying to reduce politics to the level of a pre-school singalong.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PrometheusBound said:


> The Tea Potty is the Diet Koch of hate.



Not like the love you Pol Pot democrats show...

Especially you, a literal Klansman...


----------



## PrometheusBound

OODA_Loop said:


> Smaller government and more individual freedom takes power from Democrats.



And gives it to the l% at the Wall Street Kremlin.


----------



## bendog

Foxfyre said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to read more carefully Huggy.  How does what you said in any way contradict my opinion that the GOP platform does not address graft and corruption that is infused into the system?
> 
> I could call you a liar for totally misrepresenting what I said, but not being a leftwing loon, I'll give you some credit that your reading dysfunction was unintentional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK...  I miss read your post.  What I said was 100% true.  It just didn't apply to your post.  But since I have you on the horn... Just what has the Tea Party done within the republican party to correct the wrongs I listed instituted by thier parent organization?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has elected people to the GOP who are pledged to focus on the Tea Party goals.  One of those, Ted Cruz, did his damndest in a marathon quasi-filibuster to impress upon the Senate that it needed to follow the lead of the House and defund or postpone Obamacare until it was ready for prime time.  Who among us would now say that wouldn't have been the right call?  Every one of them has voted to repeal Obamacare when they had opportunity to do so.
> 
> Almost all have kept their campaign promises to vote against inceased irresponsible spending and ever more government intrusion onto our civil liberties and unalienable rights.
> 
> And while they have won some concessions to favorably amend some bills--Boehner does need their votes after all to get stuff passed--they are still too few, most especially in the Senate--to have much power.
> 
> And unfortunately those who get their information only from the partisan leftwing media are being told constantly how evil the Tea Party is and are misled into believing that the Tea Party is doing all sorts of things and promoting all sorts of things that Tea Party groups overall simply don't do.  But that's how the left stays in power isn't it.  By making sure that anybody who doesn't support the leftist agenda is marginalized, demonized, ridiculed, and lied into oblivion.
Click to expand...


That darned LW media covering the shut down over obamacare and suggestion we not raise the debt limit and effect that would have on obligations such as debt service and entitlements.


----------



## Foxfyre

bendog said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK...  I miss read your post.  What I said was 100% true.  It just didn't apply to your post.  But since I have you on the horn... Just what has the Tea Party done within the republican party to correct the wrongs I listed instituted by thier parent organization?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It has elected people to the GOP who are pledged to focus on the Tea Party goals.  One of those, Ted Cruz, did his damndest in a marathon quasi-filibuster to impress upon the Senate that it needed to follow the lead of the House and defund or postpone Obamacare until it was ready for prime time.  Who among us would now say that wouldn't have been the right call?  Every one of them has voted to repeal Obamacare when they had opportunity to do so.
> 
> Almost all have kept their campaign promises to vote against inceased irresponsible spending and ever more government intrusion onto our civil liberties and unalienable rights.
> 
> And while they have won some concessions to favorably amend some bills--Boehner does need their votes after all to get stuff passed--they are still too few, most especially in the Senate--to have much power.
> 
> And unfortunately those who get their information only from the partisan leftwing media are being told constantly how evil the Tea Party is and are misled into believing that the Tea Party is doing all sorts of things and promoting all sorts of things that Tea Party groups overall simply don't do.  But that's how the left stays in power isn't it.  By making sure that anybody who doesn't support the leftist agenda is marginalized, demonized, ridiculed, and lied into oblivion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That darned LW media covering the shut down over obamacare and suggestion we not raise the debt limit and effect that would have on obligations such as debt service and entitlements.
Click to expand...


So what harm did that shutdown actually do?  When you max our your credit card do you change your behavior?  Or do you just ask the credit card to increase your limit and you continue the same irresponsible spending practices?

We specifically elected Tea Party candidates to do exactly what they promised to do if elected.  And that means stop this travesty of Obamacare imposed on the American people--each passing day is demonstrating more and more that we were absolutely right to demand that.  And that means stop the irresponsible spending, runaway deficits, unconscionable debt that the government continues to increase in order to keep itself in power.

I won't fault the Tea Party candidates from doing what they promised to do.

I only wish your messiah king that you elected had kept his campaign promises.  We would be in a far less deep hole and wouldn't still be frantically digging it deeper if he had.


----------



## PrometheusBound

stephanie said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> why are teabaggers being attacked by republicans? Why are the silly hatter candidates being attacked by republicans?
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a liberal can't understand a party who doesn't walk in lockstep like they do the democrat party..there can't be dissent, not one difference of opinion, etc etc...so according to them that makes enough reason the tea party should be looked at as the enemy and should be ridiculed..
> 
> That is very sad and speaks a lot about where they are as voters and why these elected democrats feels it's ok for them to call the people all kinds of vile names, terrorist, hostage takers, etc etc
Click to expand...

*xxxxxxx*


----------



## Camp

Uncensored2008 said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Potty is the Diet Koch of hate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not like the love you Pol Pot democrats show...
> 
> Especially you, a literal Klansman...
Click to expand...


And you wonder why the Tea Party folks are persecuted, ridiculed and mocked. Without hesitation or thought, you deem it appropriate to compare your political opponents to a Cambodian mass murderer. You insult a huge percentage of the American population and can't figure out why they think you are a bunch of jerks.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Camp said:


> And you wonder why the Tea Party folks are persecuted, ridiculed and mocked. Without hesitation or thought, you deem it appropriate to compare your political opponents to a Cambodian mass murderer. You insult a huge percentage of the American population and can't figure out why they think you are a bunch of jerks.



You walk around dick in hand with Promethius Bound - a putrid pile of shit who demands that black Americans be rounded up and deported to Africa - and are sub-human.

And you wonder why we view you as a scumbag? 

Yes, your putrid party lies, slanders, and libels the Tea Party. Demagoguery is your way. The shameful little Goebbels of the democratic party spewing hate at any who hold views different than your shameful party.

Pol Pot is exactly what you scumbags model yourselves after.


----------



## Camp

Uncensored2008 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you wonder why the Tea Party folks are persecuted, ridiculed and mocked. Without hesitation or thought, you deem it appropriate to compare your political opponents to a Cambodian mass murderer. You insult a huge percentage of the American population and can't figure out why they think you are a bunch of jerks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You walk around dick in hand with Promethius Bound - a putrid pile of shit who demands that black Americans be rounded up and deported to Africa - and are sub-human.
> 
> And you wonder why we view you as a scumbag?
> 
> Yes, your putrid party lies, slanders, and libels the Tea Party. Demagoguery is your way. The shameful little Goebbels of the democratic party spewing hate at any who hold views different than your shameful party.
> 
> Pol Pot is exactly what you scumbags model yourselves after.
Click to expand...


See what a jerk you are. I don't know shit about Promethius Bound other than I argue with him plenty. Due to the Jewish blood that runs through my viens I doubt he would want to hang out with me.


----------



## Lumpy 1

Luddly Neddite said:


> Tea Party Persecution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread belongs in Conspiracies, Political Satire AND Dumbed Down Humor.
> 
> Grow up and get used to the tee potty being blamed for what they do.
Click to expand...


Democrats and their media have all but put on their pointy white hoods when it comes to Tea Party members.

Lots of persecution but very few facts...


----------



## Redfish

from the OP:
You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..

The tea party is persecuted by the dems, libs, rinos, and the media because they threaten the power base of those groups.   Its about power and money, not doing what is best for the country.

the status quo keeps those listed groups in power and the money continues to flow into their personal accounts by legalized bribery.   Its called corruption and greed, and DC is the capital of it.


----------



## Lumpy 1

Redfish said:


> from the OP:
> You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..
> 
> The tea party is persecuted by the dems, libs, rinos, and the media because they threaten the power base of those groups.   Its about power and money, not doing what is best for the country.
> 
> the status quo keeps those listed groups in power and the money continues to flow into their personal accounts by legalized bribery.   Its called corruption and greed, and DC is the capital of it.



Very close to the perfect post Mr. Redfish...


----------



## bendog

Foxfyre said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has elected people to the GOP who are pledged to focus on the Tea Party goals.  One of those, Ted Cruz, did his damndest in a marathon quasi-filibuster to impress upon the Senate that it needed to follow the lead of the House and defund or postpone Obamacare until it was ready for prime time.  Who among us would now say that wouldn't have been the right call?  Every one of them has voted to repeal Obamacare when they had opportunity to do so.
> 
> Almost all have kept their campaign promises to vote against inceased irresponsible spending and ever more government intrusion onto our civil liberties and unalienable rights.
> 
> And while they have won some concessions to favorably amend some bills--Boehner does need their votes after all to get stuff passed--they are still too few, most especially in the Senate--to have much power.
> 
> And unfortunately those who get their information only from the partisan leftwing media are being told constantly how evil the Tea Party is and are misled into believing that the Tea Party is doing all sorts of things and promoting all sorts of things that Tea Party groups overall simply don't do.  But that's how the left stays in power isn't it.  By making sure that anybody who doesn't support the leftist agenda is marginalized, demonized, ridiculed, and lied into oblivion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That darned LW media covering the shut down over obamacare and suggestion we not raise the debt limit and effect that would have on obligations such as debt service and entitlements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what harm did that shutdown actually do?  When you max our your credit card do you change your behavior?  Or do you just ask the credit card to increase your limit and you continue the same irresponsible spending practices?
> 
> We specifically elected Tea Party candidates to do exactly what they promised to do if elected.  And that means stop this travesty of Obamacare imposed on the American people--each passing day is demonstrating more and more that we were absolutely right to demand that.  And that means stop the irresponsible spending, runaway deficits, unconscionable debt that the government continues to increase in order to keep itself in power.
> 
> I won't fault the Tea Party candidates from doing what they promised to do.
> 
> I only wish your messiah king that you elected had kept his campaign promises.  We would be in a far less deep hole and wouldn't still be frantically digging it deeper if he had.
Click to expand...


Shaved a pt or so off of gnp.  But, more so the harm was to the gop.  The vast majority of 60+% want govt to function.  I fault the TPM politicians for promising to do something that makes it impossible for the gop to elect a fricking potus or senate maj.

And I also fault idiots who blame the media when their message is not well received by the public.


----------



## Redfish

bendog said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> That darned LW media covering the shut down over obamacare and suggestion we not raise the debt limit and effect that would have on obligations such as debt service and entitlements.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what harm did that shutdown actually do?  When you max our your credit card do you change your behavior?  Or do you just ask the credit card to increase your limit and you continue the same irresponsible spending practices?
> 
> We specifically elected Tea Party candidates to do exactly what they promised to do if elected.  And that means stop this travesty of Obamacare imposed on the American people--each passing day is demonstrating more and more that we were absolutely right to demand that.  And that means stop the irresponsible spending, runaway deficits, unconscionable debt that the government continues to increase in order to keep itself in power.
> 
> I won't fault the Tea Party candidates from doing what they promised to do.
> 
> I only wish your messiah king that you elected had kept his campaign promises.  We would be in a far less deep hole and wouldn't still be frantically digging it deeper if he had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shaved a pt or so off of gnp.  But, more so the harm was to the gop.  The vast majority of 60+% want govt to function.  I fault the TPM politicians for promising to do something that makes it impossible for the gop to elect a fricking potus or senate maj.
Click to expand...


standing up for your principles is never wrong,  it may be temporarily painful, but in the end it is the right thing to do.   Its what created this country.


----------



## Flopper

Camp said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Potty is the Diet Koch of hate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not like the love you Pol Pot democrats show...
> 
> Especially you, a literal Klansman...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you wonder why the Tea Party folks are persecuted, ridiculed and mocked. Without hesitation or thought, you deem it appropriate to compare your political opponents to a Cambodian mass murderer. You insult a huge percentage of the American population and can't figure out why they think you are a bunch of jerks.
Click to expand...

It pretty easy for TPs to insult most of the population because they keep proposing legislation and policies that insult almost all minorities.


----------



## bendog

Redfish said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what harm did that shutdown actually do?  When you max our your credit card do you change your behavior?  Or do you just ask the credit card to increase your limit and you continue the same irresponsible spending practices?
> 
> We specifically elected Tea Party candidates to do exactly what they promised to do if elected.  And that means stop this travesty of Obamacare imposed on the American people--each passing day is demonstrating more and more that we were absolutely right to demand that.  And that means stop the irresponsible spending, runaway deficits, unconscionable debt that the government continues to increase in order to keep itself in power.
> 
> I won't fault the Tea Party candidates from doing what they promised to do.
> 
> I only wish your messiah king that you elected had kept his campaign promises.  We would be in a far less deep hole and wouldn't still be frantically digging it deeper if he had.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shaved a pt or so off of gnp.  But, more so the harm was to the gop.  The vast majority of 60+% want govt to function.  I fault the TPM politicians for promising to do something that makes it impossible for the gop to elect a fricking potus or senate maj.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> standing up for your principles is never wrong,  it may be temporarily painful, but in the end it is the right thing to do.   Its what created this country.
Click to expand...


Standing up for your principals is NOT right when the effect would be to either default on the debt or not pay entitlements, and that would have been the effect of not raiseing the debt ceiling or passing a CR.  Just because you have a princlpal doens't make you right.  Other sides have principles too.  A majority wants pols to comproemise and get biz done.  I realize you don't like that, but that's your fault, not the medias and not the majority's.  And you're not a victim.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Camp said:


> See what a jerk you are. I don't know shit about Promethius Bound other than I argue with him plenty. Due to the Jewish blood that runs through my viens I doubt he would want to hang out with me.



ME a jerk? You come here and attack, CamPPPbell, and wonder why you get it back...

Rather than offer a valid rebuttal to the Tea Party goals of limited government, civil rights, and adherence to the Constitution, you attack - as is the way of you little Goebbels of the DNC.


----------



## Redfish

bendog said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shaved a pt or so off of gnp.  But, more so the harm was to the gop.  The vast majority of 60+% want govt to function.  I fault the TPM politicians for promising to do something that makes it impossible for the gop to elect a fricking potus or senate maj.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> standing up for your principles is never wrong,  it may be temporarily painful, but in the end it is the right thing to do.   Its what created this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Standing up for your principals is NOT right when the effect would be to either default on the debt or not pay entitlements, and that would have been the effect of not raiseing the debt ceiling or passing a CR.  Just because you have a princlpal doens't make you right.  Other sides have principles too.  A majority wants pols to comproemise and get biz done.  I realize you don't like that, but that's your fault, not the medias and not the majority's.  And you're not a victim.
Click to expand...




NO ONE in the GOP or the TP has ever suggested defaulting on the debt or not paying entitlements-----you are a victim of media and administration lies.

The refusal to compromise has come from obama and reid.   

Do you believe that all of obama's principles are right for the nation and should be implemented by presidential dictate?   Thats how they did ACA,  one party vote, no discussion, no amendments, no time to read it---just shoved it up our butts because THEY thought it was right.  Now, that is coming home to roost.


----------



## Redfish

Flopper said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not like the love you Pol Pot democrats show...
> 
> Especially you, a literal Klansman...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you wonder why the Tea Party folks are persecuted, ridiculed and mocked. Without hesitation or thought, you deem it appropriate to compare your political opponents to a Cambodian mass murderer. You insult a huge percentage of the American population and can't figure out why they think you are a bunch of jerks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It pretty easy for TPs to insult most of the population because they keep proposing legislation and policies that insult almost all minorities.
Click to expand...


Bullshit----which minorities are insulted by freedom and lower taxes?


----------



## Flopper

bendog said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shaved a pt or so off of gnp.  But, more so the harm was to the gop.  The vast majority of 60+% want govt to function.  I fault the TPM politicians for promising to do something that makes it impossible for the gop to elect a fricking potus or senate maj.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> standing up for your principles is never wrong,  it may be temporarily painful, but in the end it is the right thing to do.   Its what created this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Standing up for your principals is NOT right when the effect would be to either default on the debt or not pay entitlements, and that would have been the effect of not raiseing the debt ceiling or passing a CR.  Just because you have a princlpal doens't make you right.  Other sides have principles too.  A majority wants pols to comproemise and get biz done.  I realize you don't like that, but that's your fault, not the medias and not the majority's.  And you're not a victim.
Click to expand...

The unpopularity of the Tea Party has doubled in the last two years and has brought the popularity of the GOP to lowest point in history.  Their unpopularity is not because of their beliefs.  The vast majority of people agree with Tea Party goals of low taxes and fiscally sound government.  They just reject the TP methods of achieving those goals.


----------



## Camp

Uncensored2008 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> See what a jerk you are. I don't know shit about Promethius Bound other than I argue with him plenty. Due to the Jewish blood that runs through my viens I doubt he would want to hang out with me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ME a jerk? You come here and attack, CamPPPbell, and wonder why you get it back...
> 
> Rather than offer a valid rebuttal to the Tea Party goals of limited government, civil rights, and adherence to the Constitution, you attack - as is the way of you little Goebbels of the DNC.
Click to expand...


Your a jerk because you don't give thought to what you are saying. You attacked me because you don't like another poster and because I seemed to support one of his comments and you lumped me in with him and got kind of vile. When I informed you I had Jewish blood you decided it would be cool to make a reference to one of the guys responsible for the murder of about a fourth of my family that remained in Europe. In my book that qualifies you as a jerk.


----------



## Lumpy 1

Just because...


[ame=http://youtu.be/UdgEB14N3gE]Hi, I'm a Democrat - Response to "Hi, I'm a Tea-Partier" - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Uncensored2008

Flopper said:


> The unpopularity of the Tea Party has doubled in the last two years and has brought the popularity of the GOP to lowest point in history.  Their unpopularity is not because of their beliefs.  The vast majority of people agree with Tea Party goals of low taxes and fiscally sound government.  They just reject the TP methods of achieving those goals.



Due to a very concerted effort of demagoguery by the party and the corrupt press serving the party.

democrats are more vicious in lies about the Tea Party than the Nazis were with lies about the Jews.

And you know it.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Camp said:


> Your a jerk because you don't give thought to what you are saying. You attacked me because you don't like another poster and because I seemed to support one of his comments and you lumped me in with him and got kind of vile. When I informed you I had Jewish blood you decided it would be cool to make a reference to one of the guys responsible for the murder of about a fourth of my family that remained in Europe. In my book that qualifies you as a jerk.



Seriously, in what way do you differ from Goebbels in your treatment of the Tea Party? You lie and defame as a matter of course. 

Demagoguery is no more ethical just because you do it.


----------



## Camp

Uncensored2008 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your a jerk because you don't give thought to what you are saying. You attacked me because you don't like another poster and because I seemed to support one of his comments and you lumped me in with him and got kind of vile. When I informed you I had Jewish blood you decided it would be cool to make a reference to one of the guys responsible for the murder of about a fourth of my family that remained in Europe. In my book that qualifies you as a jerk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, in what way do you differ from Goebbels in your treatment of the Tea Party? You lie and defame as a matter of course.
> 
> Demagoguery is no more ethical just because you do it.
Click to expand...


OK, show me where you think I lied.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Camp said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your a jerk because you don't give thought to what you are saying. You attacked me because you don't like another poster and because I seemed to support one of his comments and you lumped me in with him and got kind of vile. When I informed you I had Jewish blood you decided it would be cool to make a reference to one of the guys responsible for the murder of about a fourth of my family that remained in Europe. In my book that qualifies you as a jerk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, in what way do you differ from Goebbels in your treatment of the Tea Party? You lie and defame as a matter of course.
> 
> Demagoguery is no more ethical just because you do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, show me where you think I lied.
Click to expand...


We can start with this;

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/322389-tea-party-persecution-why-4.html#post8093838

Because you disagree with the views of another - you claim them "mentally ill."

That is precisely what Stalin did with political enemies. It is what Hitler did with Homosexuals.

To the shameful democrats, there can be no opposition, no debate. Anyone not marching in lockstep is an enemy who will be attacked - just as you attacked.


----------



## Lumpy 1

Truth & Democrats....


----------



## bendog

Redfish said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> standing up for your principles is never wrong,  it may be temporarily painful, but in the end it is the right thing to do.   Its what created this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Standing up for your principals is NOT right when the effect would be to either default on the debt or not pay entitlements, and that would have been the effect of not raiseing the debt ceiling or passing a CR.  Just because you have a princlpal doens't make you right.  Other sides have principles too.  A majority wants pols to comproemise and get biz done.  I realize you don't like that, but that's your fault, not the medias and not the majority's.  And you're not a victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NO ONE in the GOP or the TP has ever suggested defaulting on the debt or not paying entitlements-----you are a victim of media and administration lies.
> 
> The refusal to compromise has come from obama and reid.
> 
> Do you believe that all of obama's principles are right for the nation and should be implemented by presidential dictate?   Thats how they did ACA,  one party vote, no discussion, no amendments, no time to read it---just shoved it up our butts because THEY thought it was right.  Now, that is coming home to roost.
Click to expand...


That's utter bs.  We can't pay interest, the military, homeland, ss, medicare, educ without deficits or more money.  Add up defense, educ, HC, pensions, interest and protection you got 84% of the spending.  Add in ROADS and your up to 87%.  We had total spending of 3.7 triiion or so and the deficits have been over 1 trilliion up till this year.  The math isn't there.


----------



## Uncensored2008

bendog said:


> That's utter bs.  We can't pay interest, the military, homeland, ss, medicare, educ without deficits or more money.  Add up defense, educ, HC, pensions, interest and protection you got 84% of the spending.  Add in ROADS and your up to 87%.  We had total spending of 3.7 triiion or so and the deficits have been over 1 trilliion up till this year.  The math isn't there.



That is a complete lie.

Hold spending at current levels across the board, and in three years there will be a budget surplus that can start paying down the debt,

We don't have to cut anything, we don't have to raise any taxes - simply keep spending at current levels and the budget will balance itself.

But not ONE dim will agree to do this - not one.


----------



## daveman

Vandalshandle said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party is systematically demonized in an effort to discredit and minimalize it as are ALL people or movements in America that value smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and Constitutional liberties.  The liberals/leftists/progressives/statists, whether by speeches or media coverage or more blatantly in totally unacceptable government overreach HAVE to do that in order to keep the ignorant on their big government plantation.
> 
> The liberals/leftists/progressives/statists don't seem to care how dishonest or hypocritical or cruel they the propaganda is.  Just so it works.
> 
> So you see it done to ANY conservative, most especially a woman, who is gaining any public following.  You see it done to ANY person of color or other minority groups who are gaining any public following.
> 
> And you see it done to the Tea Party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damn! You can turn the AM radio off, but the exact same message is plastered all over the country, no matter where you are or what you are doing! It is on this board everywhere, in my E-mail, and even some nut who stands outside of the Safeway parking lot 5 days per week is carrying the signs with the same talking points! I'm waiting for them to start renting audio commercial time from Shell stations so that i will be forced to listen to it while I am filliing up my tank!
> 
> Thank god I drive a motorcycle and it only takes a couple of minutes to top it off!
Click to expand...

Why are you so scared of differing views?


----------



## Mad_Cabbie

birddog said:


> If my memory serves me correctly, the actor Bogart in your avatar was accused of being a Commie probably like you.



^^^^ The Tea Party cannot help but call hard-working Americans who do't agree with them "commies."

Even if that tactic was exposed in the very same thread a few posts ago.




Mad_Cabbie said:


> Because they have no compunction whatsoever about telling us "commies" that they are the only true Americans and they are entirley clueless as to how completely self absorbered their hateful rhetoric comes accross to the rest of the country.
> 
> That's why.


----------



## daveman

PrometheusBound said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a liberal can't understand a party who doesn't walk in lockstep like they do the Democrat party..there can't be dissent, not one difference of opinion, etc etc...so according to them that makes enough reason the Tea party should be looked at as the enemy and should be ridiculed..
> 
> that is very sad and speaks a lot about where they are as voters and why these elected Democrats feels it's ok for them to call the people all kinds of vile names, terrorist, hostage takers, etc etc
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice memorization, Stephie.   Your Mommy will be proud when she sees the Gold Star I'll pin to the back of your blouse.
> 
> This reminds me of when we learned prayers in 2d Grade and had no idea what the words meant.   I thought there was this character called Thywomb Jesus.   Mr. Jesus gave us fruit he bought from somebody named Blessed.   New York pre-Baggies thought "Lead Us Not Into Temptation" was "Lead Us Not to Penn Station."
Click to expand...

^^^^^^  This post isn't normal.  But on meth it is.


----------



## Camp

Uncensored2008 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, in what way do you differ from Goebbels in your treatment of the Tea Party? You lie and defame as a matter of course.
> 
> Demagoguery is no more ethical just because you do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK, show me where you think I lied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We can start with this;
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/322389-tea-party-persecution-why-4.html#post8093838
> 
> Because you disagree with the views of another - you claim them "mentally ill."
> 
> That is precisely what Stalin did with political enemies. It is what Hitler did with Homosexuals.
> 
> To the shameful democrats, there can be no opposition, no debate. Anyone not marching in lockstep is an enemy who will be attacked - just as you attacked.
Click to expand...


You accused me of telling a lie. I challanged you to show me the lie. You are posting a link to a comment I made offering an opinion that some TP spokespersons seem to be mentally unbalanced. That is my opinion. It does not qualify as a lie. You make the statement that if I disagree with others I judge them as mentally ill. That does qualifies as a lie. You are the liar. That makes you a liar and a jerk. A jerky liar.


----------



## daveman

Camp said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Potty is the Diet Koch of hate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not like the love you Pol Pot democrats show...
> 
> Especially you, a literal Klansman...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you wonder why the Tea Party folks are persecuted, ridiculed and mocked. Without hesitation or thought, you deem it appropriate to compare your political opponents to a Cambodian mass murderer. You insult a huge percentage of the American population and can't figure out why they think you are a bunch of jerks.
Click to expand...


Without hesitation or thought, you deem it appropriate to compare your political opponents to terrorists and hostage-takers. You insult a huge percentage of the American population and can't figure out why they think you are a bunch of jerks.

Hypocrite.


----------



## daveman

bendog said:


> And I also fault idiots who blame the media when their message is not well received by the public.



So, the media lies about the TEA Party's message...and it's the TEA Party's fault.


----------



## PrometheusBound

Camp said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you wonder why the Tea Party folks are persecuted, ridiculed and mocked. Without hesitation or thought, you deem it appropriate to compare your political opponents to a Cambodian mass murderer. You insult a huge percentage of the American population and can't figure out why they think you are a bunch of jerks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You walk around dick in hand with Promethius Bound - a putrid pile of shit who demands that black Americans be rounded up and deported to Africa - and are sub-human.
> 
> And you wonder why we view you as a scumbag?
> 
> Yes, your putrid party lies, slanders, and libels the Tea Party. Demagoguery is your way. The shameful little Goebbels of the democratic party spewing hate at any who hold views different than your shameful party.
> 
> Pol Pot is exactly what you scumbags model yourselves after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See what a jerk you are. I don't know shit about Promethius Bound other than I argue with him plenty. Due to the Jewish blood that runs through my viens I doubt he would want to hang out with me.
Click to expand...

