# Are there USMB conservative Republicans who DISLIKE the Tea Bagger/Partier movement?



## Stainmaster (May 5, 2010)

I kind of got sucked into this Tea Bagger/Partier issue because a poster labeled one of America's civil rights leaders as a bigot.  I am not sure, but I may have been pulled into the Tea Bagger/Partier thing because I am an Independent.  

Regardless, I have yet to recognize a conservative Republican who has spoke out against the Tea Baggers/Partiers.  If you are out there this thread is for you.  I know I would like to know what you think.


----------



## Tom Clancy (May 5, 2010)

You rang?


----------



## HUGGY (May 5, 2010)

Dude....put a shirt on...Pleeeezzzz!


----------



## Madeline (May 5, 2010)

Stainmaster said:


> I kind of got sucked into this Tea Bagger/Partier issue because a poster labeled one of America's civil rights leaders as a bigot.  I am not sure, but I may have been pulled into the Tea Bagger/Partier thing because I am an Independent.
> 
> Regardless, I have yet to recognize a conservative Republican who has spoke out against the Tea Baggers/Partiers.  If you are out there this thread is for you.  I know I would like to know what you think.



Stainmaster, I am a registered, card-carrying Republican and have been since like 1985.  I qualify as a "conservative" in some POVs and not so much in others.  I dislike the undercurrents of some Tea Baggers' events/rhetoric but no party is perfect.  After all, the RNC is run by Michael "sucks to be black" Steele.

All in all though, I think if the Tea Baggers swept away the RNC and became the Other Party, it would be great for this nation.  And besides, people who likely never bothered to get off their asses and protest before are rabble rousin'...and that's almost always a VERY good thing.

The future of the TB Movement depends largely on whether a qualified and effective candidate emerges and unifies them.  Mebbe Jesse Ventura?  And they have GOT to lose Pailn....they cannot go anywhere if their star is hitched to Bozo the Clown.


----------



## RadiomanATL (May 5, 2010)

Tea party started out as a good idea. But like all such things in politics, it has been 80% co-opted by one of the major parties in order for the major party to get it's populist street cred back. Which, ironically, kinda ruins the movement.

So yeah, I'm against the Tea party, but not against their core beliefs. Smaller government (as a whole) and lower taxes.


----------



## Stainmaster (May 5, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> > I kind of got sucked into this Tea Bagger/Partier issue because a poster labeled one of America's civil rights leaders as a bigot.  I am not sure, but I may have been pulled into the Tea Bagger/Partier thing because I am an Independent.
> ...



Thank you for your well though out, non-emotional post.


----------



## uptownlivin90 (May 5, 2010)

Yes, there are. There are like five so-called "conservatives" on this board that I've determined are actually those liberal tea party crashers that try to make the tea parties look like a bunch of fat half-retarded redneck racists by saying blatantly racist things on USMB and then claiming that the movement isn't racist because they're apart of it. I've been thinking about notifying some of the tea party organizers about some of the fraudulent activities going on...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 5, 2010)

Stainmaster said:


> I kind of got sucked into this Tea Bagger/Partier issue because a poster labeled one of America's civil rights leaders as a bigot.  I am not sure, but I may have been pulled into the Tea Bagger/Partier thing because I am an Independent.
> 
> Regardless, I have yet to recognize a conservative Republican who has spoke out against the Tea Baggers/Partiers.  If you are out there this thread is for you.  I know I would like to know what you think.



I think the same thing I thought from your very first post: you're a fake, a poseur, an Obamaroid on the world's ass

Also, LBJ was a full blown cracker, redneck, peckerwood, racist. If you bothered to read anything at all about him you'd know that. 

So that tells me that you're a fraud and are either committed to staying ignorant on LBJ or just fried your brain from snorting the Kool Aid.  Ignoring the evidence of LBJ's racism does not make him any less of a bigot.


----------



## LuckyDan (May 5, 2010)

Honestly I don't know much about the movement, other than it drives libs totally and completely batshit. So, yeah. I like it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 5, 2010)

Also, I can point to exactly where and how you outed yourself, but then that would make the next Jake Starke/Stairmaster just a little harder for me to spot.


----------



## Madeline (May 5, 2010)

Stainmaster said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Stainmaster said:
> ...



Was that a snotty reply or a compliment?  Cue me in Stainmaster, LOL.