If we were allowed to judge races like anything else, based on standards of behavior and productivity, I would rank Jews very highly.   But the 1% who turned the feral races loose on the superior races that threatened the self-appointed ruling class of thieves, traitors, bullies, cowards, and incompetents want to humiliate us with this idea that racism is an irrational judgment based on nothing but looking different.


----------



## daveman

Flopper said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not like the love you Pol Pot democrats show...
> 
> Especially you, a literal Klansman...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you wonder why the Tea Party folks are persecuted, ridiculed and mocked. Without hesitation or thought, you deem it appropriate to compare your political opponents to a Cambodian mass murderer. You insult a huge percentage of the American population and can't figure out why they think you are a bunch of jerks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It pretty easy for TPs to insult most of the population because they keep proposing legislation and policies that insult almost all minorities.
Click to expand...

Insisting that everyone be treated equally and everyone can succeed without the help of white liberals is an insult?

Thank Gaea we have white liberals to decide what offends minorities.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Camp said:


> You accused me of telling a lie.



I did indeed.



> I challanged you to show me the lie.



I just did.



> You are posting a link to a comment I made offering an opinion that some TP spokespersons seem to be mentally unbalanced.



You claim Michelle Bachmann is mentally ill.

Is that true? Is there any clinical evidence of mental instability? No?

So, you lied to defame an enemy of the party.

What you did is libel, and demagoguery. It's what you leftists do.



> That is my opinion.



No, it's a lie and defamation of character. You are aware that Michelle Bachmann is not really mentally ill, but make the claim anyway.

Because she is an enemy of your shameful party, you slander and libel her - EXACTLY as Goebbels did to enemies of his party.




> It does not qualify as a lie. You make the statement that if I disagree with others I judge them as mentally ill. That qualifies as a lie. You are the liar. That makes you a liar and a jerk. A jerky liar.



You made an untrue statement, which you know to be untrue, for the purpose of slandering another.

Yes, it is a lie. Yes, it is demagoguery - Herr Goebbels.


----------



## daveman

Flopper said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> standing up for your principles is never wrong,  it may be temporarily painful, but in the end it is the right thing to do.   Its what created this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Standing up for your principals is NOT right when the effect would be to either default on the debt or not pay entitlements, and that would have been the effect of not raiseing the debt ceiling or passing a CR.  Just because you have a princlpal doens't make you right.  Other sides have principles too.  A majority wants pols to comproemise and get biz done.  I realize you don't like that, but that's your fault, not the medias and not the majority's.  And you're not a victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unpopularity of the Tea Party has doubled in the last two years and has brought the popularity of the GOP to lowest point in history.  Their unpopularity is not because of their beliefs.  The vast majority of people agree with Tea Party goals of low taxes and fiscally sound government.  They just reject the TP methods of achieving those goals.
Click to expand...

Democrats don't want those things.  They want higher taxes and larger, more inefficient, wasteful, and corrupt government.

And there is no credible way to deny that.


----------



## Camp

daveman said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not like the love you Pol Pot democrats show...
> 
> Especially you, a literal Klansman...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you wonder why the Tea Party folks are persecuted, ridiculed and mocked. Without hesitation or thought, you deem it appropriate to compare your political opponents to a Cambodian mass murderer. You insult a huge percentage of the American population and can't figure out why they think you are a bunch of jerks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without hesitation or thought, you deem it appropriate to compare your political opponents to terrorists and hostage-takers. You insult a huge percentage of the American population and can't figure out why they think you are a bunch of jerks.
> 
> Hypocrite.
Click to expand...


You must be a Rand Paul supporter. You plagerized my comment.


----------



## Uncensored2008

PrometheusBound said:


> If we were allowed to judge races like anything else, based on standards of behavior and productivity, I would rank Jews very highly.   But the 1% who turned the feral races loose on the superior races that threatened them want to humiliate us with this idea that racism is a judgment based on nothing but looking different.



Oh? And who are these "feral races," Orval?


----------



## daveman

Camp said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you wonder why the Tea Party folks are persecuted, ridiculed and mocked. Without hesitation or thought, you deem it appropriate to compare your political opponents to a Cambodian mass murderer. You insult a huge percentage of the American population and can't figure out why they think you are a bunch of jerks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Without hesitation or thought, you deem it appropriate to compare your political opponents to terrorists and hostage-takers. You insult a huge percentage of the American population and can't figure out why they think you are a bunch of jerks.
> 
> Hypocrite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must be a Rand Paul supporter. You plagerized my comment.
Click to expand...

No, I pointed out your flaming hypocrisy.

Unsurprisingly, you got pissy about it.  

Don't like it?  Don't be a flaming hypocrite.  Your call.


----------



## Camp

Michelle Backman is mentally unstable. She is a nut job. She is also a public figure, a politician and spokesperson for the TP. Thanks to free speech, citizens are allowed to voice these kinds of opinions about public figures. Why does that piss off TP'ers who claim to be fervent constitutionalist? Is it because they are fakes?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Soggy in NOLA said:


> PrometheusBound said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> man oh man, you've become a real hater
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Potty is the Diet Koch of hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good Lord, how old are you, _six_?
Click to expand...







You've confused him with Ted Cruz

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EahWONRB6xM]Ted Cruz's Bizarre Dr Seuss & Star Wars Moments During Filibuster - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## HenryBHough

Camp said:


> Michelle Backman is mentally unstable. She is a nut job. She is also a public figure, a politician and spokesperson for the TP. Thanks to free speech, citizens are allowed to voice these kinds of opinions about public figures. Why does that piss off TP'ers who claim to be fervent constitutionalist? Is it because they are fakes?



Try expressing similar sentiments about The New Messiah in that fashion but at a gathering of true pink liberals and see what happens to your car you left parked outside.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Camp said:


> Michelle Backman is mentally unstable. She is a nut job. She is also a public figure, a politician and spokesperson for the TP. Thanks to free speech, citizens are allowed to voice these kinds of opinions about public figures. Why does that piss off TP'ers who claim to be fervent constitutionalist? Is it because they are fakes?



That and theres no such thing as a constitutionalist, its some make-believe nonsense the TPM dreamed up, not unlike the TPM itself.


----------



## g5000

Lumpy 1 said:


> You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..would be popular, instead their persecuted by the left and the left want-to-Be's....



Gee, you think it might have more to do with their DEEDS than what their WORDS claim to be about?

Hmmmm...

You know, that exact same description you gave for the Tea Party could be applied to the Libertarian Party or the Republican Party.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Camp said:


> Michelle Backman is mentally unstable.



Really?

You have clinical evidence to support your lie?

Nah, she's just an enemy of the party - so like Goebbels - you spew lies to slander her....

It's what shameful democrats do. It's not like y'all have anything even approaching ethics, is it?



> She is a nut job. She is also a public figure, a politician and spokesperson for the TP. Thanks to free speech, citizens are allowed to voice these kinds of opinions about public figures. Why does that piss off TP'ers who claim to be fervent constitutionalist? Is it because they are fakes?



Again, you're just a demagogue smearing the enemies of your shameful party, Herr Goebbels.


----------



## Camp

daveman said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Without hesitation or thought, you deem it appropriate to compare your political opponents to terrorists and hostage-takers. You insult a huge percentage of the American population and can't figure out why they think you are a bunch of jerks.
> 
> Hypocrite.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a Rand Paul supporter. You plagerized my comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I pointed out your flaming hypocrisy.
> 
> Unsurprisingly, you got pissy about it.
> 
> Don't like it?  Don't be a flaming hypocrite.  Your call.
Click to expand...


Half the country was calling the Republicans political terrorist and hostage takers. When did I say it? I'm not a Democrat. Why am I accused of saying it? 
How does pointing out the obvious, your plagerizing my comment, make my response pissy. It was made in sarcasim. I assumed your post was meant in sarcasm as well. 
In fairness, I think you need better evidence to indicate that I am a hypocrit, but I accept your opinion.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Camp said:


> Half the country was calling the Republicans political terrorist and hostage takers. When did I say it? I'm not a Democrat. Why am I accused of saying it?
> How does pointing out the obvious, your plagerizing my comment, make my response pissy. It was made in sarcasim. I assumed your post was meant in sarcasm as well.
> In fairness, I think you need better evidence to indicate that I am a hypocrit, but I accept your opinion.



Psssst, Herr Goebbels - Chrissy Matthews, Jon Stewart, and Rachel Maddow do NOT constitute "half of the country."


----------



## Vandalshandle

The Tea Party's answer to every issue is to shut it down, dissolve it, repeal it, unfund it, default on it, destroy it, dismantle it, and get rid of it.

Yet, they have to ask why they seem to garner so much negative imagery...


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Uncensored2008 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Half the country was calling the Republicans political terrorist and hostage takers. When did I say it? I'm not a Democrat. Why am I accused of saying it?
> How does pointing out the obvious, your plagerizing my comment, make my response pissy. It was made in sarcasim. I assumed your post was meant in sarcasm as well.
> In fairness, I think you need better evidence to indicate that I am a hypocrit, but I accept your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Psssst, Herr Goebbels - Chrissy Matthews, Jon Stewart, and Rachel Maddow do NOT constitute "half of the country."
Click to expand...


What matters is more than half of the country voted against the Repub terrorists and hostage takers.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Vandalshandle said:


> The Tea Party's answer to every issue is to shut it down, dissolve it, repeal it, unfund it, default on it, destroy it, dismantle it, and get rid of it.
> 
> Yet, they have to ask why they seem to garner so much negative imagery...



Yep. 

Its the t potty that persecutes. 

women, gays, people of color ............


----------



## Uncensored2008

Vandalshandle said:


> The Tea Party's answer to every issue is to shut it down, dissolve it, repeal it, unfund it, default on it, destroy it, dismantle it, and get rid of it.



Almost like a doctor's answer to every disease.

Good thing you Obamunists aren't doctors - you'd be out trying to expand diseases and convince the public that "cancer deserves equal rights."



> Yet, they have to ask why they seem to garner so much negative imagery...



Because you of the Khmer Rouge are a bunch of fucking scumbags who engage in demagoguery?

Nah, I think we have it figured out.


----------



## NYcarbineer

The Tea Party is nothing more than a revival of the old Christian Coalition with a makeover designed to fit the times.


----------



## Uncensored2008

NYcarbineer said:


> The Tea Party is nothing more than a revival of the old Christian Coalition with a makeover designed to fit the times.



If so, you have serious problems. The Christian Coalition dominated national politics for 3 decades - putting Reagan in office over the objections of the the status quo GOP.


----------



## daveman

Camp said:


> Michelle Backman is mentally unstable. She is a nut job. She is also a public figure, a politician and spokesperson for the TP. Thanks to free speech, citizens are allowed to voice these kinds of opinions about public figures. Why does that piss off TP'ers who claim to be fervent constitutionalist? Is it because they are fakes?



I believe the question you meant to ask is, "Why do Bachmann and TEA Party members piss off liberals who claim to be tolerant?"


----------



## Camp

Uncensored2008 said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Half the country was calling the Republicans political terrorist and hostage takers. When did I say it? I'm not a Democrat. Why am I accused of saying it?
> How does pointing out the obvious, your plagerizing my comment, make my response pissy. It was made in sarcasim. I assumed your post was meant in sarcasm as well.
> In fairness, I think you need better evidence to indicate that I am a hypocrit, but I accept your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Psssst, Herr Goebbels - Chrissy Matthews, Jon Stewart, and Rachel Maddow do NOT constitute "half of the country."
Click to expand...


No, sir, you are accusing me of having said something. Now you are back peddling and saying some other people said it and my assessment of how many people said it is wrong. You should quit while you are behind. Each post you make on this topic with me digs you into a deeper negative profile. Stupid is starting to come to mind. Matched with liar and jerk it doesn't look good.


----------



## daveman

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> Michelle Backman is mentally unstable. She is a nut job. She is also a public figure, a politician and spokesperson for the TP. Thanks to free speech, citizens are allowed to voice these kinds of opinions about public figures. Why does that piss off TP'ers who claim to be fervent constitutionalist? Is it because they are fakes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That and theres no such thing as a constitutionalist, its some make-believe nonsense the TPM dreamed up, not unlike the TPM itself.
Click to expand...

Yes, progressives have made it quite clear they don't support the Constitution.


----------



## Lumpy 1

NYcarbineer said:


> The Tea Party is nothing more than a revival of the old Christian Coalition with a makeover designed to fit the times.



So now it's the Tea Party and Christians that deserve persecution..


----------



## daveman

Camp said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Camp said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must be a Rand Paul supporter. You plagerized my comment.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I pointed out your flaming hypocrisy.
> 
> Unsurprisingly, you got pissy about it.
> 
> Don't like it?  Don't be a flaming hypocrite.  Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Half the country was calling the Republicans political terrorist and hostage takers. When did I say it? I'm not a Democrat. Why am I accused of saying it?
> How does pointing out the obvious, your plagerizing my comment, make my response pissy. It was made in sarcasim. I assumed your post was meant in sarcasm as well.
> In fairness, I think you need better evidence to indicate that I am a hypocrit, but I accept your opinion.
Click to expand...

If you claim not to have made ridiculous comparisons of TEA Party members to terrorists or hostage-takers -- although a search of your posts shows you flirting with such -- I apologize.


----------



## daveman

Vandalshandle said:


> The Tea Party's answer to every issue is to shut it down, dissolve it, repeal it, unfund it, default on it, destroy it, dismantle it, and get rid of it.
> 
> Yet, they have to ask why they seem to garner so much negative imagery...


The progressive answer to every issue is to tax it, regulate it, or form a government agency around it.

And they wonder why progressive governments always fail.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Camp said:


> No, sir, you are accusing me of having said something.



No, I accused you of lying; then I proved it. You are indeed a liar, Herr Goebbels.



> Now you are back peddling and saying some other people said it and my assessment of how many people said it is wrong. You should quit while you are behind. Each post you make on this topic with me digs you into a deeper negative profile. Stupid is starting to come to mind. Matched with liar and jerk it doesn't look good.



Again, you are but a demagogue spreading hatred on behalf of your shameful party.

You have STILL failed to point out how your tactics differ from those of Goebbels? You both are demagogues who spread lies to defame enemies of your respective parties.


----------



## Flopper

Uncensored2008 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The unpopularity of the Tea Party has doubled in the last two years and has brought the popularity of the GOP to lowest point in history.  Their unpopularity is not because of their beliefs.  The vast majority of people agree with Tea Party goals of low taxes and fiscally sound government.  They just reject the TP methods of achieving those goals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Due to a very concerted effort of demagoguery by the party and the corrupt press serving the party.
> 
> democrats are more vicious in lies about the Tea Party than the Nazis were with lies about the Jews.
> 
> And you know it.
Click to expand...

Tea Party popularity has been falling for some time in a number of polls.  The Tea Party is doing this to themselves. Every time Tea Party members launch an intuitive to, reduce the cost of Medicare, shut down the government, block immigration reform, or attack women rights or civil rights their numbers fall.  The public is just not interested in joining the Tea Party in their war against the federal government.  People don't want to destroy government, they just want it to work better and more cost effectively.


----------



## daveman

Flopper said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The unpopularity of the Tea Party has doubled in the last two years and has brought the popularity of the GOP to lowest point in history.  Their unpopularity is not because of their beliefs.  The vast majority of people agree with Tea Party goals of low taxes and fiscally sound government.  They just reject the TP methods of achieving those goals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Due to a very concerted effort of demagoguery by the party and the corrupt press serving the party.
> 
> democrats are more vicious in lies about the Tea Party than the Nazis were with lies about the Jews.
> 
> And you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tea Party popularity has been falling for some time in a number of polls.  The Tea Party is doing this to themselves. Every time Tea Party members launch an intuitive to, reduce the cost of Medicare, shut down the government, block immigration reform, or attack women rights or civil rights their numbers fall.  The public is just not interested in joining the Tea Party in their war against the federal government.  People don't want to destroy government, they just want it to work better and more cost effectively.
Click to expand...

The media thank you for mindlessly repeating their lies about the TEA Party.

Meanwhile, you keep saying people want better and more cost effective government.  Why do you keep ignoring my posts that say Democrats don't want that at all?


----------



## Jackson

Vandalshandle said:


> The Tea Party's answer to every issue is to shut it down, dissolve it, repeal it, unfund it, default on it, destroy it, dismantle it, and get rid of it.
> 
> Yet, they have to ask why they seem to garner so much negative imagery...



As a TP supporter, I would have to say there is some truth to you objection.

However, isn't there some truth to the fact that many government programs (some that have been in existence for decades and have had poor reviews)  should be shut down, dissolved, repealed, unfunded, or combined with other programs?

I am just saying no side is all wrong or all right.  But no side has been able to sit down at a table and say, "Let's work together,"  That is a criticism of the TP as well as the Republicans and Democrats.


----------



## manifold

[MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]



manifold said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such as?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll refer you to the GOP platform.  Just pick out whatever does not include smaller, more efficient, more effective government, far less intrusion into individual liberties. and returning government to its constitutional roots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So for example, Tea Partiers would support the legalization of marijuana (or at least leaving it up to the states) and doing away with the DEA, since drug enforcement is clearly not a power granted to the federal government by the US Constitution?
Click to expand...


Agree or disagree?


----------



## Flopper

daveman said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to a very concerted effort of demagoguery by the party and the corrupt press serving the party.
> 
> democrats are more vicious in lies about the Tea Party than the Nazis were with lies about the Jews.
> 
> And you know it.
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Party popularity has been falling for some time in a number of polls.  The Tea Party is doing this to themselves. Every time Tea Party members launch an intuitive to, reduce the cost of Medicare, shut down the government, block immigration reform, or attack women rights or civil rights their numbers fall.  The public is just not interested in joining the Tea Party in their war against the federal government.  People don't want to destroy government, they just want it to work better and more cost effectively.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The media thank you for mindlessly repeating their lies about the TEA Party.
> 
> Meanwhile, you keep saying people want better and more cost effective government.  Why do you keep ignoring my posts that say Democrats don't want that at all?
Click to expand...

If you want the support of the American people, you're going have to come up with legislation they can support.  You will never sell the American people on a plan to pay off the federal debt.  How about a program to reduce the deficit to zero in 10 years.  Instead of turning the Latino community against you with threats of deporting every undocumented immigrant, try a comprise position that recognizes undocumented immigrants that have lived here most of their lives and adults brought to this country as children.  Instead of a plan to abolish Medicare, why not propose changes to actually save it.  You won't accomplish all your goals, but you will make some progress which is lot more than you're doing now.

America does not reject your goals, they just reject your methods.

This thread is about the Tea Party yet all you can do is attack the Democrats.


----------



## daveman

Flopper said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Party popularity has been falling for some time in a number of polls.  The Tea Party is doing this to themselves. Every time Tea Party members launch an intuitive to, reduce the cost of Medicare, shut down the government, block immigration reform, or attack women rights or civil rights their numbers fall.  The public is just not interested in joining the Tea Party in their war against the federal government.  People don't want to destroy government, they just want it to work better and more cost effectively.
> 
> 
> 
> The media thank you for mindlessly repeating their lies about the TEA Party.
> 
> Meanwhile, you keep saying people want better and more cost effective government.  Why do you keep ignoring my posts that say Democrats don't want that at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want the support of the American people, you're going have to come up with legislation they can support.  You will never sell the American people on a plan to pay off the federal debt.  How about a program to reduce the deficit to zero in 10 years.  Instead of turning the Latino community against you with threats of deporting every undocumented immigrant, try a comprise position that recognizes undocumented immigrants that have lived here most of their lives and adults brought to this country as children.  Instead of a plan to abolish Medicare, why not propose changes to actually save it.  You won't accomplish all your goals, but you will make some progress which is lot more than you're doing now.
> 
> America does not reject your goals, they just reject your methods.
> 
> This thread is about the Tea Party yet all you can do is attack the Democrats.
Click to expand...

No, just pointing out some inconvenient truths about your posts.


----------



## Vandalshandle

daveman said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party's answer to every issue is to shut it down, dissolve it, repeal it, unfund it, default on it, destroy it, dismantle it, and get rid of it.
> 
> Yet, they have to ask why they seem to garner so much negative imagery...
> 
> 
> 
> The progressive answer to every issue is to tax it, regulate it, or form a government agency around it.
> 
> And they wonder why progressive governments always fail.
Click to expand...


I guess that means that every European nation has failed. 

Who would have known?


----------



## HUGGY

*Tea Party Persecution...Why? *

Because you can't teach your children respect for what they have by throwing away all of thier toys.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Flopper said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> standing up for your principles is never wrong,  it may be temporarily painful, but in the end it is the right thing to do.   Its what created this country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Standing up for your principals is NOT right when the effect would be to either default on the debt or not pay entitlements, and that would have been the effect of not raiseing the debt ceiling or passing a CR.  Just because you have a princlpal doens't make you right.  Other sides have principles too.  A majority wants pols to comproemise and get biz done.  I realize you don't like that, but that's your fault, not the medias and not the majority's.  And you're not a victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The unpopularity of the Tea Party has doubled in the last two years and has brought the popularity of the GOP to lowest point in history.  Their unpopularity is not because of their beliefs.  The vast majority of people agree with Tea Party goals of low taxes and fiscally sound government.  They just reject the TP methods of achieving those goals.
Click to expand...


That just reveals the ever growing dependency of government found with each new generation over the last. They may talk about a fiscally responsible government with less taxes, until it means receiving less of what they "believe" they simply just can't do without.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Camp said:


> Michelle Backman is mentally unstable. She is a nut job. She is also a public figure, a politician and spokesperson for the TP. Thanks to free speech, citizens are allowed to voice these kinds of opinions about public figures. Why does that piss off TP'ers who claim to be fervent constitutionalist? Is it because they are fakes?



Then you'll find these same liberals who then turn around and try to label the right wing conservatives as racists, when they don't agree with Obama's ideological views and policies.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Luddly Neddite said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party's answer to every issue is to shut it down, dissolve it, repeal it, unfund it, default on it, destroy it, dismantle it, and get rid of it.
> 
> Yet, they have to ask why they seem to garner so much negative imagery...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> Its the t potty that persecutes.
> 
> women, gays, people of color ............
Click to expand...


Do you have links to quotes specific to the TPM regarding each of these areas?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Flopper said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tea Party popularity has been falling for some time in a number of polls.  The Tea Party is doing this to themselves. Every time Tea Party members launch an intuitive to, reduce the cost of Medicare, shut down the government, block immigration reform, or attack women rights or civil rights their numbers fall.  The public is just not interested in joining the Tea Party in their war against the federal government.  People don't want to destroy government, they just want it to work better and more cost effectively.
> 
> 
> 
> The media thank you for mindlessly repeating their lies about the TEA Party.
> 
> Meanwhile, you keep saying people want better and more cost effective government.  Why do you keep ignoring my posts that say Democrats don't want that at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you want the support of the American people, you're going have to come up with legislation they can support.  You will never sell the American people on a plan to pay off the federal debt.  How about a program to reduce the deficit to zero in 10 years.  Instead of turning the Latino community against you with threats of deporting every undocumented immigrant, try a comprise position that recognizes undocumented immigrants that have lived here most of their lives and adults brought to this country as children.  Instead of a plan to abolish Medicare, why not propose changes to actually save it.  You won't accomplish all your goals, but you will make some progress which is lot more than you're doing now.
> 
> America does not reject your goals, they just reject your methods.
> 
> This thread is about the Tea Party yet all you can do is attack the Democrats.
Click to expand...


Its all they have.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Vandalshandle said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party's answer to every issue is to shut it down, dissolve it, repeal it, unfund it, default on it, destroy it, dismantle it, and get rid of it.
> 
> Yet, they have to ask why they seem to garner so much negative imagery...
> 
> 
> 
> The progressive answer to every issue is to tax it, regulate it, or form a government agency around it.
> 
> And they wonder why progressive governments always fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess that means that every European nation has failed.
> 
> Who would have known?
Click to expand...


Would the United States be asked to help bail out the EURO and Greece if it was a success?


----------



## Vandalshandle

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party's answer to every issue is to shut it down, dissolve it, repeal it, unfund it, default on it, destroy it, dismantle it, and get rid of it.
> 
> Yet, they have to ask why they seem to garner so much negative imagery...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> Its the t potty that persecutes.
> 
> women, gays, people of color ............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have links to quotes specific to the TPM regarding each of these areas?
Click to expand...


Shak, your WERE watching the news in October, right?


----------



## Vandalshandle

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The progressive answer to every issue is to tax it, regulate it, or form a government agency around it.
> 
> And they wonder why progressive governments always fail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess that means that every European nation has failed.
> 
> Who would have known?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would the United States be asked to help bail out the EURO and Greece if it was a success?
Click to expand...


...and this would have what to do with the price of rice in China?


----------



## freedombecki

Lumpy 1 said:


> You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..would be popular, instead their persecuted by the left and the left want-to-Be's....


It has nothing to do with being a Tea Party member or enthusiast. It has everything to do with dividing Republicans to the point that the left can push its wealth redistribution agenda, gain all seats of power, and then go for the neck of the Constitution or Chaos until an oligarchy of liberalism results. Since they've no place for conservatives, they can do what all wealth redistributors have done before them--jail vocal conservatives or create undesirable gulags to claim the assets with no resistance and become big cheeses like wealth redistributor enthusiast, Barack Obama.

[ame="http://youtu.be/z0PUUpa5X4E"]Barack Obama "I Believe in Redistribution of Wealth" Comment Loyola University 1998! - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Vandalshandle

freedombecki said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..would be popular, instead their persecuted by the left and the left want-to-Be's....
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with being a Tea Party member or enthusiast. It has everything to do with dividing Republicans to the point that the left can push its wealth redistribution agenda, gain all seats of power, and then go for the neck of the Constitution or Chaos until an oligarchy of liberalism results. Since they've no place for conservatives, they can do what all wealth redistributors have done before them--jail vocal conservatives or create undesirable gulags to claim the assets with no resistance and become big cheeses like wealth redistributor enthusiast, Barack Obama.
> 
> [ame="http://youtu.be/z0PUUpa5X4E"]Barack Obama "I Believe in Redistribution of Wealth" Comment Loyola University 1998! - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


True,  that. The democratic party can, in fact, be blamed for the republicans losing elections....!


----------



## Lumpy 1

freedombecki said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..would be popular, instead their persecuted by the left and the left want-to-Be's....
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with being a Tea Party member or enthusiast. It has everything to do with dividing Republicans to the point that the left can push its wealth redistribution agenda, gain all seats of power, and then go for the neck of the Constitution or Chaos until an oligarchy of liberalism results. Since they've no place for conservatives, they can do what all wealth redistributors have done before them--jail vocal conservatives or create undesirable gulags to claim the assets with no resistance and become big cheeses like wealth redistributor enthusiast, Barack Obama.
> 
> [ame="http://youtu.be/z0PUUpa5X4E"]Barack Obama "I Believe in Redistribution of Wealth" Comment Loyola University 1998! - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


I still believe the Tea Party members are being persecuted and I also agree with your common sense appraisal..

I also recall the IRS under Obama targeting the Tea Party Groups along with other conservative groups before and after the past election.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Vandalshandle said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep.
> 
> Its the t potty that persecutes.
> 
> women, gays, people of color ............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have links to quotes specific to the TPM regarding each of these areas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shak, your WERE watching the news in October, right?
Click to expand...


TP government shut down over Federal spending = liberal child-like school yard tantrum

.... Got it


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Vandalshandle said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess that means that every European nation has failed.
> 
> Who would have known?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would the United States be asked to help bail out the EURO and Greece if it was a success?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...and this would have what to do with the price of rice in China?
Click to expand...


Did you sleep through 2011 and all those big entitlements which crippled France over its debt, as well as those government entitlements which nearly crippled Greece under its weight?


----------



## francoHFW

OP- You DO know our country's ONLY problem now is disfunction in the gov't, and the cause is the brainwashed idiocy that compromise with Obama is surrender....you're an ignorant disaster. GOOD riddance.


----------



## Foxfyre

manifold said:


> [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll refer you to the GOP platform.  Just pick out whatever does not include smaller, more efficient, more effective government, far less intrusion into individual liberties. and returning government to its constitutional roots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So for example, Tea Partiers would support the legalization of marijuana (or at least leaving it up to the states) and doing away with the DEA, since drug enforcement is clearly not a power granted to the federal government by the US Constitution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree or disagree?
Click to expand...


The Tea Party isn't concerned with marijuana or any other social issues.  It is concerned with restoring the government the Founder's intended.


----------



## Lumpy 1

francoHFW said:


> OP- You DO know our country's ONLY problem now is disfunction in the gov't, and the cause is the brainwashed idiocy that compromise with Obama is surrender....you're an ignorant disaster. GOOD riddance.



Sweet post Buckaroo, I took it seriously..


----------



## daveman

Vandalshandle said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party's answer to every issue is to shut it down, dissolve it, repeal it, unfund it, default on it, destroy it, dismantle it, and get rid of it.
> 
> Yet, they have to ask why they seem to garner so much negative imagery...
> 
> 
> 
> The progressive answer to every issue is to tax it, regulate it, or form a government agency around it.
> 
> And they wonder why progressive governments always fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess that means that every European nation has failed.
> 
> Who would have known?
Click to expand...

The only one that seems to be working is Germany.


----------



## daveman

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> The media thank you for mindlessly repeating their lies about the TEA Party.
> 
> Meanwhile, you keep saying people want better and more cost effective government.  Why do you keep ignoring my posts that say Democrats don't want that at all?
> 
> 
> 
> If you want the support of the American people, you're going have to come up with legislation they can support.  You will never sell the American people on a plan to pay off the federal debt.  How about a program to reduce the deficit to zero in 10 years.  Instead of turning the Latino community against you with threats of deporting every undocumented immigrant, try a comprise position that recognizes undocumented immigrants that have lived here most of their lives and adults brought to this country as children.  Instead of a plan to abolish Medicare, why not propose changes to actually save it.  You won't accomplish all your goals, but you will make some progress which is lot more than you're doing now.
> 
> America does not reject your goals, they just reject your methods.
> 
> This thread is about the Tea Party yet all you can do is attack the Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its all they have.
Click to expand...

TEA Party positions have been laid out here _ad infinitum_...but you choose instead to believe the lies progressives tell each other, then say you don't know what the TEA Party believes.

Your ignorance is self-imposed and impenetrable.


----------



## daveman

francoHFW said:


> OP- You DO know our country's ONLY problem now is disfunction in the gov't, and the cause is the brainwashed idiocy that compromise with Obama is surrender....you're an ignorant disaster. GOOD riddance.



The GOP is under no obligation to rubber-stamp the President's agenda.  They work for their constituents, not the White House.

It's astounding the number of people who can't comprehend that.


----------



## daveman

Foxfyre said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> So for example, Tea Partiers would support the legalization of marijuana (or at least leaving it up to the states) and doing away with the DEA, since drug enforcement is clearly not a power granted to the federal government by the US Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agree or disagree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Tea Party isn't concerned with marijuana or any other social issues.  It is concerned with restoring the government the Founder's intended.
Click to expand...

Some people really believe there is an organized, established TEA Party, with a big headquarters somewhere and official party platforms and all the trappings.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Either the TPM works with the GOP majority honestly, or the Dems are going to win everything.


----------



## daveman

JakeStarkey said:


> Either the TPM works with the GOP majority honestly, or the Dems are going to win everything.


Translation:

"Either the TPM follows the GOP to the left, or the Dems are going to win everything.  Either way is fine with me."


----------



## BlackSand

Lumpy 1 said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OP- You DO know our country's ONLY problem now is disfunction in the gov't, and the cause is the brainwashed idiocy that compromise with Obama is surrender....you're an ignorant disaster. GOOD riddance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet post Buckaroo, I took it seriously..
Click to expand...


*"compromise with Obama [assuming he is talking about the President] is surrender" ... Just makes you want to laugh.*
I don't think that Democrats or Progressive Liberals understand what compromise is ... Or that in any sense a true compromise just means both sides are equally dissatisfied with the outcome.

The when you look at the track record of the current Democrats in Congress and their inability to honor their agreements in a compromise ... Well, "surrender" is not the first word that comes to mind.
I mean look at Senator Mary Landrieu (D) and the "Louisiana Purchase" (promised $200 million in additional federal funds for state Medicaid in return for ACA vote).
She of all people should have know who she was dealing with ... And that she nor anyone in the state of Louisiana would ever get the money promised from the Democrats or this administration.

She is up for re-election and sweating bullets though ... Supports delaying the individual mandate as well now.

.


----------



## manifold

Foxfyre said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> So for example, Tea Partiers would support the legalization of marijuana (or at least leaving it up to the states) and doing away with the DEA, since drug enforcement is clearly not a power granted to the federal government by the US Constitution?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agree or disagree?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Tea Party isn't concerned with marijuana or any other social issues.  *It is concerned with restoring the government the Founder's intended*.
Click to expand...


So they don't care about the federal government overstepping their constitutional authority?

How exactly to you reconcile "restoring the government the founders intended" with taking a blind eye to an obvious example of the government being considerably out of line with what the founders intended?

Are you calling the Tea Party hypocrites? Because it sure sounds that way.


----------



## Redfish

BlackSand said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> OP- You DO know our country's ONLY problem now is disfunction in the gov't, and the cause is the brainwashed idiocy that compromise with Obama is surrender....you're an ignorant disaster. GOOD riddance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet post Buckaroo, I took it seriously..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *"compromise with Obama [assuming he is talking about the President] is surrender" ... Just makes you want to laugh.*
> I don't think that Democrats or Progressive Liberals understand what compromise is ... Or that in any sense a true compromise just means both sides are equally dissatisfied with the outcome.
> 
> The when you look at the track record of the current Democrats in Congress and their inability to honor their agreements in a compromise ... Well, "surrender" is not the first word that comes to mind.
> I mean look at Senator Mary Landrieu (D) and the "Louisiana Purchase" (promised $200 million in additional federal funds for state Medicaid in return for ACA vote).
> She of all people should have know who she was dealing with ... And that she nor anyone in the state of Louisiana would ever get the money promised from the Democrats or this administration.
> 
> She is up for re-election and sweating bullets though ... Supports delaying the individual mandate as well now.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



Mary Landrieu is history.  She may still win Orleans parish, but she will lose the rest of the state.


----------



## manifold

Lumpy 1 said:


> You would think that a group that believe *the government should follow the Constitution*...



Except of course for trampling states rights with federal agencies such as the DEA.

That's a-ok, right?


----------



## Redfish

the status quo politicians fear the tea party for the same reasons that King George feared the american colonists.


----------



## manifold

Redfish said:


> the status quo politicians fear the tea party for the same reasons that King George feared the american colonists.



I don't think that's a particularly apt analogy, no offense.

King George didn't fear the American colonists at all, and it cost him dearly.


----------



## Redfish

manifold said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> the status quo politicians fear the tea party for the same reasons that King George feared the american colonists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that's a particularly apt analogy, no offense.
> 
> King George didn't fear the American colonists at all, and it cost him dearly.
Click to expand...


it was about a loss of power.  and the analogy is valid,  no offense.


----------



## manifold

Redfish said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> the status quo politicians fear the tea party for the same reasons that King George feared the american colonists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that's a particularly apt analogy, no offense.
> 
> King George didn't fear the American colonists at all, and it cost him dearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it was about a loss of power.  and the analogy is valid,  no offense.
Click to expand...


Agree to disagree.

Regardless, that's an immaterial tangent either way.

Perhaps you'd like to explain why Tea Partiers are seemingly selective in their outrage regarding the federal government overstepping it's constitutional authority. Presumably, restoring this country to it's founding constitutional principles would at the very least involve restoring some semblance of states rights, would it not? And the example I've given is federal drug laws and the DEA. Why have I not heard one single Tea Party politician condemn this egregious power grab by the federal government?


----------



## Redfish

manifold said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that's a particularly apt analogy, no offense.
> 
> King George didn't fear the American colonists at all, and it cost him dearly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it was about a loss of power.  and the analogy is valid,  no offense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree to disagree.
> 
> Regardless, that's an immaterial tangent either way.
> 
> Perhaps you'd like to explain why Tea Partiers are seemingly selective in their outrage regarding the federal government overstepping it's constitutional authority. Presumably, restoring this country to it's founding constitutional principles would at the very least involve restoring some semblance of states rights, would it not? And the example I've given is federal drug laws and the DEA. Why have I not heard one single Tea Party politician condemn this egregious power grab by the federal government?
Click to expand...


then you have not been paying attention.   when has any tea party rally come out in favor of the DEA?   

What you will find is that most TP people would let those issues be decided by the states based on a vote of the citizens.


----------



## manifold

Redfish said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> it was about a loss of power.  and the analogy is valid,  no offense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agree to disagree.
> 
> Regardless, that's an immaterial tangent either way.
> 
> Perhaps you'd like to explain why Tea Partiers are seemingly selective in their outrage regarding the federal government overstepping it's constitutional authority. Presumably, restoring this country to it's founding constitutional principles would at the very least involve restoring some semblance of states rights, would it not? And the example I've given is federal drug laws and the DEA. Why have I not heard one single Tea Party politician condemn this egregious power grab by the federal government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> then you have not been paying attention.   when has any tea party rally come out in favor of the DEA?
> 
> What you will find is that most TP people would let those issues be decided by the states based on a vote of the citizens.
Click to expand...


I've not heard any mention of the DEA at all, one way or another. And I interpret silence as tacit endorsement.

As for your second point, I'd like to believe that, but IMO the jury is still out. I've already seen three alleged Tea Party supporters dismiss this as a non-TP issue in this thread alone.


----------



## RKMBrown

manifold said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that's a particularly apt analogy, no offense.
> 
> King George didn't fear the American colonists at all, and it cost him dearly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it was about a loss of power.  and the analogy is valid,  no offense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agree to disagree.
> 
> Regardless, that's an immaterial tangent either way.
> 
> Perhaps you'd like to explain why Tea Partiers are seemingly selective in their outrage regarding the federal government overstepping it's constitutional authority. Presumably, restoring this country to it's founding constitutional principles would at the very least involve restoring some semblance of states rights, would it not? And the example I've given is federal drug laws and the DEA. Why have I not heard one single Tea Party politician condemn this egregious power grab by the federal government?
Click to expand...


LOL so you don't like the Tea Party because you imagine that the Tea Party folks must be against liberty because you personally have not heard them discuss the War on Drugs.  ROFL

Yeah and I'm against the tooth fairy because I have not heard the tooth fairy is against the war on drugs.


----------



## manifold

RKMBrown said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> it was about a loss of power.  and the analogy is valid,  no offense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agree to disagree.
> 
> Regardless, that's an immaterial tangent either way.
> 
> Perhaps you'd like to explain why Tea Partiers are seemingly selective in their outrage regarding the federal government overstepping it's constitutional authority. Presumably, restoring this country to it's founding constitutional principles would at the very least involve restoring some semblance of states rights, would it not? And the example I've given is federal drug laws and the DEA. Why have I not heard one single Tea Party politician condemn this egregious power grab by the federal government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL so you don't like the Tea Party because you imagine that the Tea Party folks must be against liberty because you personally have not heard them discuss the War on Drugs.  ROFL
Click to expand...


It's just one example.

But I support your freedom to jump to conclusions, so by all means, knock yourself out.


----------



## Redfish

manifold said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agree to disagree.
> 
> Regardless, that's an immaterial tangent either way.
> 
> Perhaps you'd like to explain why Tea Partiers are seemingly selective in their outrage regarding the federal government overstepping it's constitutional authority. Presumably, restoring this country to it's founding constitutional principles would at the very least involve restoring some semblance of states rights, would it not? And the example I've given is federal drug laws and the DEA. Why have I not heard one single Tea Party politician condemn this egregious power grab by the federal government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> then you have not been paying attention.   when has any tea party rally come out in favor of the DEA?
> 
> What you will find is that most TP people would let those issues be decided by the states based on a vote of the citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've not heard any mention of the DEA at all, one way or another. And I interpret silence as tacit endorsement.
> 
> As for your second point, I'd like to believe that, but IMO the jury is still out. I've already seen three alleged Tea Party supporters dismiss this as a non-TP issue in this thread alone.
Click to expand...


they have not been silent,  states rights is a key part of the teaparty philosophy.

actions speak louder than words.  2014 will be very telling.


----------



## manifold

manifold said:


> As for your second point, I'd like to believe that, but IMO the jury is still out. I've already seen three alleged Tea Party supporters dismiss this as a non-TP issue in this thread alone.



make that four


----------



## RKMBrown

manifold said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agree to disagree.
> 
> Regardless, that's an immaterial tangent either way.
> 
> Perhaps you'd like to explain why Tea Partiers are seemingly selective in their outrage regarding the federal government overstepping it's constitutional authority. Presumably, restoring this country to it's founding constitutional principles would at the very least involve restoring some semblance of states rights, would it not? And the example I've given is federal drug laws and the DEA. Why have I not heard one single Tea Party politician condemn this egregious power grab by the federal government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL so you don't like the Tea Party because you imagine that the Tea Party folks must be against liberty because you personally have not heard them discuss the War on Drugs.  ROFL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's just one example.
> 
> But I support your freedom to jump to conclusions, so by all means, knock yourself out.
Click to expand...

You are confused.  You are approaching the Tea Party, like it's a political party with party planks for all the hot button issues.  That's not what the Tea Party is about.


----------



## BlackSand

RKMBrown said:


> You are confused.  You are approaching the Tea Party, like it's a political party with party planks for all the hot button issues.  That's not what the Tea Party is about.



*That is what happens when people start thinking the government is the cure-all for everything ... Or that their desires should mean squat to other people.*

.


----------



## manifold

RKMBrown said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL so you don't like the Tea Party because you imagine that the Tea Party folks must be against liberty because you personally have not heard them discuss the War on Drugs.  ROFL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's just one example.
> 
> But I support your freedom to jump to conclusions, so by all means, knock yourself out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confused.  You are approaching the Tea Party, like it's a political party with party planks for all the hot button issues.  That's not what the Tea Party is about.
Click to expand...


They'll need to get there eventually if they hope to make any kind of difference.

So what about you... Do you consider yourself a Tea Partier and do you support federal drug laws and the DEA?


----------



## manifold

BlackSand said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused.  You are approaching the Tea Party, like it's a political party with party planks for all the hot button issues.  That's not what the Tea Party is about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *That is what happens when people start thinking the government is the cure-all for everything ... Or that their desires should mean squat to other people.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Is that supposed to be some kind of reasoned argument? 

So I'll ask you the same question... Do you consider yourself a Tea Partier and do you support federal drug laws and the DEA?


----------



## Redfish

manifold said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused.  You are approaching the Tea Party, like it's a political party with party planks for all the hot button issues.  That's not what the Tea Party is about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *That is what happens when people start thinking the government is the cure-all for everything ... Or that their desires should mean squat to other people.*
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that supposed to be some kind of reasoned argument?
> 
> So I'll ask you the same question... Do you consider yourself a Tea Partier and do you support federal drug laws and the DEA?
Click to expand...


stupid question,  you can be one without supporting the other.


----------



## JoeNormal

Lumpy 1 said:


> You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..would be popular, instead their persecuted by the left and the left want-to-Be's....



You really have to ask this question this soon after mostly Tea Party infantile obstructionism shut down the government?


----------



## BlackSand

manifold said:


> Is that supposed to be some kind of reasoned argument?
> 
> So I'll ask you the same question... Do you consider yourself a Tea Partier and do you support federal drug laws and the DEA?



I am not a Tea Party Member ... I am a Strict Constructionist (more of a philosophy on law and legislation).
Look it up and you will soon find out why it is considered archaic, absolutely hated by Progressive Liberals ... And if you have any sense whatsoever ... It will answer your questions about where I stand on the DEA or any law.


----------



## manifold

Redfish said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> *That is what happens when people start thinking the government is the cure-all for everything ... Or that their desires should mean squat to other people.*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that supposed to be some kind of reasoned argument?
> 
> So I'll ask you the same question... Do you consider yourself a Tea Partier and do you support federal drug laws and the DEA?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> stupid question,  you can be one without supporting the other.
Click to expand...


There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers.

Do you support federal drug laws and the DEA?

It's really a simple question.


----------



## RKMBrown

manifold said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are confused.  You are approaching the Tea Party, like it's a political party with party planks for all the hot button issues.  That's not what the Tea Party is about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *That is what happens when people start thinking the government is the cure-all for everything ... Or that their desires should mean squat to other people.*
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that supposed to be some kind of reasoned argument?
> 
> So I'll ask you the same question... Do you consider yourself a Tea Partier and do you support federal drug laws and the DEA?
Click to expand...


Since you are apparently the arbiter of what the Tea Party is all about, what does it mean to be a Tea Partier? 

I have gone to some Tea Party events.  I believe our War on Drugs to be counter productive and a restriction on liberty.  I am in favor of some federal drug laws.  I support the DEA through my taxes, I have no choice.  

Perhaps if you could form your sentences with more care, and define some of these terms you are using, we might be able to have a fruitful conversation.


----------



## manifold

BlackSand said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that supposed to be some kind of reasoned argument?
> 
> So I'll ask you the same question... Do you consider yourself a Tea Partier and do you support federal drug laws and the DEA?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a Tea Party Member ... I am a Strict Constructionist (more of a philosophy on law and legislation).
> Look it up and you will soon find out why it is considered archaic, absolutely hated by Progressive Liberals ... And if you have any sense whatsoever ... It will answer your questions about where I stand on the DEA or any law.
Click to expand...



Sounds to me like you don't support federal drug laws or the DEA.

However I am left to wonder why you'd be so coy about it.


----------



## Redfish

manifold said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that supposed to be some kind of reasoned argument?
> 
> So I'll ask you the same question... Do you consider yourself a Tea Partier and do you support federal drug laws and the DEA?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stupid question,  you can be one without supporting the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers.
> 
> Do you support federal drug laws and the DEA?
> 
> It's really a simple question.
Click to expand...




its not that simple.    I support some controls on drugs.  I support the legalization of some drugs that are now illegal.   I support reducing the length of drug patents in order to get generics in the marketplace sooner.   I support the right of a state to make its own decisions on which drugs it wants to sell over the counter and which ones require a prescription.


----------



## Redfish

manifold said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that supposed to be some kind of reasoned argument?
> 
> So I'll ask you the same question... Do you consider yourself a Tea Partier and do you support federal drug laws and the DEA?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stupid question,  you can be one without supporting the other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers.
> 
> Do you support federal drug laws and the DEA?
> 
> It's really a simple question.
Click to expand...




I think your real question is "do you think the DEA and drug laws have been effective?"   the answer is, no.


----------



## manifold

RKMBrown said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> *That is what happens when people start thinking the government is the cure-all for everything ... Or that their desires should mean squat to other people.*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that supposed to be some kind of reasoned argument?
> 
> So I'll ask you the same question... Do you consider yourself a Tea Partier and do you support federal drug laws and the DEA?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you are apparently the arbiter of what the Tea Party is all about, what does it mean to be a Tea Partier?
> 
> I have gone to some Tea Party events.  I believe our War on Drugs to be counter productive and a restriction on liberty.  I am in favor of some federal drug laws.  I support the DEA through my taxes, I have no choice.
> 
> Perhaps if you could form your sentences with more care, and define some of these terms you are using, we might be able to have a fruitful conversation.
Click to expand...


I'm not the arbiter of what the Tea Party is all about, far from it.

That's why I'm here asking questions.

As for your support through taxes argument, I guess I can conclude you support Obamacare and federal welfare programs too (as long as you have no choice and all).

And lastly, which federal drug laws do you believe are justified by the authority granted to the federal government by the US Constitution?


----------



## j-mac

JoeNormal said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..would be popular, instead their persecuted by the left and the left want-to-Be's....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really have to ask this question this soon after mostly Tea Party infantile obstructionism shut down the government?
Click to expand...


Ok, so you are against anyone who opposes the policies of this administration, and refuses to sit in the corner and shut the fuck up eh? How is that anything other than authoritarian totalitarianism?


----------



## BlackSand

manifold said:


> Sounds to me like you don't support federal drug laws or the DEA.
> 
> However I am left to wonder why you'd be so coy about it.



So I take it you didn't look it up or make any attempt at actually understanding what I think ... And you are not obligated to.
But with that in mind ... Why should I be anything other than coy with you?

.


----------



## RKMBrown

manifold said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that supposed to be some kind of reasoned argument?
> 
> So I'll ask you the same question... Do you consider yourself a Tea Partier and do you support federal drug laws and the DEA?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a Tea Party Member ... I am a Strict Constructionist (more of a philosophy on law and legislation).
> Look it up and you will soon find out why it is considered archaic, absolutely hated by Progressive Liberals ... And if you have any sense whatsoever ... It will answer your questions about where I stand on the DEA or any law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you don't support federal drug laws or the DEA.
> 
> However I am left to wonder why you'd be so coy about it.
Click to expand...


Your extremely broad brush statements and questions don't tell the whole story.

I'm perfectly fine with a federal law requiring all states restrict children from buying booze & drugs.   I'm perfectly fine with a federal law authorizing regulation of testing of medicines and medical procedures.  I'm perfectly fine with the feds regulating imports of food & medical products.


----------



## manifold

Redfish said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> stupid question,  you can be one without supporting the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers.
> 
> Do you support federal drug laws and the DEA?
> 
> It's really a simple question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its not that simple.    I support some controls on drugs.  I support the legalization of some drugs that are now illegal.   I support reducing the length of drug patents in order to get generics in the marketplace sooner.   I support the right of a state to make its own decisions on which drugs it wants to sell over the counter and which ones require a prescription.
Click to expand...


Ok, that's a pretty reasonable position.

But you can still support all that and still oppose "federal" drug laws and the DEA. In fact, I would argue that would make your position more consistent. If you believe it should be up to the states, then logically you should oppose all federal encroachment in that regard.


----------



## manifold

BlackSand said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you don't support federal drug laws or the DEA.
> 
> However I am left to wonder why you'd be so coy about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I take it you didn't look it up or make any attempt at actually understanding what I think ... And you are not obligated to.
> But with that in mind ... Why should I be anything other than coy with you?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I actually already know what a strict constructionist is, and didn't have to look it up.

Was I wrong in my conclusion?

And the only reason anyone has to be coy is if they have something to hide.


----------



## Vandalshandle

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would the United States be asked to help bail out the EURO and Greece if it was a success?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and this would have what to do with the price of rice in China?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you sleep through 2011 and all those big entitlements which crippled France over its debt, as well as those government entitlements which nearly crippled Greece under its weight?
Click to expand...


No, But, I guess that I did sleep through where these governments failed....


----------



## Redfish

manifold said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers.
> 
> Do you support federal drug laws and the DEA?
> 
> It's really a simple question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> its not that simple.    I support some controls on drugs.  I support the legalization of some drugs that are now illegal.   I support reducing the length of drug patents in order to get generics in the marketplace sooner.   I support the right of a state to make its own decisions on which drugs it wants to sell over the counter and which ones require a prescription.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, that's a pretty reasonable position.
> 
> But you can still support all that and still oppose "federal" drug laws and the DEA. In fact, I would argue that would make your position more consistent. If you believe it should be up to the states, then logically you should oppose all federal encroachment in that regard.
Click to expand...




No, the federal govt still has an enforcement role at the borders if nowhere else.   We cannot open our borders and allow all kinds of unregulated drugs to come into the country.


----------



## manifold

j-mac said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..would be popular, instead their persecuted by the left and the left want-to-Be's....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really have to ask this question this soon after mostly Tea Party infantile obstructionism shut down the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, so you are against anyone who opposes the policies of this administration, and refuses to sit in the corner and shut the fuck up eh? How is that anything other than authoritarian totalitarianism?
Click to expand...


You're both right IMO.

I support a lot of what the Tea Party alleges to want to accomplish, but I definitely didn't agree with that particular tactic.


----------



## BlackSand

manifold said:


> I actually already know what a strict constructionist is, and didn't have to look it up.
> 
> Was I wrong in my conclusion?
> 
> And the only reason anyone has to be coy is if they have something to hide.



*You didn't follow the simple instructions ... You don't have anything to base the conclusion on ... And if you had, you wouldn't be asking.*

.