----------



## Madeline (May 5, 2010)

uptownlivin90 said:


> Yes, there are. There are like five so-called "conservatives" on this board that I've determined are actually those liberal tea party crashers that try to make the tea parties look like a bunch of fat half-retarded redneck racists by saying blatantly racist things on USMB and then claiming that the movement isn't racist because they're apart of it. I've been thinking about notifying some of the tea party organizers about some of the fraudulent activities going on...



There HAS been some bad behavior like this, much as it pains me to admit it.  It was such a simple world I lived in, till I was forced to admit there are asswipes and fuckwhits on every point of the political spectrum...and there are some great people at _all_ points as well.


----------



## Dante (May 6, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Dude....put a shirt on...Pleeeezzzz!



Dude, put a bag over your head.


----------



## Si modo (May 6, 2010)

Do you wax your chest?  Or, do you use Nair?  Or, you just haven't gotten any chest hair yet?

Just curious.

Onto the topic:  I'm GOP because I had to choose a party when I moved to a different state.  The DMV person (not too bright, either) demanded that I choose a party to register.  She was Democrat, so I chose GOP.  Otherwise, I would have no party other than the Tea Party.


----------



## hjmick (May 6, 2010)

Which civil rights leader was labeled a bigot?


----------



## Truthmatters (May 6, 2010)

HUGGY said:


> Dude....put a shirt on...Pleeeezzzz!



SSSSSHHHHHH!

hes just fine


----------



## hjmick (May 6, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Dude....put a shirt on...Pleeeezzzz!
> ...



You old perv...


----------



## California Girl (May 6, 2010)

Stainmaster said:


> I kind of got sucked into this Tea Bagger/Partier issue because a poster labeled one of America's civil rights leaders as a bigot.  I am not sure, but I may have been pulled into the Tea Bagger/Partier thing because I am an Independent.
> 
> Regardless, I have yet to recognize a conservative Republican who has spoke out against the Tea Baggers/Partiers.  If you are out there this thread is for you.  I know I would like to know what you think.



I would like to know why you think you deserve a reasoned response when you start a thread by insulting the TEA Partiers? Does that not make you a fucking idiot? I believe it does.


----------



## Truthmatters (May 6, 2010)

hjmick said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



Kids can be cute.


----------



## HUGGY (May 6, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



Ya that's all fine and dandy in the back yard on a hot day..kiddies splashin in that blow up swimming pool...Good times..

In public?...not so much.....


----------



## Rocky Top Lady (May 6, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Do you wax your chest?  Or, do you use Nair?  Or, you just haven't gotten any chest hair yet?
> 
> Just curious.


----------



## bodecea (May 6, 2010)

LuckyDan said:


> Honestly I don't know much about the movement, other than it drives libs totally and completely batshit. So, yeah. I like it.



I was told that there were liberals in the Tea Party movement too....are you saying that is incorrect?


----------



## Immanuel (May 6, 2010)

Stainmaster said:


> I kind of got sucked into this Tea Bagger/Partier issue because a poster labeled one of America's civil rights leaders as a bigot.  I am not sure, but I may have been pulled into the Tea Bagger/Partier thing because I am an Independent.
> 
> Regardless, I have yet to recognize a conservative Republican who has spoke out against the Tea Baggers/Partiers.  If you are out there this thread is for you.  I know I would like to know what you think.



Do I have to be Republican to answer this?  Will ex-Republican suffice?

I would have to say that I agree a lot with RadiomanATL about the movement.  The ideas are decent, but from everything I can tell those ideas are just ink on paper.  The movement (in my humble opinion) seems to promote Republicanism rather than fiscal responsibility.

So, do I dislike the movement?  Yes, because they seem to be along the same lines as ACORN (Oh shit, am I going to hear about this!) rather than a movement promoting fiscal responsibility.

Oh, I do have a slight problem though, I seem to be going through an identity crisis.  I'm no longer 100% certain that I am conservative anymore.  When I listen to those who purport to be conservative, I find myself thinking WTF? more often than not lately.  I'm not liberal by any stretch of the imagination, but sometimes I simply can't figure out where some of those conservatives come up with what the say.

Immie


----------



## Si modo (May 6, 2010)

Immanuel said:


> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> > I kind of got sucked into this Tea Bagger/Partier issue because a poster labeled one of America's civil rights leaders as a bigot.  I am not sure, but I may have been pulled into the Tea Bagger/Partier thing because I am an Independent.
> ...



It helps me to know that the words liberal and conservative are both skewed from their original polital meaning and too broad.