----------



## RKMBrown

manifold said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that supposed to be some kind of reasoned argument?
> 
> So I'll ask you the same question... Do you consider yourself a Tea Partier and do you support federal drug laws and the DEA?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you are apparently the arbiter of what the Tea Party is all about, what does it mean to be a Tea Partier?
> 
> I have gone to some Tea Party events.  I believe our War on Drugs to be counter productive and a restriction on liberty.  I am in favor of some federal drug laws.  I support the DEA through my taxes, I have no choice.
> 
> Perhaps if you could form your sentences with more care, and define some of these terms you are using, we might be able to have a fruitful conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not the arbiter of what the Tea Party is all about, far from it.
> 
> That's why I'm here asking questions.
> 
> As for your support through taxes argument, I guess I can conclude you support Obamacare and federal welfare programs too (as long as you have no choice and all).
> 
> And lastly, which federal drug laws do you believe are justified by the authority granted to the federal government by the US Constitution?
Click to expand...


If you are not an arbiter of what the Tea Party is about, then why are you claiming that which you think it is about, then demanding we defend it against your accusations? 

You appear to be confused about the term support. You apparently don't understand that our taxes are taken at the point of gun, we have no freedom of will to choose an alternative.  Thus, we have allowed the government to make us into slaves.  

>> And lastly, which federal drug laws do you believe are justified by the authority granted to the federal government by the US Constitution?

I'm to busy to look up all the laws and give you a list of pros and cons to each one. Why don't you pick one you want to discuss instead?


----------



## manifold

RKMBrown said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a Tea Party Member ... I am a Strict Constructionist (more of a philosophy on law and legislation).
> Look it up and you will soon find out why it is considered archaic, absolutely hated by Progressive Liberals ... And if you have any sense whatsoever ... It will answer your questions about where I stand on the DEA or any law.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you don't support federal drug laws or the DEA.
> 
> However I am left to wonder why you'd be so coy about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your extremely broad brush statements and questions don't tell the whole story.
> 
> I'm perfectly fine with a federal law requiring all states restrict children from buying booze & drugs.   I'm perfectly fine with a federal law authorizing regulation of testing of medicines and medical procedures.  I'm perfectly fine with the feds regulating imports of food & medical products.
Click to expand...


You may be fine with it, and that's your prerogative.

But can you point me to the particular text in the US Constitution that you believe grants this authority to the federal government? The best I can come up with is the general welfare clause, but I'm not sure you want to open that can of worms.


----------



## RKMBrown

manifold said:


> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really have to ask this question this soon after mostly Tea Party infantile obstructionism shut down the government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so you are against anyone who opposes the policies of this administration, and refuses to sit in the corner and shut the fuck up eh? How is that anything other than authoritarian totalitarianism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're both right IMO.
> 
> I support a lot of what the Tea Party alleges to want to accomplish, but I definitely didn't agree with that particular tactic.
Click to expand...


For a person who knows nothing about the Tea Party, you sure make a lot of UN-substantiated accusations.  This leads me to guess you are likely in one of two groups, neo-con compassionate republican, or progressive/modern liberal.  Is that true? Pls declare your politics, so we can understand your goals.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Foxfyre said:


> The Tea Party isn't concerned with marijuana or any other social issues.  It is concerned with restoring the government the Founder's intended.



The founders never intended the federal government to be involved in social issues. Such concerns are PURELY the purvey of the states. This includes abortion.


----------



## manifold

Redfish said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> its not that simple.    I support some controls on drugs.  I support the legalization of some drugs that are now illegal.   I support reducing the length of drug patents in order to get generics in the marketplace sooner.   I support the right of a state to make its own decisions on which drugs it wants to sell over the counter and which ones require a prescription.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, that's a pretty reasonable position.
> 
> But you can still support all that and still oppose "federal" drug laws and the DEA. In fact, I would argue that would make your position more consistent. If you believe it should be up to the states, then logically you should oppose all federal encroachment in that regard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the federal govt still has an enforcement role at the borders if nowhere else.   We cannot open our borders and allow all kinds of unregulated drugs to come into the country.
Click to expand...


No disagreement here on that point.

But what about a resident of Colorado who gets busted by the DEA for possession of marijuana?

Should the federal government have the authority to incarcerate this person in a federal prison?


----------



## manifold

RKMBrown said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so you are against anyone who opposes the policies of this administration, and refuses to sit in the corner and shut the fuck up eh? How is that anything other than authoritarian totalitarianism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're both right IMO.
> 
> I support a lot of what the Tea Party alleges to want to accomplish, but I definitely didn't agree with that particular tactic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For a person who knows nothing about the Tea Party, you sure make a lot of UN-substantiated accusations.  This leads me to guess you are likely in one of two groups, neo-con compassionate republican, or progressive/modern liberal.  Is that true? Pls declare your politics, so we can understand your goals.
Click to expand...


For a person typing words in English, you sure struggle with reading comprehension.

Go ahead and point out these alleged accusations i've been making.


----------



## manifold

BlackSand said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> I actually already know what a strict constructionist is, and didn't have to look it up.
> 
> Was I wrong in my conclusion?
> 
> And the only reason anyone has to be coy is if they have something to hide.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You didn't follow the simple instructions ... You don't have anything to base the conclusion on ... And if you had, you wouldn't be asking.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The next honest strict constructionist I encounter that supports federal drug laws and the DEA will be the first.

If you're the first, then I question your honesty and/or your understanding of strict constructionism.

Hopefully you're not the flag bearer for the Tea Party movement, otherwise it's already doomed.


----------



## j-mac

manifold said:


> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really have to ask this question this soon after mostly Tea Party infantile obstructionism shut down the government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so you are against anyone who opposes the policies of this administration, and refuses to sit in the corner and shut the fuck up eh? How is that anything other than authoritarian totalitarianism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're both right IMO.
> 
> I support a lot of what the Tea Party alleges to want to accomplish, but I definitely didn't agree with that particular tactic.
Click to expand...


And that is reasonable. But, I will only say that one thing that accomplished is that by the end of the shut down, the repubs were offering 1. delay the mandate for 6 months, and 2. they firmly made it clear that the republican's were against O-care.

The administration refused to even negotiate anything. They just HAD to go forward with this disaster without working with repubs in any way, much like the way they wrote and passed this turd from the beginning. Now, people still want to blame Cruz, and repubs for closing the government, but fail to realize that the moment the site hit live, and the government re opened, the demo's started calling for the very same delay....

Should they now be called "obstructionists"?


----------



## Uncensored2008

manifold said:


> No disagreement here on that point.
> 
> But what about a resident of Colorado who gets busted by the DEA for possession of marijuana?
> 
> Should the federal government have the authority to incarcerate this person in a federal prison?



The Tea Party is not the Libertarian Party. The Tea Party is narrowly focused on fiscal issues. Dramatic reduction of taxes and spending. 

Yes, the DEA, BATF, NSA, NTA, etc. should be abolished - but this isn't the purpose of the Tea Party.


----------



## RKMBrown

manifold said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds to me like you don't support federal drug laws or the DEA.
> 
> However I am left to wonder why you'd be so coy about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your extremely broad brush statements and questions don't tell the whole story.
> 
> I'm perfectly fine with a federal law requiring all states restrict children from buying booze & drugs.   I'm perfectly fine with a federal law authorizing regulation of testing of medicines and medical procedures.  I'm perfectly fine with the feds regulating imports of food & medical products.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may be fine with it, and that's your prerogative.
> 
> But can you point me to the particular text in the US Constitution that you believe grants this authority to the federal government? The best I can come up with is the general welfare clause, but I'm not sure you want to open that can of worms.
Click to expand...


Section 8 excerpts: 
The Congress shall have Power To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States; To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries; and To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Then the 14th amendment due process clause which of course allows our governments to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, with due process of law.

Thus if they pass a bill, and it becomes law and due process was adhered to (it is if they say it is) then everything we own, everything we are, our very liberty is for government to take and it's all constitutional like, esp. when it is a product produced, then bought or sold across state lines, but not really limited as such, it depends on the whim of the SCOTUS.


----------



## manifold

Uncensored2008 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> No disagreement here on that point.
> 
> But what about a resident of Colorado who gets busted by the DEA for possession of marijuana?
> 
> Should the federal government have the authority to incarcerate this person in a federal prison?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party is not the Libertarian Party. The Tea Party is narrowly focused on fiscal issues. Dramatic reduction of taxes and spending.
> 
> Yes, the DEA, BATF, NSA, NTA, etc. should be abolished - but this isn't the purpose of the Tea Party.
Click to expand...


OK. Fair enough.

So the Tea Party movement is essentially Libertarianism sans all that pesky liberty. /jk


----------



## JoeNormal

j-mac said:


> JoeNormal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..would be popular, instead their persecuted by the left and the left want-to-Be's....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really have to ask this question this soon after mostly Tea Party infantile obstructionism shut down the government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, so you are against anyone who opposes the policies of this administration, and refuses to sit in the corner and shut the fuck up eh? How is that anything other than authoritarian totalitarianism?
Click to expand...


Why don't they use logic and reason to convince the people of America that they understand how our society and economy work and that they have the correct ideas for getting things back on track?  Then the court of public opinion could apply some pressure to the other members of our government to make some positive changes.  

I'm kidding of course.  The average Tea Party congressman appears to have an IQ somewhere around 80 and would be scared as hell if an actual idea popped into his brain.


----------



## j-mac

manifold said:


> So the Tea Party movement is essentially Libertarianism sans all that pesky liberty. /jk



No.


----------



## RKMBrown

Uncensored2008 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> No disagreement here on that point.
> 
> But what about a resident of Colorado who gets busted by the DEA for possession of marijuana?
> 
> Should the federal government have the authority to incarcerate this person in a federal prison?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party is not the Libertarian Party. The Tea Party is narrowly focused on fiscal issues. Dramatic reduction of taxes and spending.
> 
> Yes, the DEA, BATF, NSA, NTA, etc. should be abolished - but this isn't the purpose of the Tea Party.
Click to expand...


The Tea Party is a loose organization of people who get together to "discuss" important issues.  The Tea Party is not an organization with defined political party planks.


----------



## BlackSand

manifold said:


> The next honest strict constructionist I encounter that supports federal drug laws and the DEA will be the first.
> 
> If you're the first, then I question your honesty and/or your understanding of strict constructionism.
> 
> Hopefully you're not the flag bearer for the Tea Party movement, otherwise it's already doomed.



Again ... You don't know what Strict Constructionist is if you think they are driven by personal desire when assessing the benefits or interpretation of the law.
It would be easier to "unfold" the laws surrounding the DEA and Federal Drug Laws by breaking down the individual parts and how they are applied in context with what is written versus what people want them to say or mean.
Because people are somehow satisfied with legislators that purposely generate legislation without defining certain lines of adequate dissemination ... Is beyond the scope of what I think Congress has the right to do.

*Edit ... I mean look at the Constitution itself, and consider the pains the founders went to in generating a document that is ultimately easy to understand if you just quit trying to make it say something that it doesn't ... And if you respect the fact that government was never meant to be the cure-all.*

.


----------



## manifold

j-mac said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the Tea Party movement is essentially Libertarianism sans all that pesky liberty. /jk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
Click to expand...


/jk means I was just joking.

But seriously though, I've seen enough contradiction in this thread from self-proclaimed Tea Party supporters to know that it means different things to different people. And that's not necessarily a bad thing either.


----------



## Redfish

manifold said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, that's a pretty reasonable position.
> 
> But you can still support all that and still oppose "federal" drug laws and the DEA. In fact, I would argue that would make your position more consistent. If you believe it should be up to the states, then logically you should oppose all federal encroachment in that regard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the federal govt still has an enforcement role at the borders if nowhere else.   We cannot open our borders and allow all kinds of unregulated drugs to come into the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No disagreement here on that point.
> 
> But what about a resident of Colorado who gets busted by the DEA for possession of marijuana?
> 
> Should the federal government have the authority to incarcerate this person in a federal prison?
Click to expand...


of course not,  if the guy is in compliance with state laws its none of the feds business.


----------



## RKMBrown

manifold said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, that's a pretty reasonable position.
> 
> But you can still support all that and still oppose "federal" drug laws and the DEA. In fact, I would argue that would make your position more consistent. If you believe it should be up to the states, then logically you should oppose all federal encroachment in that regard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the federal govt still has an enforcement role at the borders if nowhere else.   We cannot open our borders and allow all kinds of unregulated drugs to come into the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No disagreement here on that point.
> 
> But what about a resident of Colorado who gets busted by the DEA for possession of marijuana?
> 
> Should the federal government have the authority to incarcerate this person in a federal prison?
Click to expand...


Was he trafficking across state lines?


----------



## RKMBrown

manifold said:


> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the Tea Party movement is essentially Libertarianism sans all that pesky liberty. /jk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> /jk means I was just joking.
> 
> But seriously though, I've seen enough contradiction in this thread from self-proclaimed Tea Party supporters to know that it means different things to different people. And that's not necessarily a bad thing either.
Click to expand...


Now you get it.  The Tea Party is nothing more than a movement for getting people to discuss issues of importance.  People claiming otherwise, are likely just using the popularity or unpopularity of the movement to achieve personal goals.  Well, that or folks who have been led to believe the Tea Party is something more or other than what it really is.


----------



## j-mac

manifold said:


> j-mac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the Tea Party movement is essentially Libertarianism sans all that pesky liberty. /jk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> /jk means I was just joking.
> 
> But seriously though, I've seen enough contradiction in this thread from self-proclaimed Tea Party supporters to know that it means different things to different people. And that's not necessarily a bad thing either.
Click to expand...


Oh...Ok.... sorry bout that....


----------



## Uncensored2008

manifold said:


> OK. Fair enough.
> 
> So the Tea Party movement is essentially Libertarianism sans all that pesky liberty. /jk



Nope, the Tea Party is a tax revolt.

One reason we, as Libertarians fail in elections is our purity tests. Some can be right about 99% of issue, but let him hold an opinion on the most minor issue that some Libertarians disagree with and they'll eat him alive.

The Tea Party is a single issue movement, that issue is taxes. Not drugs, taxes. Not abortion, taxes. Not gay privilege, taxes,

We as Libertarians better learn to define a battle, fight it, win it, and then move on; IF we ever hope to make any change.

This is how the Marxists have done it, one issue at a time. Abortion was fought as a single issue, until it was won. Federalizing education was fought as a single, focused issue, until local schools were nationalized. Gay marriage was fought as a single issue, until the Marxists won. They didn't take on every issue at the same time - they focused their efforts and have eroded the Republic in little bits. IF we want to return to a Constitutional Republic, then we too will have to fight our battles, one issue at a time.

Taxes are a damned good place to start.


----------



## Uncensored2008

RKMBrown said:


> The Tea Party is a loose organization of people who get together to "discuss" important issues.  The Tea Party is not an organization with defined political party planks.



Yes and no.

The Tea Party is a tax revolt. There is one issue, taxes.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Perception is reality. My perception of the USA is that it is a villiage. The villiage savings and loan is owned and run by the Republican. The guy who works at the power plant who has a 30 year mortgage with the S&L is the democrat. The retired old guy who lives on the corner who spends his time leaning out the window and yelling at kids to "get the hell off of my lawn!", and  attends the HOA and city council meetings and tries to take over the mike and who is constantly filing one law suit after another against them is the Tea Party. A lot of the people in the villiage tend to cross the street when they see him coming down the sidewalk....


----------



## BlackSand

Vandalshandle said:


> Perception is reality. My perception of the USA is that it is a villiage. The villiage savings and loan is owned and run by the Republican. The guy who works at the power plant who has a 30 year mortgage with the S&L is the democrat. The retired old guy who lives on the corner who spends his time leaning out the window and yelling at kids to "get the hell off of my lawn!", and  attends the HOA and city council meetings and tries to take over the mike and who is constantly filing one law suit after another against them is the Tea Party. A lot of the people in the villiage tend to cross the street when they see him coming down the sidewalk....



*The Republican owns the Café ... The Democrat is the local beggar ... And the Tea Party member just tries to protect both of them from each other.*

.


----------



## RKMBrown

Uncensored2008 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party is a loose organization of people who get together to "discuss" important issues.  The Tea Party is not an organization with defined political party planks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and no.
> 
> The Tea Party is a tax revolt. There is one issue, taxes.
Click to expand...


The original Tea Party, yes.  The modern "movements" not so much.


----------



## RKMBrown

Uncensored2008 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK. Fair enough.
> 
> So the Tea Party movement is essentially Libertarianism sans all that pesky liberty. /jk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, the Tea Party is a tax revolt.
> 
> One reason we, as Libertarians fail in elections is our purity tests. Some can be right about 99% of issue, but let him hold an opinion on the most minor issue that some Libertarians disagree with and they'll eat him alive.
> 
> The Tea Party is a single issue movement, that issue is taxes. Not drugs, taxes. Not abortion, taxes. Not gay privilege, taxes,
> 
> We as Libertarians better learn to define a battle, fight it, win it, and then move on; IF we ever hope to make any change.
> 
> This is how the Marxists have done it, one issue at a time. Abortion was fought as a single issue, until it was won. Federalizing education was fought as a single, focused issue, until local schools were nationalized. Gay marriage was fought as a single issue, until the Marxists won. They didn't take on every issue at the same time - they focused their efforts and have eroded the Republic in little bits. IF we want to return to a Constitutional Republic, then we too will have to fight our battles, one issue at a time.
> 
> Taxes are a damned good place to start.
Click to expand...


I would argue spending.  Thus... the problem. (Getting people to agree on levels of importance is just as difficult, if not more so, than getting them to agree on solutions.)


----------



## Uncensored2008

RKMBrown said:


> I would argue spending.  Thus... the problem. (Getting people to agree on levels of importance is just as difficult, if not more so, than getting them to agree on solutions.)



I agree, taxes and spending are the same issue.

Did you know that if spending were frozen at current levels, in 3 short years we would have a budget surplus? Without doing ANYTHING else. The Communists portray the budget as insurmountable, but that is a fiction. Simply FREEZE spending at current levels, and we are out of this mess.


----------



## Foxfyre

manifold said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> [MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]
> 
> 
> 
> Agree or disagree?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party isn't concerned with marijuana or any other social issues.  *It is concerned with restoring the government the Founder's intended*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So they don't care about the federal government overstepping their constitutional authority?
> 
> How exactly to you reconcile "restoring the government the founders intended" with taking a blind eye to an obvious example of the government being considerably out of line with what the founders intended?
> 
> Are you calling the Tea Party hypocrites? Because it sure sounds that way.
Click to expand...


Of course they care about the federal government overstepping its authority to the point that the federal government now exists purely to perpetuate itself.  It swallows up all the resources it can for its own benefit and throws just enough bones to the the people to keep the people quiet.

It is THAT the Tea Party rails against and will fix if it can.  It is not that individual Tea Party members do not care about the issue of marijuana, abortion, gay marriage, health care, etc. etc.   Most do have opinions one way or the other on all of these things.  But they see these as the prerogative of the people in the states or local communities to decide and not the constitutional role of the federal government.

The fact that the hateful, clueless, ignorant, and partisan cannot separate those two things in their minds is part of the problem.  The government, to perpetuate itself, and the media, as the loyal lapdogs to an authoritarian government, are doing their damndest to keep people misinformed and demonize the Tea Party as much as possible so that it gains as little traction as possible.

To restore the federal government to its constitutional roots and thereby restore it to the small but effective and necessary government that the Constitution specifies--low taxes, recognition and protection of our unalienable rights, and maximum liberty--is the modern Tea Party goal and purpose.


----------



## manifold

Uncensored2008 said:


> RKMBrown said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would argue spending.  Thus... the problem. (Getting people to agree on levels of importance is just as difficult, if not more so, than getting them to agree on solutions.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, taxes and spending are the same issue.
> 
> Did you know that if spending were frozen at current levels, in 3 short years we would have a budget surplus? Without doing ANYTHING else. The Communists portray the budget as insurmountable, but that is a fiction. Simply FREEZE spending at current levels, and we are out of this mess.
Click to expand...


I'd be interested to see the assumptions and math that support this assertion.

But regardless, I find it a somewhat ironic that you'd label people who don't agree with you as Communists in a thread decrying Tea Party persecution.


----------



## manifold

Uncensored2008 said:


> The Tea Party is a tax revolt. There is one issue, taxes.



The Tea Party dot org website says otherwise.



> 15 Non-negotiable Core Beliefs
> 
> 1. Illegal aliens are here illegally.
> 2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.
> 3. A strong military is essential.
> 4. Special interests must be eliminated.
> 5. Gun ownership is sacred.
> 6. Government must be downsized.
> 7. The national budget must be balanced.
> 8. Deficit spending must end.
> 9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal.
> 10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must.
> 11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.
> 12. Political offices must be available to average citizens.
> 13. Intrusive government must be stopped.
> 14. English as our core language is required.
> 15. Traditional family values are encouraged.


----------



## birddog

manifold said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party is a tax revolt. There is one issue, taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party dot org website says otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Non-negotiable Core Beliefs
> 
> 1. Illegal aliens are here illegally.
> 2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.
> 3. A strong military is essential.
> 4. Special interests must be eliminated.
> 5. Gun ownership is sacred.
> 6. Government must be downsized.
> 7. The national budget must be balanced.
> 8. Deficit spending must end.
> 9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal.
> 10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must.
> 11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.
> 12. Political offices must be available to average citizens.
> 13. Intrusive government must be stopped.
> 14. English as our core language is required.
> 15. Traditional family values are encouraged.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Hey dipwad, practically all of that directly relates to taxes!


----------



## Uncensored2008

manifold said:


> I'd be interested to see the assumptions and math that support this assertion.
> 
> But regardless, I find it a somewhat ironic that you'd label people who don't agree with you as Communists in a thread decrying Tea Party persecution.



I don't label people who disagree with me as Communists; I label Communists as Communists.

For too long, we dance around the truth and make our little excuses, but I', done with it.

Those who seek a society of confiscatory taxation for the purpose of distributing wealth to achieve an aim of more evenly allocating wealth in accordance to state desires are properly termed "Communists."

I've just stopped playing games.

Here is the CATO report that explains how a simple freeze would balance our budget.

New CBO Numbers Re-Confirm that Balancing the Budget Is Simple with Modest Fiscal Restraint | Cato @ Liberty


----------



## Foxfyre

birddog said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party is a tax revolt. There is one issue, taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party dot org website says otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Non-negotiable Core Beliefs
> 
> 1. Illegal aliens are here illegally.
> 2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.
> 3. A strong military is essential.
> 4. Special interests must be eliminated.
> 5. Gun ownership is sacred.
> 6. Government must be downsized.
> 7. The national budget must be balanced.
> 8. Deficit spending must end.
> 9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal.
> 10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must.
> 11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.
> 12. Political offices must be available to average citizens.
> 13. Intrusive government must be stopped.
> 14. English as our core language is required.
> 15. Traditional family values are encouraged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey dipwad, practically all of that directly relates to taxes!
Click to expand...


I don't agree that the Tea Party's primary concern is taxes though its emphasis to restore the federal government to its  Constitutional intent certainly would involve tax reform to eliminate the oppressive, illegal, and irreponsibile taxation that is now the norm.

Teaparty.org is one tea party group only and is not necessarily representative of the whole, but you go down that list of 15 items, fourteen of them do relate to restoring government to its Constitutional intent and #15 was something near and dear to the Founders heart.  There is nothing wrong with the federal government encouraging anything.  It simply was not intended to finance, regulate, or order any politician's view of what society must be as it does now.


----------



## Uncensored2008

manifold said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party is a tax revolt. There is one issue, taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party dot org website says otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Non-negotiable Core Beliefs
> 
> 1. Illegal aliens are here illegally.
> 2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.
> 3. A strong military is essential.
> 4. Special interests must be eliminated.
> 5. Gun ownership is sacred.
> 6. Government must be downsized.
> 7. The national budget must be balanced.
> 8. Deficit spending must end.
> 9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal.
> 10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must.
> 11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.
> 12. Political offices must be available to average citizens.
> 13. Intrusive government must be stopped.
> 14. English as our core language is required.
> 15. Traditional family values are encouraged.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



When the GOP hijacked the Tea Party, I made my exit. Teaparty.org does not represent the goals of the movement.


----------



## Uncensored2008

birddog said:


> Hey dipwad, practically all of that directly relates to taxes!



Ah, Mani is okay...


----------



## Vandalshandle

Well, I have never actually gone to the Tea Party Website, so I am pleased that their core beliefs have been posted here. I see xenophobia, anti-gay, ballooned military spending, a demand for reduced taxes even though they are at their second lowest level since WW2, and a desire to return to the days of Herbert Hoover who represented a government concept that was defeated 4 times in a row by the same man. The only thing missing is a direct statement about God.

My perception of the Tea Party is confirmed.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Vandalshandle said:


> Well, I have never actually gone to the Tea Party Website, so I am pleased that their core beliefs have been posted here. I see xenophobia, anti-gay, ballooned military spending, a demand for reduced taxes even though they are at their second lowest level since WW2, and a desire to return to the days of Herbert Hoover who represented a government concept that was defeated 4 times in a row by the same man. The only thing missing is a direct statement about God.
> 
> My perception of the Tea Party is confirmed.



You're delusional.

Not one word in there about homosexuals, Not one word about military spending.

Your bigotry is not "confirmed," spunky.


----------



## Redfish

Vandalshandle said:


> Well, I have never actually gone to the Tea Party Website, so I am pleased that their core beliefs have been posted here. I see xenophobia, anti-gay, ballooned military spending, a demand for reduced taxes even though they are at their second lowest level since WW2, and a desire to return to the days of Herbert Hoover who represented a government concept that was defeated 4 times in a row by the same man. The only thing missing is a direct statement about God.
> 
> My perception of the Tea Party is confirmed.



The founders of this nation held those same beliefs.   Might be time for you to move to north korea or cuba.   they think as you do.


----------



## Uncensored2008

For the record:

15 Non-negotiable Core Beliefs

1. Illegal aliens are here illegally. - Pretty obvious

2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable. - Makes perfect sense,

3. A strong military is essential. - Yep. Note that this says nothing of foreign adventurism.

4. Special interests must be eliminated. - Not sure what they mean

5. Gun ownership is sacred. - Yep.

6. Government must be downsized. - Yep.

7. The national budget must be balanced. - Yep.

8. Deficit spending must end. - Yep.

9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal. - Yep.

10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must. - Yep.

11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory. - Yep.

12. Political offices must be available to average citizens. - Not sure what they mean.

13. Intrusive government must be stopped. - Yep.

14. English as our core language is required. - Yep.

15. Traditional family values are encouraged. - Not the business of the Federal Government - Nope.


----------



## boedicca

Sherry said:


> It's not just the left...it's anyone who fears the status quo being attacked.





Big Government Cronies & Beneficiaries don't want the Gravy Hose to be shut off.


----------



## Foxfyre

boedicca said:


> Sherry said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not just the left...it's anyone who fears the status quo being attacked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big Government Cronies & Beneficiaries don't want the Gravy Hose to be shut off.
Click to expand...


The Tea Party movement has been the first serious challenge to the current bloated, over reaching, intrusive, and authoritarian government that now exists only to feed and perpetuate itself for its own benefit.  And it has become a giant sponge and magnet, drawing in and absorbing more and more of the people's resources to maintain and grow itself.

It was purely because the Tea Party WAS being effective in challenging this destructive pattern that government, aided and abetted by a surrogate media,. felt compelled to minimalize, decimate, ridicule demonize, and, if possible, destroy the Tea Party image and thereby the Tea Party movement.

Look how our leftist minions here buy into that and dutifully report the dishonest rhetoric about the Tea Party and thereby do their part to ensure that no reform movement will gain any serious traction.

So yes, as discussed in my Phony Scandals? thread, the government has targeted and illegally and dishonestly marginalized the Tea Party and has been doing so for some time now.  And even when that was exposed, the people mostly just mutter, shake their heads, and then shrug it off.  It is government after all.  And the people are becoming complacent with that.

It is dangerous, people.  And scary.  We can lose everything precious this country was founded on, and too many of you are just willing to look the other way and allow it to happen.


----------



## manifold

birddog said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party is a tax revolt. There is one issue, taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party dot org website says otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Non-negotiable Core Beliefs
> 
> 1. Illegal aliens are here illegally.
> 2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.
> 3. A strong military is essential.
> 4. Special interests must be eliminated.
> 5. Gun ownership is sacred.
> 6. Government must be downsized.
> 7. The national budget must be balanced.
> 8. Deficit spending must end.
> 9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal.
> 10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must.
> 11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.
> 12. Political offices must be available to average citizens.
> 13. Intrusive government must be stopped.
> 14. English as our core language is required.
> 15. Traditional family values are encouraged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey dipwad, practically all of that directly relates to taxes!
Click to expand...


If by practically all you mean roughly half (and I'm being generous at that).


----------



## Contumacious

Lumpy 1 said:


> You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..would be popular, instead their persecuted by the left and the left want-to-Be's....



Every politically controlled educational system will inculcate the doctrine of state supremacy sooner or later. . . . Once that doctrine has been accepted, it becomes an almost superhuman task to break the stranglehold of the political power over the life of the citizen. It has had his body, property and mind in its clutches from infancy. An octopus would sooner release its prey.* A tax-supported, compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state.* 


*
Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine (1943)*


----------



## manifold

Uncensored2008 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party is a tax revolt. There is one issue, taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Tea Party dot org website says otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 15 Non-negotiable Core Beliefs
> 
> 1. Illegal aliens are here illegally.
> 2. Pro-domestic employment is indispensable.
> 3. A strong military is essential.
> 4. Special interests must be eliminated.
> 5. Gun ownership is sacred.
> 6. Government must be downsized.
> 7. The national budget must be balanced.
> 8. Deficit spending must end.
> 9. Bailout and stimulus plans are illegal.
> 10. Reducing personal income taxes is a must.
> 11. Reducing business income taxes is mandatory.
> 12. Political offices must be available to average citizens.
> 13. Intrusive government must be stopped.
> 14. English as our core language is required.
> 15. Traditional family values are encouraged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When the GOP hijacked the Tea Party, I made my exit. Teaparty.org does not represent the goals of the movement.
Click to expand...


I can certainly respect that.

But again, as much as you and Foxfyre might agree politically, from where I'm sitting you each have your own, and somewhat different, view of what the movement is all about. I'm not picking sides or saying anyone is right or wrong, it's just one of the more interesting political topics to come along in some time. And one of the best ways I know to discuss anything meaningfully is to ask probing questions that challenge what I or anyone else believes that they "know".


----------



## Foxfyre

Contumacious said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..would be popular, instead their persecuted by the left and the left want-to-Be's....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every politically controlled educational system will inculcate the doctrine of state supremacy sooner or later. . . . Once that doctrine has been accepted, it becomes an almost superhuman task to break the stranglehold of the political power over the life of the citizen. It has had his body, property and mind in its clutches from infancy. An octopus would sooner release its prey.* A tax-supported, compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state.*
> 
> 
> *
> &#8211;Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine (1943)*
Click to expand...


Well the doctrine may not be fully accepted in America, but we have definitely arrived at a point of complacency that is allowing government unrestricted power that it is increasing day by day.  And little that is good is likely to come from that.  Government already pretty much controls the media, education, the work place, and healthcare.  It won't be long before the people will have no real liberties left.

The Tea Party movement currently is pretty much the ONLY line of defense against that at this time.  But the statists and government lovers among us are helping as much as they can to destroy the Tea Party movement.


----------



## Uncensored2008

manifold said:


> I can certainly respect that.
> 
> But again, as much as you and Foxfyre might agree politically, from where I'm sitting you each have your own, and somewhat different, view of what the movement is all about. I'm not picking sides or saying anyone is right or wrong, it's just one of the more interesting political topics to come along in some time. And one of the best ways I know to discuss anything meaningfully is to ask probing questions that challenge what I or anyone else believes that they "know".



That makes sense.

Foxy is a Republican, I'm a Libertarian; there are bound to be some differences. And I have a strong bias, to me the definition of the Tea Party is the handful that I attended in 2007-08, protesting BUSH and McCain (and Schwarzenegger!) I know that they have changed to an extent, but the core principle of holding the line on new taxes, and demanding that spending be cut is what I see the Tea Party to be.

Obviously I don't want the Tea Party to tackle social issues, and see that as a path to defeat. I still believe that the majority of this nation supports lower taxes and reduced spending, and that it is through moving the Tea Party off of that core message that the democrats have been successful in defaming the movement.


----------



## manifold

This is the first I'm hearing about Tea Party rallies pre-dating Obama.

Is there any way to confirm this, for my own selfish edification?


----------



## Uncensored2008

manifold said:


> This is the first I'm hearing about Tea Party rallies pre-dating Obama.
> 
> Is there any way to confirm this, for my own selfish edification?



Dunno - we had a rally at Tom's Farms in Corona, CA in 2007. About 15,000 I would guess.


----------



## Foxfyre

Uncensored2008 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can certainly respect that.
> 
> But again, as much as you and Foxfyre might agree politically, from where I'm sitting you each have your own, and somewhat different, view of what the movement is all about. I'm not picking sides or saying anyone is right or wrong, it's just one of the more interesting political topics to come along in some time. And one of the best ways I know to discuss anything meaningfully is to ask probing questions that challenge what I or anyone else believes that they "know".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That makes sense.
> 
> Foxy is a Republican, I'm a Libertarian; there are bound to be some differences. And I have a strong bias, to me the definition of the Tea Party is the handful that I attended in 2007-08, protesting BUSH and McCain (and Schwarzenegger!) I know that they have changed to an extent, but the core principle of holding the line on new taxes, and demanding that spending be cut is what I see the Tea Party to be.
> 
> Obviously I don't want the Tea Party to tackle social issues, and see that as a path to defeat. I still believe that the majority of this nation supports lower taxes and reduced spending, and that it is through moving the Tea Party off of that core message that the democrats have been successful in defaming the movement.
Click to expand...


Gentle correction here.  I am registered Republican ONLY because I have to be in order to be able to vote in primary elections here.  But I am NOT a Republican at heart any more.  Except for the Tea Party reformers we have been able to elect to Congress, the GOP has sold out to big government interests and to perpetuate their own power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes as much as have the Democrats.

The only redeeming qualities the GOP has is that their core constituency is more fiscally responsible than are the Democrats and therefore the GOP, when it is in power, does far less damage overall than do the Democrats.  But I have no illusions that the GOP isn't taking us over the cliff toward totalitarian government just as are the Democrats.  The GOP just does it more slowly.


----------



## Camp

Foxfyre said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..would be popular, instead their persecuted by the left and the left want-to-Be's....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every politically controlled educational system will inculcate the doctrine of state supremacy sooner or later. . . . Once that doctrine has been accepted, it becomes an almost superhuman task to break the stranglehold of the political power over the life of the citizen. It has had his body, property and mind in its clutches from infancy. An octopus would sooner release its prey.* A tax-supported, compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state.*
> 
> 
> *
> &#8211;Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine (1943)*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the doctrine may not be fully accepted in America, but we have definitely arrived at a point of complacency that is allowing government unrestricted power that it is increasing day by day.  And little that is good is likely to come from that.  Government already pretty much controls the media, education, the work place, and healthcare.  It won't be long before the people will have no real liberties left.
> 
> The Tea Party movement currently is pretty much the ONLY line of defense against that at this time.  But the statists and government lovers among us are helping as much as they can to destroy the Tea Party movement.
Click to expand...


I don't want the TP people to defend my freedoms and liberty. They are incompetent and suckers to and for the real culprits that are taking away my freedoms and liberty. They are financed by the very people who are taking away my freedoms and liberty.
The founding fathers gave us the means to protect our freedoms and liberty. They gave us a constitution that includes our right to vote and elect our leaders. That is how we protect our freedoms and liberty. 
Corporations have taken away your freedom and your liberty. Obscenely rich billionairs have taken away your freedoms and liberty. How you live and what you are allowed to have is determined by people you don't know and have no control over. If you open a business and it cuts into some corporations bottom line they will knock you out of business. Can you be a family farmer today? Only if you follow the rules set down by the corporations. Can you influence your legislature? Not if you are fighting for something big business doesn't like. 
You silly people think Obama is taking away your right to determine what kind of health care you have. You lost that right long ago. Your healthcare has been controlled by faceless, nameless rich people sitting in offices counting the profits that they make from you. 
No thanks TP, I don't want you to have anything to do with protecting my freedoms and liberty.
Just look at the stupid post about education. Completely ignores the facts that we have local school boards, privite schools, charter schools, religious schools and finaly, you can keep your kid at home and home school them. And if you think our kids get all their education from school, you may not have kids.


----------



## Foxfyre

Yes there were some beginnings of Tea Party spirit growing during the Bush administration and I have no doubt that if McCain had been elected and continued down that unacceptable path, the Tea Party would have sprung up just as it did when Obama was elected.

What brought it to a head was the unconscionable TARP bill followed by totally irresponsible appropriations bills, threats of more government tax grabs, and an even more indefensible stimulus package after Obama was elected.  The Tea Party began to organize in earnest early in 2009 and was goaded into heightened concern when the liberty and economy destroying Obamacare was forced down the people's throats.

Whoever said up there that McCain would have been worse than Obama, though, is simply spouting leftist rhetoric.  McCain would NOT have made a good President in my opinion, but at least with McCain we would not have had those unconscionable appropriations bills, we would not have had the stimulus package, we would not have regulation deliberately intended to kill jobs, and we would not have Obamacare destroying what was left of our liberties now.


----------



## Contumacious

Foxfyre said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..would be popular, instead their persecuted by the left and the left want-to-Be's....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every politically controlled educational system will inculcate the doctrine of state supremacy sooner or later. . . . Once that doctrine has been accepted, it becomes an almost superhuman task to break the stranglehold of the political power over the life of the citizen. It has had his body, property and mind in its clutches from infancy. An octopus would sooner release its prey.* A tax-supported, compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state.*
> 
> 
> *
> Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine (1943)*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well the doctrine may not be fully accepted in America, but we have definitely arrived at a point of complacency that is allowing government unrestricted power that it is increasing day by day.  And little that is good is likely to come from that.  Government already pretty much controls the media, education, the work place, and healthcare.  It won't be long before the people will have no real liberties left.
> 
> *The Tea Party movement currently is pretty much the ONLY line of defense against that at this time.*  But the statists and government lovers among us are helping as much as they can to destroy the Tea Party movement.
Click to expand...



There is a far better choice






.

.


----------



## j-mac

manifold said:


> This is the first I'm hearing about Tea Party rallies pre-dating Obama.
> 
> Is there any way to confirm this, for my own selfish edification?



"References to the Boston Tea Party were part of Tax Day protests held throughout the 1990s and earlier.[16][17][18][19]"

Tea Party movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Listening to MSM blowhards out there about what the TP is, or when it started, is the easiest way to be uninformed.


----------



## RKMBrown

Camp said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every politically controlled educational system will inculcate the doctrine of state supremacy sooner or later. . . . Once that doctrine has been accepted, it becomes an almost superhuman task to break the stranglehold of the political power over the life of the citizen. It has had his body, property and mind in its clutches from infancy. An octopus would sooner release its prey.* A tax-supported, compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state.*
> 
> 
> *
> Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine (1943)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the doctrine may not be fully accepted in America, but we have definitely arrived at a point of complacency that is allowing government unrestricted power that it is increasing day by day.  And little that is good is likely to come from that.  Government already pretty much controls the media, education, the work place, and healthcare.  It won't be long before the people will have no real liberties left.
> 
> The Tea Party movement currently is pretty much the ONLY line of defense against that at this time.  But the statists and government lovers among us are helping as much as they can to destroy the Tea Party movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't want the TP people to defend my freedoms and liberty. They are incompetent and suckers to and for the real culprits that are taking away my freedoms and liberty. They are financed by the very people who are taking away my freedoms and liberty.
> The founding fathers gave us the means to protect our freedoms and liberty. They gave us a constitution that includes our right to vote and elect our leaders. That is how we protect our freedoms and liberty.
> Corporations have taken away your freedom and your liberty. Obscenely rich billionairs have taken away your freedoms and liberty. How you live and what you are allowed to have is determined by people you don't know and have no control over. If you open a business and it cuts into some corporations bottom line they will knock you out of business. Can you be a family farmer today? Only if you follow the rules set down by the corporations. Can you influence your legislature? Not if you are fighting for something big business doesn't like.
> You silly people think Obama is taking away your right to determine what kind of health care you have. You lost that right long ago. Your healthcare has been controlled by faceless, nameless rich people sitting in offices counting the profits that they make from you.
> No thanks TP, I don't want you to have anything to do with protecting my freedoms and liberty.
> Just look at the stupid post about education. Completely ignores the facts that we have local school boards, privite schools, charter schools, religious schools and finaly, you can keep your kid at home and home school them. And if you think our kids get all their education from school, you may not have kids.
Click to expand...


Who are you talking to?  You say that like you think TP is a person or entity.


----------



## manifold

Uncensored2008 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is the first I'm hearing about Tea Party rallies pre-dating Obama.
> 
> Is there any way to confirm this, for my own selfish edification?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dunno - we had a rally at Tom's Farms in Corona, CA in 2007. About 15,000 I would guess.
Click to expand...


Were you calling yourselves "Tea Partiers", or was it a Libertarian rally?


----------



## Foxfyre

Contumacious said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every politically controlled educational system will inculcate the doctrine of state supremacy sooner or later. . . . Once that doctrine has been accepted, it becomes an almost superhuman task to break the stranglehold of the political power over the life of the citizen. It has had his body, property and mind in its clutches from infancy. An octopus would sooner release its prey.* A tax-supported, compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state.*
> 
> 
> *
> Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine (1943)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well the doctrine may not be fully accepted in America, but we have definitely arrived at a point of complacency that is allowing government unrestricted power that it is increasing day by day.  And little that is good is likely to come from that.  Government already pretty much controls the media, education, the work place, and healthcare.  It won't be long before the people will have no real liberties left.
> 
> *The Tea Party movement currently is pretty much the ONLY line of defense against that at this time.*  But the statists and government lovers among us are helping as much as they can to destroy the Tea Party movement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is a far better choice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Sorry but the Libertarian Party might perhaps restore some liberties that we have lost, but it has developed its own forms of totalitarian emphasis that would take away other rights as it restored some.  It has more redeeming features on its platform than bad ones though.

The Tea Party initiatives would return the ability to the states and local communities to form whatever sorts of societies they wished to have.  Too many libertarians would deny those same states and communities the ability to form the societies they wished to have if the libertarians objected to those societies.

It is the difference between regulated freedom according to preconceived doctrines and true liberty to be who you wish to be and live your life as you choose to live it.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Camp said:


> I don't want the TP people to defend my freedoms and liberty.



You don't want there to be any freedom or liberty.



> They are incompetent and suckers to and for the real culprits that are taking away my freedoms and liberty. They are financed by the very people who are taking away my freedoms and liberty.



You support the authoritarian left, to rule with an iron fist and supposedly care for you as a dependent child.



> The founding fathers gave us the means to protect our freedoms and liberty. They gave us a constitution that includes our right to vote and elect our leaders. That is how we protect our freedoms and liberty.



And is that not EXACTLY the method the Tea Party has used? Electing representatives who promote Tea Party goals?



> Corporations have taken away your freedom and your liberty. Obscenely rich billionairs have taken away your freedoms and liberty. How you live and what you are allowed to have is determined by people you don't know and have no control over. If you open a business and it cuts into some corporations bottom line they will knock you out of business. Can you be a family farmer today? Only if you follow the rules set down by the corporations. Can you influence your legislature? Not if you are fighting for something big business doesn't like.



You mean like George Soros who put this pile of shit Obama in office?

Seriously, you are but a mindless sheep, spewing idiocy feed to you by the hate sites.

Corporations pass no laws. Corporations have no police force to compel you with guns to do anything. Corporations cannot take your bank accounts or assets.

Government can do all of these things - yet you think government is your loving daddy who cares for you. 

Yes, this makes you a fool.



> You silly people think Obama is taking away your right to determine what kind of health care you have. You lost that right long ago. Your healthcare has been controlled by faceless, nameless rich people sitting in offices counting the profits that they make from you.
> No thanks TP, I don't want you to have anything to do with protecting my freedoms and liberty.
> Just look at the stupid post about education. Completely ignores the facts that we have local school boards, privite schools, charter schools, religious schools and finaly, you can keep your kid at home and home school them. And if you think our kids get all their education from school, you may not have kids.



Again, you want to trade liberty for dependency. You are willing to support an authoritarian system that promises to care for your every need.

Such is the left.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have." - Dave Barry - (No, not Jefferson!)


----------



## manifold

Foxfyre said:


> Sorry but the Libertarian Party might perhaps restore some liberties that we have lost, *but it has developed its own forms of totalitarian emphasis that would take away other rights* as it restored some.





Do go on...


----------



## kaz

Contumacious said:


> There is a far better choice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> .



The Libertarian Party is completely useless.  Just a few examples.

1) Their focus on barn door issues.  For example, their obsession fighting the National ID.  Today everyone has one of 50 IDs that are all linked together.  The National ID is a horse out the barn door.

2)  Their obsession with appeasing the Democrats when Democrats call them Republicans.  They go out of their way to stretch to find issues to sound like Democrats because the Democrats keep saying they are Republicans instead of realizing that Democrats do that because they are stupid and the next time a liberal disagrees with them again they just call them a Republican again.  For example, Libertarians keep making it sound like they are on the side of Democrats in the middle east wars, when Libertarian solutions are nothing like Democratic ones.

3) Their Libertarian elitism is just like liberal elitism and they endlessly purge anyone who disagrees with them on any issue with endless litmus tests.  For example, no one has done more for the party to bring them attention that Neil Boortz, but he is endlessly told he isn't one because of his views on the war on terror and many of them object to him even speaking at the convention.

4)  Their refusal to back any solution that isn't "perfect."  For example, the fair tax is so much more libertarian than the income tax, but they will let a solution 100 times worse remain because they want no taxes.

5)  Their inability to focus on game changing issues.  They're still called the pot and sex party.  Granted again that's mostly because liberals are stupid, but they aren't doing anything to change it.


----------



## Contumacious

Foxfyre said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well the doctrine may not be fully accepted in America, but we have definitely arrived at a point of complacency that is allowing government unrestricted power that it is increasing day by day.  And little that is good is likely to come from that.  Government already pretty much controls the media, education, the work place, and healthcare.  It won't be long before the people will have no real liberties left.
> 
> *The Tea Party movement currently is pretty much the ONLY line of defense against that at this time.*  But the statists and government lovers among us are helping as much as they can to destroy the Tea Party movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a far better choice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry but the Libertarian Party might perhaps restore some liberties that we have lost, but it has developed its own forms of totalitarian emphasis that would take away other rights as it restored some.  .
Click to expand...


Really?

Who wold have thunketh?

What "totalitarian emphasis" are you referring too?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Contumacious said:


> There is a far better choice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> .



I am a registered Libertarian. I vote Libertarian. But my flaccid and impotent party is not a better choice, or a choice at all. We spend too much time attacking our own to ever pose a serious alternative.


----------



## Contumacious

Uncensored2008 said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a far better choice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a registered Libertarian. I vote Libertarian. But my flaccid and impotent party is not a better choice, or a choice at all. *We spend too much time attacking our own to ever pose a serious alternative.*
Click to expand...


No party who opposes the welfare/warfare state will pose a serious  threat to the fascists.

.


----------



## Foxfyre

Contumacious said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a far better choice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but the Libertarian Party might perhaps restore some liberties that we have lost, but it has developed its own forms of totalitarian emphasis that would take away other rights as it restored some.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> Who wold have thunketh?
> 
> What "totalitarian emphasis" are you referring too?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
> 
> .
Click to expand...


It is the Libertarians, not the Democrats or Republicans, who go after those creches on courthouse lawns, who push for total legalization of drugs even for those states or communities who don't want that, who push for relaxation of zoning restrictions that protect our property values, etc. etc. etc.

When the Libertarians realize that liberty also includes the right of the people to form social contract that creates the society they wish to have, then I will be on board with them.  As long as they fight against that concept, they could be as dangerous as the power grabbing dictatorial government we already have.

I am not at all opposed to social contract.  I am strongly opposed to a federal government who would presume to write that for us.


----------



## Uncensored2008

manifold said:


> Were you calling yourselves "Tea Partiers", or was it a Libertarian rally?



We were calling it a tax revolt. There were lots of references to the Boston Tea Party, but I can't say that anyone use the term specifically. It was definitely NOT a Libertarian rally. More populist.


----------



## kaz

Contumacious said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a far better choice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a registered Libertarian. I vote Libertarian. But my flaccid and impotent party is not a better choice, or a choice at all. *We spend too much time attacking our own to ever pose a serious alternative.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No party who opposes the welfare/warfare state will pose a serious  threat to the fascists.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Libertarians don't want to poll more than 1% because then they wouldn't be able to look down their snobby noses and scorn the ignorant masses.

I was very disappointed in them because even though I have so little hope left, I still want to fight the good fight.  Libertarians want to be smug and superior.


----------



## kaz

Foxfyre said:


> It is the Libertarians, not the Democrats or Republicans, who go after those creches on courthouse lawns, who push for total legalization of drugs even for those states or communities who don't want that, who push for relaxation of zoning restrictions that protect our property values, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> When the Libertarians realize that liberty also includes the right of the people to form social contract that creates the society they wish to have, then I will be on board with them.  As long as they fight against that concept, they could be as dangerous as the power grabbing dictatorial government we already have.
> 
> I am not at all opposed to social contract.  I am strongly opposed to a federal government who would presume to write that for us.



You realize there is nothing un-libertarian about living in a planned community with any rules you want?  The issue is government doing it.


----------



## Foxfyre

kaz said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a registered Libertarian. I vote Libertarian. But my flaccid and impotent party is not a better choice, or a choice at all. *We spend too much time attacking our own to ever pose a serious alternative.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No party who opposes the welfare/warfare state will pose a serious  threat to the fascists.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Libertarians don't want to poll more than 1% because then they wouldn't be able to look down their snobby noses and scorn the ignorant masses.
> 
> I was very disappointed in them because even though I have so little hope left, I still want to fight the good fight.  Libertarians want to be smug and superior.
Click to expand...


That can be true of a number of people in all political parties however.  I don't fault the Libertarians for believing they are better than the Democrats or GOP or Greens or whatever.  If they didn't believe that, they wouldn't be Libertarian would they?

I will give Libertarians props for having a LOT more people percentagewise within their ranks who can actually argue, debate, defend, and provide a rationale for what they promote than do the other parties.  Many Republicans and most Democrats cannot do that.

But even the Libertarians have some folks with heads full of mush who just recite the talking points they are assigned and never question them.

But if the Libertarians are going to gain any traction and achieve any success in American politics, they are going to have to rethink and redefine their concept of what liberty actually is.  Otherwise they will be shunned as radical fanatics that the people are not willing to take a chance on.  Evenso, a lot of Tea Partiers are sympathetic with many libertarian concepts.


----------



## kiwiman127

Lumpy 1 said:


> You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..would be popular, instead their persecuted by the left and the left want-to-Be's....



I'm pretty damn sure that a huge majority of Americans would agree with "the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government."
Where the problem for the Tea Party arises is how they deliver their message and the specific programs they want to cut or alter are programs a huge majority just happen to like.  
Take Medicare for example.  Paul Ryan's plan would privatize Medicare and use a voucher system based on the CPI.  A person voucher would increase annually based on the CPI.  The problem with that is that healthcare insurance historically has increased at a much higher rate than inflation! Between 1999 and 2009, healthcare insurance increased by 131%, inflation during that same time period increased by 28%, that's a difference of 103%!  Most people who would rely on Medicare are on fixed incomes and there will be more on fixed income with future generations as they have lived with flat wages for 30 plus years (which means decreasing expendable income) and have less of a chance to build their retirement nest eggs.  Plus today's Medicare negotiates with healthcare providers and so their increases in their premiums has average about two and half less than private insurance companies.
People aren't so stupid that they'd think Ryan's plan would be better.  It's very easy to see that these folks would get hurt greatly and the only one's to benefit with Ryan's plan would be private insurance companies.  This is simply, a transfer of wealth to the already wealthy while throwing grandma off the cliff.
The Medicare example is a perfect example of the Tea Party's train of thought.  Who gets hurt are the weak and who benefits are the strong.  
Thre's quite a bit of anger over Obamacare by the Tea Party and their anger is justified.  Knowing that a majority of Tea Party folks aren't in the top 10%, my guess that once they fell into the Ryan plan and starting struggling with finding the funds to pay for their healthcare insurance (ala the New Medicare), they'll be just as angry or even more so than they are today with Obamacare.


----------



## kaz

Foxfyre said:


> I will give Libertarians props for having a LOT more people percentagewise within their ranks who can actually argue, debate, defend, and provide a rationale for what they promote than do the other parties.  Many Republicans and most Democrats cannot do that.
> 
> But even the Libertarians have some folks with heads full of mush who just recite the talking points they are assigned and never question them.
> 
> But if the Libertarians are going to gain any traction and achieve any success in American politics, they are going to have to rethink and redefine their concept of what liberty actually is.  Otherwise they will be shunned as radical fanatics that the people are not willing to take a chance on.  Evenso, a lot of Tea Partiers are sympathetic with many libertarian concepts.