I am fiscally conservative.  I am socially liberal.  So, I piss off both the left and the right (as if the left and/or the right has any specific meaning, either, here).  I piss off libertarians because I am not conservative on defense spending.

It's a a pain in the ass not being able to pin a label on myself.  (Neocon comes close.  Oh NO!.  I said neocon.)


----------



## Immanuel (May 6, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Stainmaster said:
> ...



The Neo-cons are the reason I don't want to be associated with conservatism anymore.  "Compassionate Conservative" my ass!  

But, I don't have a problem with your postings... at least not all that often.  In fact, I can't think of any times that I have been bothered by your posts.

Immie


----------



## Si modo (May 6, 2010)

Immanuel said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


Compassionate?  Me?  Nah.


----------



## Immanuel (May 6, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Actually, I was thinking of the man who claimed to be a compassionate conservative and was found out to be a neo-con.  Or rather the puppet of neo-cons.

Immie


----------



## Si modo (May 6, 2010)

Immanuel said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Immanuel said:
> ...


Bush ended up being a fail of a neocon.  He played the role for a while, though.


----------



## Immanuel (May 6, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Immanuel said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



I suppose he screwed up the idea of Neo-con, much as he screwed up the ideas of compassion and conservatism.  

But, I'm no fan of what I have read about the neo-conservative movement, so, I must be looking at if from a slightly partisan view.

Immie


----------



## manu1959 (May 6, 2010)

Truthmatters said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> > Truthmatters said:
> ...



that is what the dude from the vatican said....


----------



## geauxtohell (May 6, 2010)

Si modo said:


> It's a a pain in the ass not being able to pin a label on myself.  (Neocon comes close.  Oh NO!.  I said neocon.)



Seriously?  You are hip with using American military force to spread democracy?



> Bush ended up being a fail of a neocon.  He played the role for a while, though.



Well, yeah.  Initially he surrounded himself with Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, and other people who had contributed to academic thought in line with "neo-con" principles.  He moved away from them (and fired them) when he realized how asinine their political science theories were. 

It's too bad.  I truly think Bush would have been a great president if he had surrounded himself with better people.


----------



## Si modo (May 6, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > It's a a pain in the ass not being able to pin a label on myself.  (Neocon comes close.  Oh NO!.  I said neocon.)
> ...


Yes.  Absolutely.  But, of course, with the obvious caveat (see below) the neocons  specify (but others seem to ignore conveniently).  And, the reasoning behind it is quite sound, in my opinion.  That reasoning is related to foreign relations.

Historically, we do not war with democracies, nor do we have dangerously sour relations with them.  In fact, we have the most fair trade agreements with democracies.  In the context of the modern world - globalism, realtime communications, etc. - it in our best interest (and that is fundamentally what drives all foreign relations) to promote democracy elsewhere.

Now, the neocon caveat with using the military to promote democracy elsewhere is that it is used AFTER diplomacy has failed.

Without getting too long-winded, that's a general view on that point.


----------



## Si modo (May 6, 2010)

I bet others feel all dirty that they have agreed with a *gasp* neocon in the past.


----------



## geauxtohell (May 6, 2010)

Si modo said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



Wow.

I respect your opinion.  I just couldn't agree more about the legal and just application of military force.

I took an oath to support and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I did not take an oath to spread democracy to other nations who may or may not be willing to uphold their end of the deal even after diplomacy fails.   

No one else in the military did either.  I suggest if we are going to adopt this as the official role of our military, the only fair thing to do is to give every service member the chance to leave with an honorable discharge or to stay in under the new terms of service.  

I certainly had and have no interest in spreading democracy.  Other nation's liberty is not worth my life.


----------



## Immanuel (May 6, 2010)

Si modo said:


> I bet others feel all dirty that they have agreed with a *gasp* neocon in the past.



Damn straight I do!

I think I'll go take a shower right now, just to get the muck off of me!

Immie


----------



## Si modo (May 6, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



There is nothing about this philosophy which goes against your oath or mine at all.

If a nation is a threat to our national security (and our Constitution) and diplomacy fails, yes...use the military.  Assuming a win, win all the way and establish a democracy.

Neocons do NOT believe in war  for the sake of establishing a democracy.  Only when there is a threat to our security...make lemonade.


----------



## Si modo (May 6, 2010)

Immanuel said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > I bet others feel all dirty that they have agreed with a *gasp* neocon in the past.
> ...