As a percent, sure, but are you referring to "Libertarians" or "libertarians."  The former is a group of about 1% who are committed to the party.  The latter is probably closer to 20% comprising independents, the politically homeless and many Republicans.  The difference in the first two is that I think independents generally like being independent while the politically homeless do not object to party affiliation but don't connect to any of the actual parties.

The problem I have is that I think it takes a party to oppose the leftist juggernaut, but once you become a party, then you start to act like government, which is what your party is fighting.  And you end up like the Libertarian party.


----------



## Contumacious

kaz said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a registered Libertarian. I vote Libertarian. But my flaccid and impotent party is not a better choice, or a choice at all. *We spend too much time attacking our own to ever pose a serious alternative.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No party who opposes the welfare/warfare state will pose a serious  threat to the fascists.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Libertarians don't want to poll more than 1% because then they wouldn't be able to look down their snobby noses and scorn the ignorant masses.
> 
> I was very disappointed in them because even though I have so little hope left, I still want to fight the good fight.  Libertarians want to be smug and superior.
Click to expand...


HUH?

We don't want to poll more that 1% if doing so requires giving up principles. That is what the Republican Party surrender caucus has been doing since 1935 , slowly adopting the democratic party's platform in order to acquire power.

.


----------



## kaz

Contumacious said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> No party who opposes the welfare/warfare state will pose a serious  threat to the fascists.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Libertarians don't want to poll more than 1% because then they wouldn't be able to look down their snobby noses and scorn the ignorant masses.
> 
> I was very disappointed in them because even though I have so little hope left, I still want to fight the good fight.  Libertarians want to be smug and superior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HUH?
> 
> We don't want to poll more that 1% if doing so requires giving up principles. That is what the Republican Part surrender caucus has been doing since 1935 , slowly adopting the democratic party's platform in order to acquire power.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


I gave a pretty specific critique of the party, can you address where you disagree with that?


----------



## BlackSand

kaz said:


> You realize there is nothing un-libertarian about living in a planned community with any rules you want?  The issue is government doing it.



That all depends on whether or not the agreement was made before anything was built ... Or at least before the people in said community have already invested in property rights. 
If it is retroactive on people who never agreed to your planning or rules (which is the case in many circumstances) ... Then I am with them in saying ... "Kiss my ass".

If people don't like that ... I know where you gat a lawyer that will help sue the crap out of a HOA .. Don't get me wrong ... It will put your neighbors in the hurt locker, because it will come out of their pocket.
But hey ... You can take the proceeds, along with what you make selling your house afterwards ... And build another one twice as nice further out in the country where people mind their own business.

.


----------



## Contumacious

kaz said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Libertarians don't want to poll more than 1% because then they wouldn't be able to look down their snobby noses and scorn the ignorant masses.
> 
> I was very disappointed in them because even though I have so little hope left, I still want to fight the good fight.  Libertarians want to be smug and superior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUH?
> 
> We don't want to poll more that 1% if doing so requires giving up principles. That is what the Republican Part surrender caucus has been doing since 1935 , slowly adopting the democratic party's platform in order to acquire power.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave a pretty specific critique of the party, can you address where you disagree with that?
Click to expand...




> Libertarians want to be smug and superior.



I might, if you define your premises.

.


----------



## bendog

kaz said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Libertarians, not the Democrats or Republicans, who go after those creches on courthouse lawns, who push for total legalization of drugs even for those states or communities who don't want that, who push for relaxation of zoning restrictions that protect our property values, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> When the Libertarians realize that liberty also includes the right of the people to form social contract that creates the society they wish to have, then I will be on board with them.  As long as they fight against that concept, they could be as dangerous as the power grabbing dictatorial government we already have.
> 
> I am not at all opposed to social contract.  I am strongly opposed to a federal government who would presume to write that for us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You realize there is nothing un-libertarian about living in a planned community with any rules you want?  The issue is government doing it.
Click to expand...


If you form a homeowners' assoc with restrictive covenants, you become a govt.  If you restrict what I can do with my property, or do not allow me to buy property in the restricted area, and build what I want, you infringe upon my right to do what I will with my private property.  IF you prevent me from buying property in the restricted area, you interfer with my right to contract with whomever will contract with me.


----------



## Contumacious

bendog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Libertarians, not the Democrats or Republicans, who go after those creches on courthouse lawns, who push for total legalization of drugs even for those states or communities who don't want that, who push for relaxation of zoning restrictions that protect our property values, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> When the Libertarians realize that liberty also includes the right of the people to form social contract that creates the society they wish to have, then I will be on board with them.  As long as they fight against that concept, they could be as dangerous as the power grabbing dictatorial government we already have.
> 
> I am not at all opposed to social contract.  I am strongly opposed to a federal government who would presume to write that for us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You realize there is nothing un-libertarian about living in a planned community with any rules you want?  The issue is government doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If you form a homeowners' assoc with restrictive covenants, you become a govt*.  If you restrict what I can do with my property, or do not allow me to buy property in the restricted area, and build what I want, you infringe upon my right to do what I will with my private property.  IF you prevent me from buying property in the restricted area, you interfer with my right to contract with whomever will contract with me.
Click to expand...


HUH? WTF?

If the ABC Real State Development company creates a gated community and wants to restrict the deeds to prevent certain acts from occurring there then buy property from the XYZ corporation or somewhere else. ABC rules apply to you ONLY if you reside within their property. They are not a government.

You stupid fascists are crazy. You allow the federal government to restrict all kinds of Constitutional rights without objecting . But if a private company does it,  then you go berserk.

.


----------



## Foxfyre

bendog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Libertarians, not the Democrats or Republicans, who go after those creches on courthouse lawns, who push for total legalization of drugs even for those states or communities who don't want that, who push for relaxation of zoning restrictions that protect our property values, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> When the Libertarians realize that liberty also includes the right of the people to form social contract that creates the society they wish to have, then I will be on board with them.  As long as they fight against that concept, they could be as dangerous as the power grabbing dictatorial government we already have.
> 
> I am not at all opposed to social contract.  I am strongly opposed to a federal government who would presume to write that for us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You realize there is nothing un-libertarian about living in a planned community with any rules you want?  The issue is government doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you form a homeowners' assoc with restrictive covenants, you become a govt.  If you restrict what I can do with my property, or do not allow me to buy property in the restricted area, and build what I want, you infringe upon my right to do what I will with my private property.  IF you prevent me from buying property in the restricted area, you interfer with my right to contract with whomever will contract with me.
Click to expand...


But the Founders intended that it be the right of the people to form whatever sort of society they wish to have.  The HOA isn't telling you how you are expected to live your life or conduct your affairs or use your property.  But if you wish to join their society, you will be expected to conform to certain rules that preserve everybody's quality of life and property values.   Your unalienable right to live your life as you choose does not extend to forcing others to participate in or incur the consequences of your choices.

Libertarians who would do away with the right to social contract in favor of personal anarchy are not consistent with the Founders intent.

Most Tea Partiers are.  The Founders did not approve of or condone the rigidly authoritarian and restrictive religious theocracies that some of the Colonists embraced.  But they fully recognized the right of the people to have those little theocracies if that is how they wanted to order their society.

They also recognized the right of any person to leave that society and live their own life elsewhere as they chose to do.

And the Founders also trusted the people to make mistakes, get it wrong sometimes, to sin, to err, and screw things up, but eventually to agree pretty much on the best way to do pretty much everything.  And until the federal government inserted itself into that process, beginning with the Theodore Roosevelt administration, the people did just that.

That is all the Tea Party asks for.  For the federal government to bust itself back to its constitutional roots, to recognize and secure our unalienable rights, and then leave us alone to live our lives and form whatever sort of societies we wish to have.


----------



## manifold

Libertarians advocate for limited government, not no government. Don't confuse them with anarchists.

And equating libertarianism with authoritarianism is even more retarded again, and not just because they're antonyms either.

Holy crap some of you folks have either had (or need) a lobotomy.


----------



## manifold

Foxfyre said:


> Libertarians who would do away with the right to social contract in favor of personal anarchy are not consistent with the Founders intent.



And they also wouldn't be libertarians. But what's in a label anyway, right.


----------



## bendog

Lumpy 1 said:


> You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..would be popular, instead their persecuted by the left and the left want-to-Be's....



It's like Sasha Cohen.  It's just so damn fun to throw garbage at the village idiot.  Mean, I grant you.  But so is human nature.


----------



## bendog

Contumacious said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You realize there is nothing un-libertarian about living in a planned community with any rules you want?  The issue is government doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If you form a homeowners' assoc with restrictive covenants, you become a govt*.  If you restrict what I can do with my property, or do not allow me to buy property in the restricted area, and build what I want, you infringe upon my right to do what I will with my private property.  IF you prevent me from buying property in the restricted area, you interfer with my right to contract with whomever will contract with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HUH? WTF?
> 
> If the ABC Real State Development company creates a gated community and wants to restrict the deeds to prevent certain acts from occurring there then buy property from the XYZ corporation or somewhere else. ABC rules apply to you ONLY if you reside within their property. They are not a government.
> 
> You stupid fascists are crazy. You allow the federal government to restrict all kinds of Constitutional rights without objecting . But if a private company does it,  then you go berserk.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


of course they're a govt.  They can only enforce their covenants by going to court and asking the govt to use it's police power to invalidate/prohibit a property use.

If I were a libertarian, which I am not, I'd be concerned that my right to contract to purchase property within the restriction, from another private citizen, would be infringed.  Further, if the seller could not convey to me any property he owned freely with only natural law use impediments, there'd be a restriction on his right to property.

And WTF woudl you call me a Nazi, when you're the one suggesting property rights be limited?  JFC, you people want it both ways.


----------



## bendog

Foxfyre said:


> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You realize there is nothing un-libertarian about living in a planned community with any rules you want?  The issue is government doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you form a homeowners' assoc with restrictive covenants, you become a govt.  If you restrict what I can do with my property, or do not allow me to buy property in the restricted area, and build what I want, you infringe upon my right to do what I will with my private property.  IF you prevent me from buying property in the restricted area, you interfer with my right to contract with whomever will contract with me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the Founders intended that it be the right of the people to form whatever sort of society they wish to have.  The HOA isn't telling you how you are expected to live your life or conduct your affairs or use your property.  But if you wish to join their society, you will be expected to conform to certain rules that preserve everybody's quality of life and property values.   Your unalienable right to live your life as you choose does not extend to forcing others to participate in or incur the consequences of your choices.
> 
> Libertarians who would do away with the right to social contract in favor of personal anarchy are not consistent with the Founders intent.
> 
> Most Tea Partiers are.  The Founders did not approve of or condone the rigidly authoritarian and restrictive religious theocracies that some of the Colonists embraced.  But they fully recognized the right of the people to have those little theocracies if that is how they wanted to order their society.
> 
> They also recognized the right of any person to leave that society and live their own life elsewhere as they chose to do.
> 
> And the Founders also trusted the people to make mistakes, get it wrong sometimes, to sin, to err, and screw things up, but eventually to agree pretty much on the best way to do pretty much everything.  And until the federal government inserted itself into that process, beginning with the Theodore Roosevelt administration, the people did just that.
> 
> That is all the Tea Party asks for.  For the federal government to bust itself back to its constitutional roots, to recognize and secure our unalienable rights, and then leave us alone to live our lives and form whatever sort of societies we wish to have.
Click to expand...


The founders were not libertarians.  Libertarians may seek to believe that, but belief alone doesn't make reality.


----------



## Rebelitarian

Lumpy 1 said:


> You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..would be popular, instead their persecuted by the left and the left want-to-Be's....



Since they were hijacked by undesireables mayI direct you to the Constitution Party.

We're serious and we're on the ballot.







Constitution Party > Home  The Official Website

Constitution Party Promotional Video

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_SobkISNrY]Constitution Party Promotional Video - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Redfish

bendog said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you form a homeowners' assoc with restrictive covenants, you become a govt.  If you restrict what I can do with my property, or do not allow me to buy property in the restricted area, and build what I want, you infringe upon my right to do what I will with my private property.  IF you prevent me from buying property in the restricted area, you interfer with my right to contract with whomever will contract with me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the Founders intended that it be the right of the people to form whatever sort of society they wish to have.  The HOA isn't telling you how you are expected to live your life or conduct your affairs or use your property.  But if you wish to join their society, you will be expected to conform to certain rules that preserve everybody's quality of life and property values.   Your unalienable right to live your life as you choose does not extend to forcing others to participate in or incur the consequences of your choices.
> 
> Libertarians who would do away with the right to social contract in favor of personal anarchy are not consistent with the Founders intent.
> 
> Most Tea Partiers are.  The Founders did not approve of or condone the rigidly authoritarian and restrictive religious theocracies that some of the Colonists embraced.  But they fully recognized the right of the people to have those little theocracies if that is how they wanted to order their society.
> 
> They also recognized the right of any person to leave that society and live their own life elsewhere as they chose to do.
> 
> And the Founders also trusted the people to make mistakes, get it wrong sometimes, to sin, to err, and screw things up, but eventually to agree pretty much on the best way to do pretty much everything.  And until the federal government inserted itself into that process, beginning with the Theodore Roosevelt administration, the people did just that.
> 
> That is all the Tea Party asks for.  For the federal government to bust itself back to its constitutional roots, to recognize and secure our unalienable rights, and then leave us alone to live our lives and form whatever sort of societies we wish to have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The founders were not libertarians.  Libertarians may seek to believe that, but belief alone doesn't make reality.
Click to expand...




they were closer to libertarians than to liberals, progressives, or conservatives.  They were all about individual freedom and individual responsibility.   A government of the people, by the people, and for the people---we do not have that today.


----------



## Flopper

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> Standing up for your principals is NOT right when the effect would be to either default on the debt or not pay entitlements, and that would have been the effect of not raiseing the debt ceiling or passing a CR.  Just because you have a princlpal doens't make you right.  Other sides have principles too.  A majority wants pols to comproemise and get biz done.  I realize you don't like that, but that's your fault, not the medias and not the majority's.  And you're not a victim.
> 
> 
> 
> The unpopularity of the Tea Party has doubled in the last two years and has brought the popularity of the GOP to lowest point in history.  Their unpopularity is not because of their beliefs.  The vast majority of people agree with Tea Party goals of low taxes and fiscally sound government.  They just reject the TP methods of achieving those goals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That just reveals the ever growing dependency of government found with each new generation over the last. They may talk about a fiscally responsible government with less taxes, until it means receiving less of what they "believe" they simply just can't do without.
Click to expand...

If that's what you believe, then wouldn't it make more sense to propose programs that  would make small steps toward a more fiscally responsible government that would stand a chance of being adopted than shooting for the moon.  Being a Democrat, it doesn't bother me if the Tea Party attempts to shutdown the government, pisses off every minority in the country, and repeals Obamacare for the 47 time because America needs a working two party system and that's not going happen as long as TP is controlling the GOP.


----------



## Contumacious

bendog said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If you form a homeowners' assoc with restrictive covenants, you become a govt*.  If you restrict what I can do with my property, or do not allow me to buy property in the restricted area, and build what I want, you infringe upon my right to do what I will with my private property.  IF you prevent me from buying property in the restricted area, you interfer with my right to contract with whomever will contract with me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUH? WTF?
> 
> If the ABC Real State Development company creates a gated community and wants to restrict the deeds to prevent certain acts from occurring there then buy property from the XYZ corporation or somewhere else. ABC rules apply to you ONLY if you reside within their property. They are not a government.
> 
> You stupid fascists are crazy. You allow the federal government to restrict all kinds of Constitutional rights without objecting . But if a private company does it,  then you go berserk.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *of course they're a govt.  They can only enforce their covenants by going to court and asking the govt to use it's police power to invalidate/prohibit a property use.*
> 
> If I were a libertarian, which I am not, I'd be concerned that my right to contract to purchase property within the restriction, from another private citizen, would be infringed.  Further, if the seller could not convey to me any property he owned freely with only natural law use impediments, there'd be a restriction on his right to property.
> 
> And WTF woudl you call me a Nazi, when you're the one suggesting property rights be limited?  JFC, you people want it both ways.
Click to expand...


If the ABC Property managemnt does not want children in their property and you bought and own property there then YOU have consented to their restriction.

Going to court to force you to abide or else is a proper use of the courts and the police powers.

.


----------



## Rebelitarian

Flopper said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that's what you believe, then wouldn't it make more sense to propose programs that  would make small steps toward a more fiscally responsible government that would stand a chance of being adopted than shooting for the moon.  Being a Democrat, it doesn't bother me if the Tea Party attempts to shutdown the government, pisses off every minority in the country, and repeals Obamacare for the 47 time because America needs a working two party system and that's not going happen as long as TP is controlling the GOP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right vote out both parties and put in Constitutionalists.
> 
> Constitution Party > Home
> 
> Make the Bilderberg connection already !!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Foxfyre

Flopper said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The unpopularity of the Tea Party has doubled in the last two years and has brought the popularity of the GOP to lowest point in history.  Their unpopularity is not because of their beliefs.  The vast majority of people agree with Tea Party goals of low taxes and fiscally sound government.  They just reject the TP methods of achieving those goals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That just reveals the ever growing dependency of government found with each new generation over the last. They may talk about a fiscally responsible government with less taxes, until it means receiving less of what they "believe" they simply just can't do without.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If that's what you believe, then wouldn't it make more sense to propose programs that  would make small steps toward a more fiscally responsible government that would stand a chance of being adopted than shooting for the moon.  Being a Democrat, it doesn't bother me if the Tea Party attempts to shutdown the government, pisses off every minority in the country, and repeals Obamacare for the 47 time because America needs a working two party system and that's not going happen as long as TP is controlling the GOP.
Click to expand...


The Tea Party isn't proposing programs at all. The Tea Party is proposing reforms of the system.  They haven't submitted any legislation whatsoever because they are an idea, a concept, a principle, a value rather than an initiative.  And they control nothing.  If they did, the GOP would be far more effective than it is.  We can only hope that those holding the ideas, concepts, principles, and values, will eventually be elected in sufficient numbers to make a difference.

And the Tea Party is 'unpopular' because it is so very feared by those whose power and wealth might be threatened by the Tea Partier principles and values, and therefore the IRS was ordered to refuse them status, the media is ordered to demonize them as much as possible, and the seminar people are sent to message boards like this one to post the nonsense about them such as you just posted.

And because we have become a nation of sheeple, who have the lost the capability of critical thought and no longer value truth and reasoned principles, too many  have become gullible idiots, uneducated and brainwashed so that they will swallow the nonsense when it is spoon fed to them and keep the totalitarians in power.

And the country is much the worse off for it.


----------



## freedombecki

Vandalshandle said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..would be popular, instead their persecuted by the left and the left want-to-Be's....
> 
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with being a Tea Party member or enthusiast. It has everything to do with dividing Republicans to the point that the left can push its wealth redistribution agenda, gain all seats of power, and then go for the neck of the Constitution or Chaos until an oligarchy of liberalism results. Since they've no place for conservatives, they can do what all wealth redistributors have done before them--jail vocal conservatives or create undesirable gulags to claim the assets with no resistance and become big cheeses like wealth redistributor enthusiast, Barack Obama.
> 
> [ame="http://youtu.be/z0PUUpa5X4E"]Barack Obama "I Believe in Redistribution of Wealth" Comment Loyola University 1998! - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, that. The democratic party can, in fact, be blamed for the republicans losing elections....!
Click to expand...

Not all of them know what the omuerta/unionista crowd does to make that happen.


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

Lumpy 1 said:


> You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..would be popular, instead their persecuted by the left and the left want-to-Be's....



*A scorched earth policy of reform paralyzes the economy, as we are seeing.  

The Tea Party will take this country down by a thousand small cuts.  

And you suckers who stand by them are going down with it.  Just remember that.

Logical approach:  First start with routing out waste and fraud.  Then see where we stand.

Illogical approach:  Shut the gov't down, commerce freezes and other countries start talking about "de-Americanizing".

Thanks Tea Party Fuckers.  Tea Party dumbasses think they own the planet. *


----------



## kaz

BlackSand said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You realize there is nothing un-libertarian about living in a planned community with any rules you want?  The issue is government doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That all depends on whether or not the agreement was made before anything was built ... Or at least before the people in said community have already invested in property rights.
> If it is retroactive on people who never agreed to your planning or rules (which is the case in many circumstances) ... Then I am with them in saying ... "Kiss my ass".
> 
> If people don't like that ... I know where you gat a lawyer that will help sue the crap out of a HOA .. Don't get me wrong ... It will put your neighbors in the hurt locker, because it will come out of their pocket.
> But hey ... You can take the proceeds, along with what you make selling your house afterwards ... And build another one twice as nice further out in the country where people mind their own business.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The whole point of a "planned community" is that you buy in knowing the rules and who makes the rules going forward (homeowners association).  Otherwise you're talking about government doing it, and that's what I said I find dubious.


----------



## Contumacious

NoTeaPartyPleez said:


> The Tea Party will take this country down by a thousand small cuts.



Write them a letter and tell them that Taxpayers owe you a living and hellcare.

.


----------



## kaz

Contumacious said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> HUH?
> 
> We don't want to poll more that 1% if doing so requires giving up principles. That is what the Republican Part surrender caucus has been doing since 1935 , slowly adopting the democratic party's platform in order to acquire power.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave a pretty specific critique of the party, can you address where you disagree with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Libertarians want to be smug and superior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I might, if you define your premises.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Post #360, not that one.  It's on the page preceding this one, I quoted you in it, you didn't see it?


----------



## kaz

bendog said:


> kaz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Libertarians, not the Democrats or Republicans, who go after those creches on courthouse lawns, who push for total legalization of drugs even for those states or communities who don't want that, who push for relaxation of zoning restrictions that protect our property values, etc. etc. etc.
> 
> When the Libertarians realize that liberty also includes the right of the people to form social contract that creates the society they wish to have, then I will be on board with them.  As long as they fight against that concept, they could be as dangerous as the power grabbing dictatorial government we already have.
> 
> I am not at all opposed to social contract.  I am strongly opposed to a federal government who would presume to write that for us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You realize there is nothing un-libertarian about living in a planned community with any rules you want?  The issue is government doing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you form a homeowners' assoc with restrictive covenants, you become a govt.  If you restrict what I can do with my property, or do not allow me to buy property in the restricted area, and build what I want, you infringe upon my right to do what I will with my private property.  IF you prevent me from buying property in the restricted area, you interfer with my right to contract with whomever will contract with me.
Click to expand...


That's ridiculous.  If a community buys lands and sells it only to those who agree to the terms of purchase, that is not infringing on anyone's rights.  If you don't want to agree to the terms, buy somewhere else.

That is fundamentally different than government because of consent.  Government is where you vote and take away the rights of people who had no choice.


----------



## kaz

bendog said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If you form a homeowners' assoc with restrictive covenants, you become a govt*.  If you restrict what I can do with my property, or do not allow me to buy property in the restricted area, and build what I want, you infringe upon my right to do what I will with my private property.  IF you prevent me from buying property in the restricted area, you interfer with my right to contract with whomever will contract with me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUH? WTF?
> 
> If the ABC Real State Development company creates a gated community and wants to restrict the deeds to prevent certain acts from occurring there then buy property from the XYZ corporation or somewhere else. ABC rules apply to you ONLY if you reside within their property. They are not a government.
> 
> You stupid fascists are crazy. You allow the federal government to restrict all kinds of Constitutional rights without objecting . But if a private company does it,  then you go berserk.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> of course they're a govt.  They can only enforce their covenants by going to court and asking the govt to use it's police power to invalidate/prohibit a property use.
> 
> If I were a libertarian, which I am not, I'd be concerned that my right to contract to purchase property within the restriction, from another private citizen, would be infringed.  Further, if the seller could not convey to me any property he owned freely with only natural law use impediments, there'd be a restriction on his right to property.
> 
> And WTF woudl you call me a Nazi, when you're the one suggesting property rights be limited?  JFC, you people want it both ways.
Click to expand...


Actually you are infringing on our rights because you are prohibiting us from making a freely chosen association.

1)  You are talking, not listening.

2)  I love the irony that now you're having government enforced lack of government where government prevents us from contracting even with our own free will.  Your government is declaring all agreements void.

The issue with #2 is #1...


----------



## kaz

bendog said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bendog said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you form a homeowners' assoc with restrictive covenants, you become a govt.  If you restrict what I can do with my property, or do not allow me to buy property in the restricted area, and build what I want, you infringe upon my right to do what I will with my private property.  IF you prevent me from buying property in the restricted area, you interfer with my right to contract with whomever will contract with me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the Founders intended that it be the right of the people to form whatever sort of society they wish to have.  The HOA isn't telling you how you are expected to live your life or conduct your affairs or use your property.  But if you wish to join their society, you will be expected to conform to certain rules that preserve everybody's quality of life and property values.   Your unalienable right to live your life as you choose does not extend to forcing others to participate in or incur the consequences of your choices.
> 
> Libertarians who would do away with the right to social contract in favor of personal anarchy are not consistent with the Founders intent.
> 
> Most Tea Partiers are.  The Founders did not approve of or condone the rigidly authoritarian and restrictive religious theocracies that some of the Colonists embraced.  But they fully recognized the right of the people to have those little theocracies if that is how they wanted to order their society.
> 
> They also recognized the right of any person to leave that society and live their own life elsewhere as they chose to do.
> 
> And the Founders also trusted the people to make mistakes, get it wrong sometimes, to sin, to err, and screw things up, but eventually to agree pretty much on the best way to do pretty much everything.  And until the federal government inserted itself into that process, beginning with the Theodore Roosevelt administration, the people did just that.
> 
> That is all the Tea Party asks for.  For the federal government to bust itself back to its constitutional roots, to recognize and secure our unalienable rights, and then leave us alone to live our lives and form whatever sort of societies we wish to have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The founders were not libertarians.  Libertarians may seek to believe that, but belief alone doesn't make reality.
Click to expand...


For example...


----------



## daveman

manifold said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would think that a group that believe *the government should follow the Constitution*...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except of course for trampling states rights with federal agencies such as the DEA.
> 
> That's a-ok, right?
Click to expand...


Oh, good grief.  Go buy a dime bag already.


----------



## Flopper

Rebelitarian said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right vote out both parties and put in Constitutionalists.
> 
> Constitution Party > Home
> 
> Make the Bilderberg connection already !!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the reincarnation of the Tea Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Foxfyre

bendog said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the Founders intended that it be the right of the people to form whatever sort of society they wish to have.  The HOA isn't telling you how you are expected to live your life or conduct your affairs or use your property.  But if you wish to join their society, you will be expected to conform to certain rules that preserve everybody's quality of life and property values.   Your unalienable right to live your life as you choose does not extend to forcing others to participate in or incur the consequences of your choices.
> 
> Libertarians who would do away with the right to social contract in favor of personal anarchy are not consistent with the Founders intent.
> 
> Most Tea Partiers are.  The Founders did not approve of or condone the rigidly authoritarian and restrictive religious theocracies that some of the Colonists embraced.  But they fully recognized the right of the people to have those little theocracies if that is how they wanted to order their society.
> 
> They also recognized the right of any person to leave that society and live their own life elsewhere as they chose to do.
> 
> And the Founders also trusted the people to make mistakes, get it wrong sometimes, to sin, to err, and screw things up, but eventually to agree pretty much on the best way to do pretty much everything.  And until the federal government inserted itself into that process, beginning with the Theodore Roosevelt administration, the people did just that.
> 
> That is all the Tea Party asks for.  For the federal government to bust itself back to its constitutional roots, to recognize and secure our unalienable rights, and then leave us alone to live our lives and form whatever sort of societies we wish to have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The founders were not libertarians.  Libertarians may seek to believe that, but belief alone doesn't make reality.
Click to expand...


Yes, the founders WERE libertarians - small 'L' - in their outlook, philosophy, and intent.  They were not Libertarians - capital "L" - who would use the federal government to create their own view of utopia.

The libertarianism of the Founders is also sometimes described as 'classical liberal' as opposed to the leftist, authoritarian, statist, political class that is defined 'liberal' in modern times in America.


----------



## Vandalshandle

"And the Tea Party is 'unpopular' because it is so very feared by those whose power and wealth might be threatened by the Tea Partier principles and values, and therefore the IRS was ordered to refuse them status, the media is ordered to demonize them as much as possible, and the seminar people are sent to message boards like this one to post the nonsense about them such as you just posted.
"

It's a conspiracy, I tell you! Black helecopters, NWO, and the secret masters of the IRS, media, and paid message board trolls..... Object, and risk being audited, or worse, have Rachel Maddows show up at your door at midnight asking you when you stopped beating your wife. They have infiltrated the Boy Scouts, and want to destroy our traditional family values. Soon, you will be forced to hire Jesus to do your yardwark, along with his gay fellow illegal immigrant, Gonzales.  When you have had enough and reach for your rifle, you will find that it has been confiscated and replaced by a copy of Chairman Mao's Little Red Book...


----------



## Foxfyre

Vandalshandle said:


> "And the Tea Party is 'unpopular' because it is so very feared by those whose power and wealth might be threatened by the Tea Partier principles and values, and therefore the IRS was ordered to refuse them status, the media is ordered to demonize them as much as possible, and the seminar people are sent to message boards like this one to post the nonsense about them such as you just posted.
> "
> 
> It's a conspiracy, I tell you! Black helecopters, NWO, and the secret masters of the IRS, media, and paid message board trolls..... Object, and risk being audited, or worse, have Rachel Maddows show up at your door at midnight asking you when you stopped beating your wife. They have infiltrated the Boy Scouts, and want to destroy our traditional family values. Soon, you will be forced to hire Jesus to do your yardwark, along with his gay fellow illegal immigrant, Gonzales.  When you have had enough and reach for your rifle, you will find that it has been confiscated and replaced by a copy of Chairman Mao's Little Red Book...



And provides fodder for professional trolls who are probably paid or otherwise bribed to infest message boards with your kind of nonsense.


----------



## Flopper

Foxfyre said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> That just reveals the ever growing dependency of government found with each new generation over the last. They may talk about a fiscally responsible government with less taxes, until it means receiving less of what they "believe" they simply just can't do without.
> 
> 
> 
> If that's what you believe, then wouldn't it make more sense to propose programs that  would make small steps toward a more fiscally responsible government that would stand a chance of being adopted than shooting for the moon.  Being a Democrat, it doesn't bother me if the Tea Party attempts to shutdown the government, pisses off every minority in the country, and repeals Obamacare for the 47 time because America needs a working two party system and that's not going happen as long as TP is controlling the GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Tea Party isn't proposing programs at all. The Tea Party is proposing reforms of the system.  They haven't submitted any legislation whatsoever because they are an idea, a concept, a principle, a value rather than an initiative.  And they control nothing.  If they did, the GOP would be far more effective than it is.  We can only hope that those holding the ideas, concepts, principles, and values, will eventually be elected in sufficient numbers to make a difference.
> 
> And the Tea Party is 'unpopular' because it is so very feared by those whose power and wealth might be threatened by the Tea Partier principles and values, and therefore the IRS was ordered to refuse them status, the media is ordered to demonize them as much as possible, and the seminar people are sent to message boards like this one to post the nonsense about them such as you just posted.
> 
> And because we have become a nation of sheeple, who have the lost the capability of critical thought and no longer value truth and reasoned principles, too many  have become gullible idiots, uneducated and brainwashed so that they will swallow the nonsense when it is spoon fed to them and keep the totalitarians in power.
> 
> And the country is much the worse off for it.
Click to expand...

Maybe the Tea Party doesn't propose legislation but their members certainly do.

So now America is a nation of sheep, without the capability of critical thought, that no longer values truth, uneducated and brainwashed.  Don't try to blame the failings of the Tea Party on the American people.  The Tea Party is failing, not because America rejects the Tea Party's principals but rather because the party cannot present a workable plan to achieve Tea Party goals.  The American people are basically conservative; that is, they are are opposed to radical change which is what Tea Party members are offering them, shutting down the government as a protest or fixing Medicare with a plan to abolish it.

America doesn't need someone to stand in the middle of a burning auditorium and scream fire.  What's needed is someone with an evaluation plan.


----------



## BlackSand

Flopper said:


> ... or fixing Medicare with a plan to abolish it.



*Uh ... It was President Obama that looted Medicare to the tune of $716 billon to help keep the cost of the ACA below $1.5 trillion ... And then said it was okay because he was fixing the waste and fraud in Medicare.*

.


----------



## Flopper

BlackSand said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... or fixing Medicare with a plan to abolish it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Uh ... It was President Obama that looted Medicare to the tune of $716 billon to help keep the cost of the ACA below $1.5 trillion ... And then said it was okay because he was fixing the waste and fraud in Medicare.*
> 
> .
Click to expand...

I was referring to Paul Ryan's plan to save Medicare which was soundly rejected by the American people.


----------



## BlackSand

Flopper said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... or fixing Medicare with a plan to abolish it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Uh ... It was President Obama that looted Medicare to the tune of $716 billon to help keep the cost of the ACA below $1.5 trillion ... And then said it was okay because he was fixing the waste and fraud in Medicare.*
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was referring to Paul Ryan's plan to save Medicare which was soundly rejected by the American people.
Click to expand...


*Oh ... I am pretty sure the American People (at least half of them) ... Don't give a rat's ass the President looted Medicare.*

.


----------



## Vandalshandle

Foxfyre said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> "And the Tea Party is 'unpopular' because it is so very feared by those whose power and wealth might be threatened by the Tea Partier principles and values, and therefore the IRS was ordered to refuse them status, the media is ordered to demonize them as much as possible, and the seminar people are sent to message boards like this one to post the nonsense about them such as you just posted.
> "
> 
> It's a conspiracy, I tell you! Black helecopters, NWO, and the secret masters of the IRS, media, and paid message board trolls..... Object, and risk being audited, or worse, have Rachel Maddows show up at your door at midnight asking you when you stopped beating your wife. They have infiltrated the Boy Scouts, and want to destroy our traditional family values. Soon, you will be forced to hire Jesus to do your yardwark, along with his gay fellow illegal immigrant, Gonzales.  When you have had enough and reach for your rifle, you will find that it has been confiscated and replaced by a copy of Chairman Mao's Little Red Book...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And provides fodder for professional trolls who are probably paid or otherwise bribed to infest message boards with your kind of nonsense.
Click to expand...


Well, you can't blame me for being an alarmist, now that you have explained to me that the aniti-tea party powers have ordered the IRS to refuse they status (whatever that means) and the Media has been ordered to demonize them! I can only guess that Fox didn't get the memo....


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

There are likely a lot of republicans in Virginia whod like to persecute the TPM.


----------



## HUGGY

Vandalshandle said:


> "And the Tea Party is 'unpopular' because it is so very feared by those whose power and wealth might be threatened by the Tea Partier principles and values, and therefore the IRS was ordered to refuse them status, the media is ordered to demonize them as much as possible, and the seminar people are sent to message boards like this one to post the nonsense about them such as you just posted.
> "
> 
> It's a conspiracy, I tell you! Black helecopters, NWO, and the secret masters of the IRS, media, and paid message board trolls..... Object, and risk being audited, or worse, have Rachel Maddows show up at your door at midnight asking you when you stopped beating your wife. They have infiltrated the Boy Scouts, and want to destroy our traditional family values. Soon, you will be forced to hire Jesus to do your yardwark, along with his gay fellow illegal immigrant, Gonzales.  When you have had enough and reach for your rifle, you will find that it has been confiscated and replaced by a copy of Chairman Mao's Little Red Book...



Is this REALLY *your *kind of nonsense..  ???  ORRRrrrrrr... have you taken it directly from your COMMIE....*MANIFESTO*..!!!!!!!!!!!  ?????????


----------



## Flopper

Flopper said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... or fixing Medicare with a plan to abolish it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Uh ... It was President Obama that looted Medicare to the tune of $716 billon to help keep the cost of the ACA below $1.5 trillion ... And then said it was okay because he was fixing the waste and fraud in Medicare.*
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was referring to Paul Ryan's plan to save Medicare which was soundly rejected by the American people.
Click to expand...

Obamacare reduces Medicare spending by $716 billion (over ten years), but it doesn't reduce Medicare benefits by a single dime. It's unlikely that Medicare beneficiaries will see any noticeable effects at all. About a third of the cuts come from reduced reimbursements to hospitals which offsets revenue increases that will result from having more people covered by insurance.  About a third comes from reducing over payments to insurance companies for Medicare Advantage plans.  These cut reduces the payments to equal the amount that Medicare pays for beneficiaries without these plans.  The remaining cuts comes from a number of areas which is used to eliminate the Medicare Drug program doughnut hole.

An Itsy Bitsy $716 Billion Medicare Q&A | Mother Jones


----------



## BlackSand

Flopper said:


> An Itsy Bitsy $716 Billion Medicare Q&A | Mother Jones



*Ah ... Mother Jones ... Now I know why you don't agree ... Thanks for the insight.*

.


----------



## Contumacious

Flopper said:


> America doesn't need someone to stand in the middle of a burning auditorium and scream fire.  What's needed is someone with an evaluation plan.



Translation from "liberal Orwellian doubletalk

America needs a new government agency, more bureaucrats, to increase taxes, inflate the currency and financially feed, insure and support the parasitic hordes.

Right?

.


----------



## Lumpy 1




----------



## Redfish

Flopper said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Uh ... It was President Obama that looted Medicare to the tune of $716 billon to help keep the cost of the ACA below $1.5 trillion ... And then said it was okay because he was fixing the waste and fraud in Medicare.*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I was referring to Paul Ryan's plan to save Medicare which was soundly rejected by the American people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obamacare reduces Medicare spending by $716 billion (over ten years), but it doesn't reduce Medicare benefits by a single dime. It's unlikely that Medicare beneficiaries will see any noticeable effects at all. About a third of the cuts come from reduced reimbursements to hospitals which offsets revenue increases that will result from having more people covered by insurance.  About a third comes from reducing over payments to insurance companies for Medicare Advantage plans.  These cut reduces the payments to equal the amount that Medicare pays for beneficiaries without these plans.  The remaining cuts comes from a number of areas which is used to eliminate the Medicare Drug program doughnut hole.
> 
> An Itsy Bitsy $716 Billion Medicare Q&A | Mother Jones
Click to expand...


No it doesn't.   Obama stole 716 million from medicare to fund the fiasco known as ACA.   Seniors will have their care reduced because of this.   wake up.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Flopper said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Uh ... It was President Obama that looted Medicare to the tune of $716 billon to help keep the cost of the ACA below $1.5 trillion ... And then said it was okay because he was fixing the waste and fraud in Medicare.*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> I was referring to Paul Ryan's plan to save Medicare which was soundly rejected by the American people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obamacare reduces Medicare spending by $716 billion (over ten years), but it doesn't reduce Medicare benefits by a single dime. It's unlikely that Medicare beneficiaries will see any noticeable effects at all. About a third of the cuts come from reduced reimbursements to hospitals which offsets revenue increases that will result from having more people covered by insurance.  About a third comes from reducing over payments to insurance companies for Medicare Advantage plans.  These cut reduces the payments to equal the amount that Medicare pays for beneficiaries without these plans.  The remaining cuts comes from a number of areas which is used to eliminate the Medicare Drug program doughnut hole.
> 
> An Itsy Bitsy $716 Billion Medicare Q&A | Mother Jones
Click to expand...


The other side of cutting costs, a problem that the mainstream media and Obama would rather not have addressed.



> A sweeping survey of 13,575 doctors released in September by the Physicians Foundation found that *77 percent* were pessimistic about the future of medicine.
> 
> The main reason: malpractice lawsuits, which the presidents law did little to address. After that, the top factors cited were Medicare/Medicaid/government regulations, reimbursement issues and uncertainty/changes of health reform.
> 
> Craig Garthwaite, professor at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, said he has concerns about doctor shortages in the coming years even if speculation about an Obamacare-induced physician exodus proves groundless.
> 
> He said the problem is that *as many as 32 million people are expected to be added to the health care system as a result of Obamacare, half of those as a result of the expansion of Medicaid. Many doctors already refuse to accept Medicaid patients because the government reimbursements for services rendered are well below the market rates.*
> 
> 'Obamacare' health care reform ALREADY forcing doctors to close practices - Washington Times


----------



## The T

Redfish said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was referring to Paul Ryan's plan to save Medicare which was soundly rejected by the American people.
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare reduces Medicare spending by $716 billion (over ten years), but it doesn't reduce Medicare benefits by a single dime. It's unlikely that Medicare beneficiaries will see any noticeable effects at all. About a third of the cuts come from reduced reimbursements to hospitals which offsets revenue increases that will result from having more people covered by insurance. About a third comes from reducing over payments to insurance companies for Medicare Advantage plans. These cut reduces the payments to equal the amount that Medicare pays for beneficiaries without these plans. The remaining cuts comes from a number of areas which is used to eliminate the Medicare Drug program doughnut hole.
> 
> An Itsy Bitsy $716 Billion Medicare Q&A | Mother Jones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it doesn't. Obama stole 716 million from medicare to fund the fiasco known as ACA. Seniors will have their care reduced because of this. wake up.
Click to expand...

 
*Smoking Gun: Obama Admits He Cut Billions from Medicare to Fund Obamacare*



> President Obama gutted Medicare by $700 Billion in order to partially pay for a brand new entitlement program.


 
Read more at the link...interesting condemning videos there as well....


----------



## mamooth

Why Tea Party persecution?

Because they get off on it. We're talking a sort of sexual gratification. The Tea Partiers aren't happy unless they can claim persecution, hence they invent endless stories of "persecution".

It's kind of gross. We wish the Tea Partiers would get some rooms and have their victimhood orgies in private.


----------



## R.C. Christian

Don't worry, we'll be in re-education camps soon! Those who can't be fixed like me will be sent on FEMA cars to death camps. Woo hoo.


----------



## Foxfyre

Vandalshandle said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> "And the Tea Party is 'unpopular' because it is so very feared by those whose power and wealth might be threatened by the Tea Partier principles and values, and therefore the IRS was ordered to refuse them status, the media is ordered to demonize them as much as possible, and the seminar people are sent to message boards like this one to post the nonsense about them such as you just posted.
> "
> 
> It's a conspiracy, I tell you! Black helecopters, NWO, and the secret masters of the IRS, media, and paid message board trolls..... Object, and risk being audited, or worse, have Rachel Maddows show up at your door at midnight asking you when you stopped beating your wife. They have infiltrated the Boy Scouts, and want to destroy our traditional family values. Soon, you will be forced to hire Jesus to do your yardwark, along with his gay fellow illegal immigrant, Gonzales.  When you have had enough and reach for your rifle, you will find that it has been confiscated and replaced by a copy of Chairman Mao's Little Red Book...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And provides fodder for professional trolls who are probably paid or otherwise bribed to infest message boards with your kind of nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, you can't blame me for being an alarmist, now that you have explained to me that the aniti-tea party powers have ordered the IRS to refuse they status (whatever that means) and the Media has been ordered to demonize them! I can only guess that Fox didn't get the memo....
Click to expand...


Except that it is well documented that the IRS targeted the Tea Party and made sure various groups did not qualify for not-for-profit status until the 2010 and 2012 election cycles had passed.   It was sufficiently grevious to prompt some House and Senate hearings.  Some pretty good documentation of that is in this thread:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/305541-phony-scandals.html

So your attempt to ridicule it with ridiculous stuff is either disingenuous or simply red herrings to change the subject?


----------



## Stashman

The reason they persecute the tea party is because there is NO difference between the other two so called parties. They are controlled by the same elites, and their true agenda gets will be successful this way regardless the party left/right that you vote for. The left is more adamantly opposing the tea party, but the right does so as well but in a more subtle manner.

I remember in the beginning when the tea party first came about telling a friend that it will soon be taken over by the right. It wasn't 2 yrs later that Sarah Palin switched over to run on the tea party ticket. Right now, nothing scares the elitist more than any one person or party that touts a constitutional platform. The U.S. Constitution is a hindrance for them, and goes against their true socialist/communist ideology.

IMO, backing a tea party candidate is not what a true constitutionalists should do. The tea party has been infiltrated.


----------



## Darkwind

Lumpy 1 said:


> You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..would be popular, instead their persecuted by the left and the left want-to-Be's....


But then, how would they be able to bribe the voters to keep them in power if the country did all of that?

They have no moral argument for their opposition to the T.E.A. Party.  They simply think that government is the epitome of all that is good and that if you oppose it, you must be a hater and therefore, destroyed.


----------



## Lumpy 1

awb300 said:


> What do you mean tea party persecution ?


----------



## Flopper

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was referring to Paul Ryan's plan to save Medicare which was soundly rejected by the American people.
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare reduces Medicare spending by $716 billion (over ten years), but it doesn't reduce Medicare benefits by a single dime. It's unlikely that Medicare beneficiaries will see any noticeable effects at all. About a third of the cuts come from reduced reimbursements to hospitals which offsets revenue increases that will result from having more people covered by insurance.  About a third comes from reducing over payments to insurance companies for Medicare Advantage plans.  These cut reduces the payments to equal the amount that Medicare pays for beneficiaries without these plans.  The remaining cuts comes from a number of areas which is used to eliminate the Medicare Drug program doughnut hole.
> 
> An Itsy Bitsy $716 Billion Medicare Q&A | Mother Jones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The other side of cutting costs, a problem that the mainstream media and Obama would rather not have addressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A sweeping survey of 13,575 doctors released in September by the Physicians Foundation found that *77 percent* were pessimistic about the future of medicine.
> 
> The main reason: malpractice lawsuits, which the presidents law did little to address. After that, the top factors cited were Medicare/Medicaid/government regulations, reimbursement issues and uncertainty/changes of health reform.
> 
> Craig Garthwaite, professor at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, said he has concerns about doctor shortages in the coming years even if speculation about an Obamacare-induced physician exodus proves groundless.
> 
> He said the problem is that *as many as 32 million people are expected to be added to the health care system as a result of Obamacare, half of those as a result of the expansion of Medicaid. Many doctors already refuse to accept Medicaid patients because the government reimbursements for services rendered are well below the market rates.*
> 
> 'Obamacare' health care reform ALREADY forcing doctors to close practices - Washington Times
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Doctor's are closing their practices?  I think if you look a little deeper, you will see they are selling their  practices to large clinics and hospitals and becoming their employees.  This trend started long before the ACA was passed.


----------



## The T

Darkwind said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..would be popular, instead their persecuted by the left and the left want-to-Be's....
> 
> 
> 
> But then, how would they be able to bribe the voters to keep them in power if the country did all of that?
> 
> They have no moral argument for their opposition to the T.E.A. Party. They simply think that government is the epitome of all that is good and that if you oppose it, you must be a hater and therefore, destroyed.
Click to expand...

The people that belive in the Constitution, The Republic...are a threat to their ill-gotten power.


----------



## The T

Lumpy 1 said:


> awb300 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean tea party persecution ?
Click to expand...

 Yeah Lumpster...I had the same reaction. Totally blind these people remain.


----------



## The T

mamooth said:


> Why Tea Party persecution?
> 
> Because they get off on it. We're talking a sort of sexual gratification. The Tea Partiers aren't happy unless they can claim persecution, hence they invent endless stories of "persecution".
> 
> It's kind of gross. We wish the Tea Partiers would get some rooms and have their victimhood orgies in private.


 
Then YOU talk about half of the population that belives in the Republic, And the Constitution and do not like what the political class are doing. And you try to wax poetic? YOU are a DUNCE.

YOU are herby dismissed. How DARE you talk about the people like that? YOU are outclassed by the people and YOU are part of the problem.

*SHITHEAD*


----------



## daveman

Lumpy 1 said:


> awb300 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean tea party persecution ?
Click to expand...

Progressives see their bigotry as natural.


----------



## Lumpy 1

The T said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> awb300 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean tea party persecution ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah Lumpster...I had the same reaction. Totally blind these people remain.
Click to expand...


I figure it's that DNA thing again...


----------



## TemplarKormac




----------



## mamooth

Have a good cry, Tea Partiers. Get it all out. That's right, you're so persecuted. I hear that some dirty liberal even called you a bad name once. Compared to you all, holocaust victims had it easy.


----------



## RKMBrown

mamooth said:


> Have a good cry, Tea Partiers. Get it all out. That's right, you're so persecuted. I hear that some dirty liberal even called you a bad name once. Compared to you all, holocaust victims had it easy.



You need a tissue? Tea Party folks are gonna take this country back and you are gonna need to earn a living for a change.


----------



## The T

mamooth said:


> Have a good cry, Tea Partiers. Get it all out. That's right, you're so persecuted. I hear that some dirty liberal even called you a bad name once. Compared to you all, holocaust victims had it easy.


 Cry? Really? Your likes have picked the wrong fight with the wrong group. WE are fighters, and mean to kick your collectivist asses and take this Republic back..._no matter how long it takes_.


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Flopper said:


> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obamacare reduces Medicare spending by $716 billion (over ten years), but it doesn't reduce Medicare benefits by a single dime. It's unlikely that Medicare beneficiaries will see any noticeable effects at all. About a third of the cuts come from reduced reimbursements to hospitals which offsets revenue increases that will result from having more people covered by insurance.  About a third comes from reducing over payments to insurance companies for Medicare Advantage plans.  These cut reduces the payments to equal the amount that Medicare pays for beneficiaries without these plans.  The remaining cuts comes from a number of areas which is used to eliminate the Medicare Drug program doughnut hole.
> 
> An Itsy Bitsy $716 Billion Medicare Q&A | Mother Jones
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The other side of cutting costs, a problem that the mainstream media and Obama would rather not have addressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A sweeping survey of 13,575 doctors released in September by the Physicians Foundation found that *77 percent* were pessimistic about the future of medicine.
> 
> The main reason: malpractice lawsuits, which the president&#8217;s law did little to address. After that, the top factors cited were &#8220;Medicare/Medicaid/government regulations,&#8221; &#8220;reimbursement issues&#8221; and &#8220;uncertainty/changes of health reform.&#8221;
> 
> Craig Garthwaite, professor at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, said he has concerns about doctor shortages in the coming years even if speculation about an Obamacare-induced physician exodus proves groundless.
> 
> He said the problem is that *as many as 32 million people are expected to be added to the health care system as a result of Obamacare, half of those as a result of the expansion of Medicaid. Many doctors already refuse to accept Medicaid patients because the government reimbursements for services rendered are well below the market rates.*
> 
> 'Obamacare' health care reform ALREADY forcing doctors to close practices - Washington Times
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Doctor's are closing their practices?  I think if you look a little deeper, you will see they are selling their  practices to large clinics and hospitals and becoming their employees.  This trend started long before the ACA was passed.
Click to expand...


No, I believe it's quite clear that what doctors are already having to put up with, through government dictating Medicare policy to them, that they are not a strong supporter of government controlled health care. There is no further details than what's already taking place.


----------



## The T

Lumpy 1 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah Lumpster...I had the same reaction. Totally blind these people remain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I figure it's that DNA thing again...
Click to expand...

 Yeah we see the result of severe indoctrination that flies in the face to human freewill/liberty as bred into humans by God himself. They might as well be toying with DNA.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Lumpy 1 said:


> You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..would be popular, instead their persecuted by the left and the left want-to-Be's....



You might 'think' members of the TP believe the government doesn't follow the supreme law of the land.  I think most members of the TP have no idea - and that includes you - of what is and what is not Constitutional.  That question is decided by The Supreme Court and even they rarely agree.

GWB cut taxes twice, and since he did the national debt has continued to grow.  If you had a large credit card balance, do you think taking a salary cut would aid in reducing that debt?

How does cutting government work?  Does one fire 50% of the work force in one year?  Do you 'think' that might have a deleterious effect on economic growth?

How do you see a "fiscally responsible government" operating?  Is it fiscally responsible to allow the nations infrastructure to waste away?  Do you believe spending to maintain a nation as do responsible home owners who paint and repair/replace gutters and roofs is responsible or not?

No doubt there is waste in government.  Yet I've noticed the Members of Congress who advocate cutting entitlements and refusing to raise the minimum wage rarely refuse the benefits offered to them by their election.


----------



## daveman

Wry Catcher said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..would be popular, instead their persecuted by the left and the left want-to-Be's....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might 'think' members of the TP believe the government doesn't follow the supreme law of the land.  I think most members of the TP have no idea - and that includes you - of what is and what is not Constitutional.  That question is decided by The Supreme Court and even they rarely agree.
> 
> GWB cut taxes twice, and since he did the national debt has continued to grow.  If you had a large credit card balance, do you think taking a salary cut would aid in reducing that debt?
> 
> How does cutting government work?  Does one fire 50% of the work force in one year?  Do you 'think' that might have a deleterious effect on economic growth?
> 
> How do you see a "fiscally responsible government" operating?  Is it fiscally responsible to allow the nations infrastructure to waste away?  Do you believe spending to maintain a nation as do responsible home owners who paint and repair/replace gutters and roofs is responsible or not?
> 
> No doubt there is waste in government.  Yet I've noticed the Members of Congress who advocate cutting entitlements and refusing to raise the minimum wage rarely refuse the benefits offered to them by their election.
Click to expand...