  Yeah, Dude had the same reaction.  I think Xenophon did, too.


----------



## geauxtohell (May 6, 2010)

Si modo said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Si modo said:
> ...



It's a far different manner to go to war over a real security threat (i.e. an attack) and establish a democracy in the aftermath than to create a war with the primary goal of creating a democracy.


----------



## Si modo (May 6, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...


Yes there is.  That's why the neoconservative philosophy supports the former.


----------



## geauxtohell (May 6, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Yes there is.  That's why the neoconservative philosophy supports the former.



And yet, when they got into power, that's not what they did.

It's a no brainer to try and create a stable government upon destroying a nation in a war.  World War I and the sequel demonstrated that.

Even then it's dicey.  We had good cause to go into Afghanistan.  Now we are faced with the difficult situation of trying to impose federalism on a nation that has been tribal for as long as it has existed.  

It's also a no brainer that going to war to try and impose self determination on a group of people who haven't signed  on to that notion is a recipe for disaster.  

We'll be lucky to get out of Iraq without being even more bloodied.  As soon as we leave, Iran will go to work to try and split the nation and make a land grab that they couldn't accomplish while Hussein was there.  The second we set foot into Iraq, we strengthened Iran considerably, and the circumstances and facts over the past six years support that.  

Like most political philosophies, "neo-conservatism" briefs well, but is not grounded in any sort of reality.

And again, It's unfair to the soldiers who didn't sign up with the idea of being an permanent expeditionary force that spreads democracy.


----------



## geauxtohell (May 6, 2010)

California Girl said:


> I would like to know why you think you deserve a reasoned response when you start a thread by insulting the TEA Partiers? Does that not make you a fucking idiot? I believe it does.



And I would like to know why people insist on using this lame tactic of making posts to inform us that they won't be posting on this thread?

Because that comes across as fairly fucking idiotic too.


----------



## Si modo (May 6, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > Yes there is.  That's why the neoconservative philosophy supports the former.
> ...


No one said it is perfect, and as you said, no political philosophy is.

Thus, it is no better or worse than any other.  Yet, it does stir up quite a few emotions.  Regardless, even in real life, I offer up the fact that, of all the political philosophies I have considered, this one is the best fit with my views.


> ....  And again, It's unfair to the soldiers who didn't sign up with the idea of being an permanent expeditionary force that spreads democracy.


Even after I explained the neocon philosophy, you believe what you want to believe about it.  It's the common thing to do, though.


----------



## geauxtohell (May 6, 2010)

Si modo said:


> No one said it is perfect, and as you said, no political philosophy is.



That's a pretty flippant dismissal of what the neocons did when they got into power.  



> Thus, it is no better or worse than any other.  Yet, it does stir up quite a few emotions.  Regardless, even in real life, I offer up the fact that, of all the political philosophies I have considered, this one is the best fit with my views.



Fair enough, you are obviously entitled to your beliefs.



> Even after I explained the neocon philosophy, you believe what you want to believe about it.  It's the common thing to do, though.



No, I believe what I witnessed with my own two eyes.  The "neocons" were desperate to try their political science experiment in Iraq.  Thus, they found a way to get us into that mess.  There was no diplomacy, there was just a dogged determination to find a way to "spread democracy".  

My basic point in regard to the military is that it is not fair to fundamentally change their mission on them and tell them to STFU and follow orders.  So if we are going to adopt "neocon" thought as our official foreign policy, it's only fair to allow servicemembers to reconsider.

Like I said, I never had any intention of dying young so some Iraqi could enjoy the "merits of democracy".


----------



## Stainmaster (May 6, 2010)

Madeline said:


> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> > Madeline said:
> ...



This was a sincere compliment.  When I sit down with my other set of grandparents, they are Reagan conservatives, and have rational thoughts to support their political preference.

As you can see from two of the posts above, the flavor of this thread is being attacked by a fellow who falsly points to civil rights leaders as bigots.  When challenged to back his remarks, a made-up link appeared, and then disappeared just as fast.  

This Tea Bagger/Partier stuff does nothing, but muddy up the water.  I am going to ignore it, and hope that more people like yourself will point out that all conservative Republicans are not raving, racist, Tea Baggers.  I think conservatives still have something to offer, but your message is being lost due to these spoilers/Tea Baggers.  I had and do hope this thread will offer more rational thought.


----------



## Si modo (May 6, 2010)

geauxtohell said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > No one said it is perfect, and as you said, no political philosophy is.
> ...