I've noticed that Members of Congress who think Obamacare is so awesome refused to be required to take it themselves.

But you just make excuses for the oligarchy.  That's what they want you to do.


----------



## The T

daveman said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..would be popular, instead their persecuted by the left and the left want-to-Be's....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might 'think' members of the TP believe the government doesn't follow the supreme law of the land. I think most members of the TP have no idea - and that includes you - of what is and what is not Constitutional. That question is decided by The Supreme Court and even they rarely agree.
> 
> GWB cut taxes twice, and since he did the national debt has continued to grow. If you had a large credit card balance, do you think taking a salary cut would aid in reducing that debt?
> 
> How does cutting government work? Does one fire 50% of the work force in one year? Do you 'think' that might have a deleterious effect on economic growth?
> 
> How do you see a "fiscally responsible government" operating? Is it fiscally responsible to allow the nations infrastructure to waste away? Do you believe spending to maintain a nation as do responsible home owners who paint and repair/replace gutters and roofs is responsible or not?
> 
> No doubt there is waste in government. Yet I've noticed the Members of Congress who advocate cutting entitlements and refusing to raise the minimum wage rarely refuse the benefits offered to them by their election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've noticed that Members of Congress who think Obamacare is so awesome refused to be required to take it themselves.
> 
> But you just make excuses for the oligarchy. That's what they want you to do.
Click to expand...

The political elitists are special folks...didn't you know?


----------



## Flopper

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ShaklesOfBigGov said:
> 
> 
> 
> The other side of cutting costs, a problem that the mainstream media and Obama would rather not have addressed.
> 
> 
> 
> Doctor's are closing their practices?  I think if you look a little deeper, you will see they are selling their  practices to large clinics and hospitals and becoming their employees.  This trend started long before the ACA was passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I believe it's quite clear that what doctors are already having to put up with, through government dictating Medicare policy to them, that they are not a strong supporter of government controlled health care. There is no further details than what's already taking place.
Click to expand...

Experts say the number of physicians unloading their practices to hospitals is up 30% to 40% in the last five years. Doctors who sell typically become employees of the hospital, as do the people who work for them.  The reasons for the trend vary. Doctors are tired of the hassle of filing insurance claims and collecting payments from patients and want to only focus on medicine again. Medicare reimbursement rates have fallen and insurance companies have been lowering their contract rates in their networks.

For most doctors, selling out to hospitals is good for both themselves and their patients.  Hours spent on running the business are available to see patients and coordinating care with hospital services and other physicians is is faster and more cost effective.

There are two kinds of private practices left in America. Those that sold to hospitals and those that are about to be so.


----------



## Wry Catcher

daveman said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You would think that a group that believe the government should follow the Constitution, reduce the national debt, lower taxes, reduce government waste and corruption and have fiscally responsible government..would be popular, instead their persecuted by the left and the left want-to-Be's....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might 'think' members of the TP believe the government doesn't follow the supreme law of the land.  I think most members of the TP have no idea - and that includes you - of what is and what is not Constitutional.  That question is decided by The Supreme Court and even they rarely agree.
> 
> GWB cut taxes twice, and since he did the national debt has continued to grow.  If you had a large credit card balance, do you think taking a salary cut would aid in reducing that debt?
> 
> How does cutting government work?  Does one fire 50% of the work force in one year?  Do you 'think' that might have a deleterious effect on economic growth?
> 
> How do you see a "fiscally responsible government" operating?  Is it fiscally responsible to allow the nations infrastructure to waste away?  Do you believe spending to maintain a nation as do responsible home owners who paint and repair/replace gutters and roofs is responsible or not?
> 
> No doubt there is waste in government.  Yet I've noticed the Members of Congress who advocate cutting entitlements and refusing to raise the minimum wage rarely refuse the benefits offered to them by their election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've noticed that Members of Congress who think Obamacare is so awesome refused to be required to take it themselves.
> 
> But you just make excuses for the oligarchy.  That's what they want you to do.
Click to expand...


I make no excuses for the power elite on either side of the aisle.


----------



## Foxfyre

Well for sure, one specific thing Tea Partiers would like to see happen is included in the overall concept of returning government to its constitutional roots:

One of the first things I think Tea Partiers would mandate is that no person in any part of government could use or obligate the tax payers' money to benefit any person, group, demographic, or entity that did not benefit everybody else - and -

Members of Congress would be required to submit themselves to ALL regulations, rules, and laws that they pass for anybody.

Would our leftist friends or anti-tea party folks agree to that?


----------



## Lumpy 1

Foxfyre said:


> Well for sure, one specific thing Tea Partiers would like to see happen is included in the overall concept of returning government to its constitutional roots:
> 
> One of the first things I think Tea Partiers would mandate is that no person in any part of government could use or obligate the tax payers' money to benefit any person, group, demographic, or entity that did not benefit everybody else - and -
> 
> Members of Congress would be required to submit themselves to ALL regulations, rules, and laws that they pass for anybody.
> 
> Would our leftist friends or anti-tea party folks agree to that?



It would probably depend upon what they were told to think and believe in by their masters in government. Democrats are all about the ends justifying the means.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Foxfyre said:


> Well for sure, one specific thing Tea Partiers would like to see happen is included in the overall concept of returning government to its constitutional roots:
> 
> One of the first things I think Tea Partiers would mandate is that no person in any part of government could use or obligate the tax payers' money to benefit any person, group, demographic, or entity that did not benefit everybody else - and -
> 
> Members of Congress would be required to submit themselves to ALL regulations, rules, and laws that they pass for anybody.
> 
> Would our leftist friends or anti-tea party folks agree to that?



Gee, providing counseling to PTSD vets who suffer from drug or alcohol dependence subsequent to serving in combat is opposed by "Tea Partiers" because it doesn't benefit the CEO's wife who consumes too many martini's.  Sorry for the inherent sarcasm here but that point I find ridiculous.

I agree with point number two, sadly both the Senate and the H. of Rep. right the rules for their own legislative process and the bills they pass.  No amount of pressure, it seems, could sway them to give up the many perks and benefits they have granted themselves.

Article I of the Constitution would need to be amended to force such a change in point number two.


----------



## Lumpy 1

Wry Catcher said:


> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well for sure, one specific thing Tea Partiers would like to see happen is included in the overall concept of returning government to its constitutional roots:
> 
> One of the first things I think Tea Partiers would mandate is that no person in any part of government could use or obligate the tax payers' money to benefit any person, group, demographic, or entity that did not benefit everybody else - and -
> 
> Members of Congress would be required to submit themselves to ALL regulations, rules, and laws that they pass for anybody.
> 
> Would our leftist friends or anti-tea party folks agree to that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, providing counseling to PTSD vets who suffer from drug or alcohol dependence subsequent to serving in combat is opposed by "Tea Partiers" because it doesn't benefit the CEO's wife who consumes too many martini's.  Sorry for the inherent sarcasm here but that point I find ridiculous.
> 
> I agree with point number two, sadly both the Senate and the H. of Rep. right the rules for their own legislative process and the bills they pass.  No amount of pressure, it seems, could sway them to give up the many perks and benefits they have granted themselves.
> 
> Article I of the Constitution would need to be amended to force such a change in point number two.
Click to expand...


I wonder if a "reliable link" would be possible..


----------



## BlackSand

Lumpy 1 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well for sure, one specific thing Tea Partiers would like to see happen is included in the overall concept of returning government to its constitutional roots:
> 
> One of the first things I think Tea Partiers would mandate is that no person in any part of government could use or obligate the tax payers' money to benefit any person, group, demographic, or entity that did not benefit everybody else - and -
> 
> Members of Congress would be required to submit themselves to ALL regulations, rules, and laws that they pass for anybody.
> 
> Would our leftist friends or anti-tea party folks agree to that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, providing counseling to PTSD vets who suffer from drug or alcohol dependence subsequent to serving in combat is opposed by "Tea Partiers" because it doesn't benefit the CEO's wife who consumes too many martini's.  Sorry for the inherent sarcasm here but that point I find ridiculous.
> 
> I agree with point number two, sadly both the Senate and the H. of Rep. right the rules for their own legislative process and the bills they pass.  No amount of pressure, it seems, could sway them to give up the many perks and benefits they have granted themselves.
> 
> Article I of the Constitution would need to be amended to force such a change in point number two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder if a "reliable link" would be possible..
Click to expand...


Catcher is trying to equate a PTSD Veteran suffering from drug or alcohol abuse to the CEO's wife  ... In regards to the comment about tax payer money and benefiting everyone equally.
Personally I agree with the point ... And if the CEO's wife is a veteran suffering from PTSD ... Then I agree she should have counseling available ... There is no need to exclude her because she is rich.

.


----------



## Foxfyre

Lumpy 1 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well for sure, one specific thing Tea Partiers would like to see happen is included in the overall concept of returning government to its constitutional roots:
> 
> One of the first things I think Tea Partiers would mandate is that no person in any part of government could use or obligate the tax payers' money to benefit any person, group, demographic, or entity that did not benefit everybody else - and -
> 
> Members of Congress would be required to submit themselves to ALL regulations, rules, and laws that they pass for anybody.
> 
> Would our leftist friends or anti-tea party folks agree to that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, providing counseling to PTSD vets who suffer from drug or alcohol dependence subsequent to serving in combat is opposed by "Tea Partiers" because it doesn't benefit the CEO's wife who consumes too many martini's.  Sorry for the inherent sarcasm here but that point I find ridiculous.
> 
> I agree with point number two, sadly both the Senate and the H. of Rep. right the rules for their own legislative process and the bills they pass.  No amount of pressure, it seems, could sway them to give up the many perks and benefits they have granted themselves.
> 
> Article I of the Constitution would need to be amended to force such a change in point number two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder if a "reliable link" would be possible..
Click to expand...


The Tea Party does not take a position on individual issues.  It focuses like a laser beam on the larger principle that the federal government should not be given authority to use our money to increase its own self-serving purposes and self-perpetuation meaning that it should no longer be allowed to dispense favors or benefits to ANY group, no matter how worthy, that are not dispensed to all.  That restriction would not likely extend to VA benefits for those in service in the U.S. military, however.  Because we ask our military to voluntarily set aside many of their unalienable rights and put their very lives on the line in service to their country, their medical benefits are rightfully included in their compensation.

And if it takes a constitutional amendment to rein in abuses of Congress who are enriching themselves greatly and setting themselves up for lifetime affluence at our expense while avoiding all the most unpleasant legislation they impose on the rest of us, then I'm quite sure there isn't a single Tea Partier anywhere who would not promote that amendment.


----------



## daveman

Wry Catcher said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> You might 'think' members of the TP believe the government doesn't follow the supreme law of the land.  I think most members of the TP have no idea - and that includes you - of what is and what is not Constitutional.  That question is decided by The Supreme Court and even they rarely agree.
> 
> GWB cut taxes twice, and since he did the national debt has continued to grow.  If you had a large credit card balance, do you think taking a salary cut would aid in reducing that debt?
> 
> How does cutting government work?  Does one fire 50% of the work force in one year?  Do you 'think' that might have a deleterious effect on economic growth?
> 
> How do you see a "fiscally responsible government" operating?  Is it fiscally responsible to allow the nations infrastructure to waste away?  Do you believe spending to maintain a nation as do responsible home owners who paint and repair/replace gutters and roofs is responsible or not?
> 
> No doubt there is waste in government.  Yet I've noticed the Members of Congress who advocate cutting entitlements and refusing to raise the minimum wage rarely refuse the benefits offered to them by their election.
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that Members of Congress who think Obamacare is so awesome refused to be required to take it themselves.
> 
> But you just make excuses for the oligarchy.  That's what they want you to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I make no excuses for the power elite on either side of the aisle.
Click to expand...

Laughable.


----------



## Lumpy 1

daveman said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've noticed that Members of Congress who think Obamacare is so awesome refused to be required to take it themselves.
> 
> But you just make excuses for the oligarchy.  That's what they want you to do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I make no excuses for the power elite on either side of the aisle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Laughable.
Click to expand...


..and unbelievable...


----------



## ShaklesOfBigGov

Flopper said:


> Experts say the number of physicians unloading their practices to hospitals is up 30% to 40% in the last five years. Doctors who sell typically become employees of the hospital, as do the people who work for them.  The reasons for the trend vary. Doctors are tired of the hassle of filing insurance claims and collecting payments from patients and want to only focus on medicine again. Medicare reimbursement rates have fallen and insurance companies have been lowering their contract rates in their networks.
> 
> For most doctors, selling out to hospitals is good for both themselves and their patients.  Hours spent on running the business are available to see patients and coordinating care with hospital services and other physicians is is faster and more cost effective.
> 
> There are two kinds of private practices left in America. Those that sold to hospitals and those that are about to be so.



Selling out to hospitals is not good for doctors, as Obamacare looks to cut costs. In order to be more "cost effective", doctors who look to hospitals will soon find the same below market value reimbursement rates that they saw through their own private practice. 



> Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) said that *reimbursement rates should &#8220;immediately&#8221; be made &#8220;site neutral&#8221;.* In other words, the price arbitrage between Medicare&#8217;s outpatient and inpatient billing schemes should be ended.
> 
> MedPAC said the fees that *Medicare pays under its hospital-based, Part A scheme should be cut to match the lower outpatient, Part B fee schedule*. &#8220;_f the same service can be safely provided in different settings, a prudent purchaser should not pay more for that service in one setting than in another,&#8221; the MedPAC report stated.
> 
> This reckoning was inevitable. *Physician reimbursement needs to come down to accommodate Obamacare.*
> 
> 
> Doctors Will Have To Take A Pay Cut Under Obamacare - Forbes _


_

When a doctor sells out their practice to a hospital, they will soon discover that they must still accept reimbursement rates BELOW market value due directly to Obamacare desiring to become more cost effective. As a result, you will not find doctors in favor of practicing medicine while government is looking to increase their workload while being forced to accept lower pay._


----------



## Wry Catcher

Lumpy 1 said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Foxfyre said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well for sure, one specific thing Tea Partiers would like to see happen is included in the overall concept of returning government to its constitutional roots:
> 
> One of the first things I think Tea Partiers would mandate is that no person in any part of government could use or obligate the tax payers' money to benefit any person, group, demographic, or entity that did not benefit everybody else - and -
> 
> Members of Congress would be required to submit themselves to ALL regulations, rules, and laws that they pass for anybody.
> 
> Would our leftist friends or anti-tea party folks agree to that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, providing counseling to PTSD vets who suffer from drug or alcohol dependence subsequent to serving in combat is opposed by "Tea Partiers" because it doesn't benefit the CEO's wife who consumes too many martini's.  Sorry for the inherent sarcasm here but that point I find ridiculous.
> 
> I agree with point number two, sadly both the Senate and the H. of Rep. right the rules for their own legislative process and the bills they pass.  No amount of pressure, it seems, could sway them to give up the many perks and benefits they have granted themselves.
> 
> Article I of the Constitution would need to be amended to force such a change in point number two.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wonder if a "reliable link" would be possible..
Click to expand...


Sure, here is the link:

Sarcasm | Define Sarcasm at Dictionary.com

Did you miss this:  "Sorry for the inherent sarcasm here but that point I find ridiculous."


----------



## Lumpy 1

Wry Catcher said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gee, providing counseling to PTSD vets who suffer from drug or alcohol dependence subsequent to serving in combat is opposed by "Tea Partiers" because it doesn't benefit the CEO's wife who consumes too many martini's.  Sorry for the inherent sarcasm here but that point I find ridiculous.
> 
> I agree with point number two, sadly both the Senate and the H. of Rep. right the rules for their own legislative process and the bills they pass.  No amount of pressure, it seems, could sway them to give up the many perks and benefits they have granted themselves.
> 
> Article I of the Constitution would need to be amended to force such a change in point number two.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if a "reliable link" would be possible..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure, here is the link:
> 
> Sarcasm | Define Sarcasm at Dictionary.com
> 
> Did you miss this:  "Sorry for the inherent sarcasm here but that point I find ridiculous."
Click to expand...


Sorry, I've never noticed you having a sense of humor, absurdity, most definitely.


----------



## Flopper

ShaklesOfBigGov said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Experts say the number of physicians unloading their practices to hospitals is up 30% to 40% in the last five years. Doctors who sell typically become employees of the hospital, as do the people who work for them.  The reasons for the trend vary. Doctors are tired of the hassle of filing insurance claims and collecting payments from patients and want to only focus on medicine again. Medicare reimbursement rates have fallen and insurance companies have been lowering their contract rates in their networks.
> 
> For most doctors, selling out to hospitals is good for both themselves and their patients.  Hours spent on running the business are available to see patients and coordinating care with hospital services and other physicians is is faster and more cost effective.
> 
> There are two kinds of private practices left in America. Those that sold to hospitals and those that are about to be so.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Selling out to hospitals is not good for doctors, as Obamacare looks to cut costs. In order to be more "cost effective", doctors who look to hospitals will soon find the same below market value reimbursement rates that they saw through their own private practice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC) said that *reimbursement rates should &#8220;immediately&#8221; be made &#8220;site neutral&#8221;.* In other words, the price arbitrage between Medicare&#8217;s outpatient and inpatient billing schemes should be ended.
> 
> MedPAC said the fees that *Medicare pays under its hospital-based, Part A scheme should be cut to match the lower outpatient, Part B fee schedule*. &#8220;_f the same service can be safely provided in different settings, a prudent purchaser should not pay more for that service in one setting than in another,&#8221; the MedPAC report stated.
> 
> This reckoning was inevitable. *Physician reimbursement needs to come down to accommodate Obamacare.*
> 
> 
> Doctors Will Have To Take A Pay Cut Under Obamacare - Forbes _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _
> 
> When a doctor sells out their practice to a hospital, they will soon discover that they must still accept reimbursement rates BELOW market value due directly to Obamacare desiring to become more cost effective. As a result, you will not find doctors in favor of practicing medicine while government is looking to increase their workload while being forced to accept lower pay._
Click to expand...

_
My brother who was in partnership with 4 other doctors sold their practice to a local hospital and it certainly benefited him.  He's has more time for his patients and makes about same amount of money. He's tie into the hospital/clinic network and can see the results of patient's x-rays, mri's, blood test, hospital status, and other doctors notes and treatments in minutes or hours.  Instead of driving to the hospital to see a patient, he has a short walk to next building.   It's a big plus for many doctors.  The trend started long before Obamacare.  However Obamacare probably accelerated it because reimbursement rates to hospitals have stayed about the same while they've gone down for many doctors.

I think the perception that most doctors want to be entrepreneurs is wrong.  Most doctors want to practice medicine, not run a business._


----------



## Uncensored2008

Flopper said:


> Experts say the number of physicians unloading their practices to hospitals is up 30% to 40% in the last five years.



Since they know their business will be seized by the government, it's a wise move.



> Doctors who sell typically become employees of the hospital, as do the people who work for them.



False.

Typically the owning doctors leave medicine after selling the practice. 

The number of actual physicians in the United States is dropping dramatically. Patients visiting facilities rarely, if ever see a physician. You might see a Physicians assistant or an RN - but most likely the person treating you will be a medical technician, with about 2 years of post high school education.

https://www.aamc.org/download/286592/data/

Socialism in action.



> The reasons for the trend vary. Doctors are tired of the hassle of filing insurance claims and collecting payments from patients and want to only focus on medicine again.



Your claims are false and your conclusions, based on those falsehoods is absurd. The risk/reward calculus no longer makes it advantageous to be a doctor. 



> Medicare reimbursement rates have fallen and insurance companies have been lowering their contract rates in their networks.
> 
> For most doctors, selling out to hospitals is good for both themselves and their patients.  Hours spent on running the business are available to see patients and coordinating care with hospital services and other physicians is is faster and more cost effective.



Bullshit.

It is a disaster for the patient. Medical care is about as personal as a trip to the DMV. The technician seeing you might have your chart, but has no clue what your condition is and will ONLY treat what is obvious. Do NOT expect health care - only treatment. 



> There are two kinds of private practices left in America. Those that sold to hospitals and those that are about to be so.



And so the era of quality health care ends. Celebrate the mediocre and mundane - it is the way of socialism.


----------



## Foxfyre

Uncensored2008 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Experts say the number of physicians unloading their practices to hospitals is up 30% to 40% in the last five years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since they know their business will be seized by the government, it's a wise move.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doctors who sell typically become employees of the hospital, as do the people who work for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False.
> 
> Typically the owning doctors leave medicine after selling the practice.
> 
> The number of actual physicians in the United States is dropping dramatically. Patients visiting facilities rarely, if ever see a physician. You might see a Physicians assistant or an RN - but most likely the person treating you will be a medical technician, with about 2 years of post high school education.
> 
> https://www.aamc.org/download/286592/data/
> 
> Socialism in action.
> 
> 
> 
> Your claims are false and your conclusions, based on those falsehoods is absurd. The risk/reward calculus no longer makes it advantageous to be a doctor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Medicare reimbursement rates have fallen and insurance companies have been lowering their contract rates in their networks.
> 
> For most doctors, selling out to hospitals is good for both themselves and their patients.  Hours spent on running the business are available to see patients and coordinating care with hospital services and other physicians is is faster and more cost effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> It is a disaster for the patient. Medical care is about as personal as a trip to the DMV. The technician seeing you might have your chart, but has no clue what your condition is and will ONLY treat what is obvious. Do NOT expect health care - only treatment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are two kinds of private practices left in America. Those that sold to hospitals and those that are about to be so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so the era of quality health care ends. Celebrate the mediocre and mundane - it is the way of socialism.
Click to expand...


I have the pleasure and duty of driving my elderly aunt and uncle to their many doctor appointments.  And because the family general practioner is effectively non existent any more, they need a different doctor for each of the many medical issues that are being treated.

As you point out, it has become unusual for them to see the doctor on these visits.  It more often is with a PA or just the nurse or tech who checks them over, enters the information into the computer, charges them the same amount that would be charged if they had seen a doctor, and sends them on their way.  But to make sure there would be no inadvertent errors, I have taken the time to list every medication they take, the dosage, who prescribed it, etc.  and also a list of 12 different doctors they see.  

Most of their doctors were American born just a few years ago.  But after a few years of phasing in Obamacare--I'm not saying that is the only reason but it is interesting that the two events coincide--they now have one out of the twelve who is American born.    It is taking increasingly longer to get an appointment to see even your primary doctor,  the waits are longer in the waiting rooms, the hospitals are seriously understaffed, and to get a call back from a doctor within a reasonable time is rare.  We utilize emergency rooms more than ever because that is the only medical service you can get on short notice.  Both Mr. Foxfyre and I have lost our primary physicians this year and our copays and deductibles have been doubled.

It is unfortunate that the same people who are defending or shrugging off this syndrome are the same people who hold the Tea Party in such disdain.

If the medical system was still being run by Tea Party ideals, it would still be the best in the world.


----------



## Flopper

Uncensored2008 said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Experts say the number of physicians unloading their practices to hospitals is up 30% to 40% in the last five years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since they know their business will be seized by the government, it's a wise move.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doctors who sell typically become employees of the hospital, as do the people who work for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> False.
> 
> Typically the owning doctors leave medicine after selling the practice.
> 
> The number of actual physicians in the United States is dropping dramatically. Patients visiting facilities rarely, if ever see a physician. You might see a Physicians assistant or an RN - but most likely the person treating you will be a medical technician, with about 2 years of post high school education.
> 
> https://www.aamc.org/download/286592/data/
> 
> Socialism in action.
> 
> 
> 
> Your claims are false and your conclusions, based on those falsehoods is absurd. The risk/reward calculus no longer makes it advantageous to be a doctor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Medicare reimbursement rates have fallen and insurance companies have been lowering their contract rates in their networks.
> 
> For most doctors, selling out to hospitals is good for both themselves and their patients.  Hours spent on running the business are available to see patients and coordinating care with hospital services and other physicians is is faster and more cost effective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> It is a disaster for the patient. Medical care is about as personal as a trip to the DMV. The technician seeing you might have your chart, but has no clue what your condition is and will ONLY treat what is obvious. Do NOT expect health care - only treatment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are two kinds of private practices left in America. Those that sold to hospitals and those that are about to be so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so the era of quality health care ends. Celebrate the mediocre and mundane - it is the way of socialism.
Click to expand...

*From your link, "The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimates that the physician supply will increase by only 7 percent in the next 10 years."  The projected shortage in doctors is is not because of a mass exit but rather an increased demand for their services.  Demand for more medical services by baby boomers plus millions of new patients due to Obamacare will put a strain on the system.  Conservatives will consider it a crisis.  I doubt those that haven't been able to afford medical care in years will mind.

What we should be discussing is how to increase the number of doctors, not reducing the number of patients.*


----------



## HenryBHough

You'll LIKE "Concierge Care" but only after you've experienced the cost of buying Obamacare.


----------



## daveman

Flopper said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Experts say the number of physicians unloading their practices to hospitals is up 30% to 40% in the last five years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since they know their business will be seized by the government, it's a wise move.
> 
> 
> 
> False.
> 
> Typically the owning doctors leave medicine after selling the practice.
> 
> The number of actual physicians in the United States is dropping dramatically. Patients visiting facilities rarely, if ever see a physician. You might see a Physicians assistant or an RN - but most likely the person treating you will be a medical technician, with about 2 years of post high school education.
> 
> https://www.aamc.org/download/286592/data/
> 
> Socialism in action.
> 
> 
> 
> Your claims are false and your conclusions, based on those falsehoods is absurd. The risk/reward calculus no longer makes it advantageous to be a doctor.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> It is a disaster for the patient. Medical care is about as personal as a trip to the DMV. The technician seeing you might have your chart, but has no clue what your condition is and will ONLY treat what is obvious. Do NOT expect health care - only treatment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are two kinds of private practices left in America. Those that sold to hospitals and those that are about to be so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And so the era of quality health care ends. Celebrate the mediocre and mundane - it is the way of socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *From your link, "The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services estimates that the physician supply will increase by only 7 percent in the next 10 years."  The projected shortage in doctors is is not because of a mass exit but rather an increased demand for their services.  Demand for more medical services by baby boomers plus millions of new patients due to Obamacare will put a strain on the system.  Conservatives will consider it a crisis.  I doubt those that haven't been able to afford medical care in years will mind.
> 
> What we should be discussing is how to increase the number of doctors, not reducing the number of patients.*
Click to expand...

I know!  I know!  How about yet another in a seemingly _endless_ fucking series of wasteful, inefficient, incompetently-run and poorly-thought-out government programs?

Hey, it's only tax dollars, right?


----------



## Lumpy 1

..and the persecution continues...


----------