As there was over 12 years of failed diplomacy, your premise is false.  Nothing else follows because of that.


----------



## Stainmaster (May 6, 2010)

Dante said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Dude....put a shirt on...Pleeeezzzz!
> ...



At the time I came on USMB this was the only photo I had.  It was goofing around in the shower.  After the basically positive response, I have decided to keep it.


----------



## Stainmaster (May 6, 2010)

hjmick said:


> Which civil rights leader was labeled a bigot?



Several, including former President's Harry Truman who stood up for blacks in the military and tried to bring up segregation during his administration.  Also, President Lyndon Baines Johnson who made the Voter Rights Act and Civil Rights Act law.  There were also a number of lesser known figures.

Based on my readings anti-human rights sentiment, especially against women, might well have been true of Presidents Warren G. Harding, Woodrow Wilson, and Calvin Coolidge.


----------



## Stainmaster (May 6, 2010)

California Girl said:


> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> > I kind of got sucked into this Tea Bagger/Partier issue because a poster labeled one of America's civil rights leaders as a bigot.  I am not sure, but I may have been pulled into the Tea Bagger/Partier thing because I am an Independent.
> ...



Fair point, California Girl, as I stated earlier I kind of got sucked into this Tea Bagger/Partier thing because of racist remarks against civil rights leaders.  That poster is in this thread doing more of the same.

Then the issue got emotional, and I am willing to share some responsibility for that.  At least I tried to be polite and stayed within the USMB rules, which is more than they did.

You know the down-hill spiral these threads can get on.  The images of Tea Baggers/Partiers with tea bag hats, signs with racial slurs, serious threats against the life of TV reporter Anderson Cooper, the three conservative Republican organizations that created Tea Baggers/Partiers for political reasons - THE DANGERS OF TEA BAGGERS/PARTIERS BECAME SO OBVIOUS AND DID NOT NEED MY COMMENTS.

So, now this thread to try a clean slate - straight talk with the real conservative Republicans, and look at the similarity of attitudes toward Tea Baggers/Partiers among conservatives, independents, and liberals.  All pretty much the same with negativity toward the Tea Baggers/Partiers.

And, that's another thing, in this thread I've purposely said "Tea Baggers/Partiers" instead of "Tea Baggers"  and it has made no difference what so ever.  This "insulting sexual tie-in" to the Tea Baggers is just a way to keep the subject off track.  IF you Google them, it is listed under "Tea Baggers."  I will in other threads refer to Tea Baggers as "Tea Baggers."




*Tea Baggers/Partiers are racist sore losers.  End of post.*


----------



## RadiomanATL (May 6, 2010)

Stainmaster said:


> *Tea Baggers/Partiers are racist sore losers.  End of post.*




Fucking dumbass.


----------



## PixieStix (May 6, 2010)

Dante said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Dude....put a shirt on...Pleeeezzzz!
> ...



dudette, put a sock down your throat


----------



## RadiomanATL (May 6, 2010)

Stainmaster said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Stainmaster said:
> ...



No, it's you who are the dumbass. Not them.

There is nothing racist, or sore-loser like in saying "It's the economy nit-wits" like that sign says...

Mainly because it IS the economy you fucking nit-wit.

Srsly, stop huffing paint.


----------



## Stainmaster (May 6, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



Interesting post, how did you do that?


----------



## Si modo (May 6, 2010)

Stainmaster said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Stainmaster said:
> ...


----------



## Stainmaster (May 6, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> > *Tea Baggers/Partiers are racist sore losers.  End of post.*
> ...



They're back.




*Evidently, here ends the adult conversation.*


----------



## RadiomanATL (May 6, 2010)

You can't handle an adult conversation. 

Mainly because you come across as a two year old, so seated in their beliefs, that something just MUST be the way you describe simply because you said so.

I don't play that game. You want to have a conversation, bring your A game sport, otherwise keep your ass on the bench.


----------



## Si modo (May 6, 2010)

Stainmaster said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Stainmaster said:
> ...



Somehow your posting the exact same post again makes it no less dumb than the first time you posted it.

You really DO need to stop killing what is left of your brain with whatever drugs you use.


----------



## RadiomanATL (May 6, 2010)

Stainmaster said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Stainmaster said:
> ...



I quoted you before you decided to have second thoughts and go back and delete your post.

And now you're going to act innocent that you didn't say it. No one falls for it. Fuck you, you dishonest prick.


----------



## Stainmaster (May 6, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> You can't handle an adult conversation.
> 
> Mainly because you come across as a two year old, so seated in their beliefs, that something just MUST be the way you describe simply because you said so.
> 
> I don't play that game. You want to have a conversation, bring your A game sport, otherwise keep your ass on the bench.



Who are you addressing in this post?


----------



## Stainmaster (May 6, 2010)

RadiomanATL said:


> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



Uh, huh.  Whatever you say.  You are the man.


----------



## Stainmaster (May 6, 2010)

Si modo said:


> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> > RadiomanATL said:
> ...



I am high on the concept that all are created equal, and Tea Baggers are in the way of that idea by promoting bigotry.  When is comes down to it, it is just that simple.  *Tea Bagger = Racist​*


----------



## RadiomanATL (May 6, 2010)

Stainmaster said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > You can't handle an adult conversation.
> ...



The dishonest child on the board.


You.


----------



## RadiomanATL (May 6, 2010)

Stainmaster said:


> RadiomanATL said:
> 
> 
> > Stainmaster said:
> ...



Yeah...you got busted....HARD. And you know it.

Dishonest twerp.


----------



## RadiomanATL (May 6, 2010)

Stainmaster said:


> *Tea Bagger = Racist​*



*Stainmaster = Cock Drippings*​


----------



## HUGGY (May 6, 2010)

Stainmaster said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



*"You"* are not *"Goofing around"* in the shower...  *You and another guy *are *"Goofing around in the shower"*.   

Do we really need to see your gay frolic in the shower?

Really..dude!!????


----------



## PixieStix (May 6, 2010)

Stainmaster said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



ewwww 

By the way, what does "basically positive" actually mean?


----------



## Si modo (May 6, 2010)

Not only does stainmaster give truthmatters competition for the box of rocks IQ title, he is a dishonest little shit.


----------



## Madeline (May 6, 2010)

Stainmaster said:


> Madeline said:
> 
> 
> > Stainmaster said:
> ...



I am ignoring the "grandparents" comment, LOL.

Not all Republicans are white, stainmaster.  Traditionally, Cuban-Americans are single issue voters.  Boycott Cuba, and force Castro out of power (which the US should have done and still should do).  Some Cuban-Americans self-identify as "white" and others do not.

Many wealthy, older, successful people who are not white are also Republican/Conservative.  We do not all idolize Reagan.  We lived through his terms in office and recall such things as his refusal to allocate any federal money for AIDS research.  His economic theories are foolish and have not stood up to reality-testing.  There is no "trickle down" effect benefitting poor and middle class people if only we'd allow rich people to grow richer -- that's utter horseshit.

Don't make too many assumptions about the values or opinions of folks whom you do not know, stainmaster.  ASK them.  Many people share the same values, but not the same priorities. Remember stainmaster, your parents and grandparents are most likely old hippies and beatniks.  Liberalism was a feature of our youths just as it is of yours, and we still hold fast to those POVs.  We simply see things as being somewhat more complex that a young person does.  As will you in forty years.

Peace out stainmaster, and remember to call your grandma this Mother's Day!


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jej5d2kYjuQ]YouTube - Jack Kerouac / The Beat Generation[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILEP3QMl1LM]YouTube - THE LIBERATION OF OUR PEOPLE: ANGELA DAVIS 1969/2008[/ame]


----------



## Liability (May 6, 2010)

Stainmaster said:


> I kind of got sucked into this Tea Bagger/Partier issue because a poster labeled one of America's civil rights leaders as a bigot.  I am not sure, but I may have been pulled into the Tea Bagger/Partier thing because I am an Independent.
> 
> Regardless, I have yet to recognize a conservative Republican who has spoke out against the Tea Baggers/Partiers.  If you are out there this thread is for you.  I know I would like to know what you think.



No.  You are not an Independent.  You are a fraud.

There are no Tea-Baggers, either.

Well, at least unless we think about the typical Saturday night of half the fuckin' uber-libs posting at USMB.

And frankly, who the fuck wants to think about them or their pass-times?


----------



## Stainmaster (May 7, 2010)

Liability said:


> Stainmaster said:
> 
> 
> > I kind of got sucked into this Tea Bagger/Partier issue because a poster labeled one of America's civil rights leaders as a bigot.  I am not sure, but I may have been pulled into the Tea Bagger/Partier thing because I am an Independent.
> ...



Where you live does not look like the kind of place I would want to visit.


----------

